Social Darwinism: Validity of Herbert Spencer's Theory

  • Thread starter Kutt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Darwinism
In summary, the conversation discusses the validity of Herbert Spencer's theory of social Darwinism and whether it is purely theoretical or has factual merit. The participants also question the specific claims of his theory and how it applies to modern society and economics. They also bring up the difficulty of proving social theories and the flaws in the concept of "survival of the fittest" in a social context. They suggest that intelligence and education are key factors in social Darwinism and success in society. The conversation ends with a debate on whether the discussion itself is a joke or not.
  • #1
Kutt
237
1
Is there any proven validity to Herbert Spencer's theory of social Darwinism? Or is it purely theory and conjecture?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I hate to answer with a question rather than an answer, but I'm not all that familiar with Spencer other than having heard of "Social Statics" as being a precursor to libertarian anarcho-capitalism. His wikipedia page is a bit over-saturated and the section on "Social Darwinism" is relatively unspecific, talking about attribution and responses to it rather than his actual remarks.

Would you be so kind as to expand on the specific claims of his theory?
 
  • #3
bossman27 said:
I hate to answer with a question rather than an answer, but I'm not all that familiar with Spencer other than having heard of "Social Statics" as being a precursor to libertarian anarcho-capitalism. His wikipedia page is a bit over-saturated and the section on "Social Darwinism" is relatively unspecific, talking about attribution and responses to it rather than his actual remarks.

Would you be so kind as to expand on the specific claims of his theory?

The guy in this video (who is not me) explains social Darwinism in a very frank and straightforward way.



My question was whether or not certain aspects of social Darwinism retain factual validity which can be applied to modern society and economics. This theory has been used for over a century to explain the widening gap between the haves and the have nots in our society.

Of course, it is very difficult to "prove" social theories given the complexity and non-linear nature of socio-economics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
I'm not sure there is a formalized theory on social Darwinism, but there are plenty of aspects of capitalism that seem to follow Darwinistic principles. Hiring for jobs, success or failure of companies, etc.
 
  • #5
Kutt said:
Of course, it is very difficult to "prove" social theories given the complexity and non-linear nature of socio-economics.

Indeed. The scientific idea of isolating variables is usually impossible in the social sciences. Coincidentally, this was one of the reasons I became fed up with economics my freshman year and finally transferred into physics; I couldn't stand the insistence by economics professors that what they did was on par with a science.

I apologize for not having any concrete research to site, but this question interested me so I'll go ahead and write a few thoughts on it:

It's still a little unclear to me the context within which Spencer puts "survival of the fittest." The guy in the video makes it sound as though the theory claims that the relationship between being "fit" and "success" is environment independent. If that is indeed the case, it's certainly flawed. If I put a population of monkeys of monkeys in the desert and another in the rainforest, the resulting survival of the populations is clearly not an indicator of the fitness of the monkeys that I put in the desert vs. the ones in the rainforest. It's mostly a comparison of the effects of the two different environments on monkeys.

The alternative is that he's claiming that the when the social system itself was set up, the most "fit" ended up at the top of the pecking order. This also has an environment flaw in that it doesn't take into account the fact that some may have been, by chance, in a better position to exploit the system, a system which allowed them to stay near the top without competition from those lower on the rungs or "in the desert," so to speak. In addition, even if we granted him that the system was set up in such a way that it organized levels by fitness, it doesn't account for inheritance of said positions. The advantage of someone born of the upper-class vs. the ghetto is an environmental one, not intrinsic fitness.

Finally, it defines fitness in a way that is rather contrary to the usual Darwinian one. When we're talking about other animals, fitness means ability to catch prey, escape from predators, attract mates, even be clever. These are all based on intrinsic physical properties, and generally the desires a population are the same. All the animals are trying to eat and reproduce. In the social context, desire has to be made into a measure of fitness. For instance, I'm a physics major, I'm not sure exactly what I'll end up doing when I graduate, but I can almost guarantee that I'll make less than my friend who's going into Investment Banking. Does this mean that he's smarter than I am? Is he going to have an easy time finding enough food to survive while I struggle to make it on crackers and toilet water? No, of course not. It simply means that he, for whatever reason, had a desire to go into finance, while I opted for a more intellectual pursuit. Now, in some ways, perhaps he is more "fit" than I am, but the video implied that Spencer would say that because I won't make as much money or have as much social influence, I must be less intelligent and fit.

TL;DR: I think you could argue that there is *some* kind of "survival of the fittest" mechanism in human society, but you would have to alter basic evolutionary theory to include a number of outside and non-biological inheritance factors, as well as redefine the common biological meaning of "fitness." At this point it's almost a blatant misrepresentation to even use the term "Darwinism."
 
  • #6
I'd say that intelligence and education are two major factors in social Darwinism/getting ahead in society. People who are highly intelligent and well-educated are much more likely to succeed and obtain wealth and prominence.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I'm assuming that this thread is a joke. Right? If people were in the physics section seriously discussing the existence of the ether or the fire, air, earth, water theory of everything they would be deleted and possibly banned for being crackpots.
 
  • #8
alan2 said:
I'm assuming that this thread is a joke.
Doesn't look like a joke/crackpottery to me. Why do you think it is crackpottery?
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Doesn't look like a joke/crackpottery to me. Why do you think it is crackpottery?

For the very same reason we would be labeled crackpots if we were seriously discussing those things that I mentioned above. I know of not one single reputable learned sociologist of the last hundred years who thought there was any validity to Spencer's arguments. It has, however, been used in bits and pieces by various crackpots and sociopaths to justify genocides, eugenics, imperialism, and a variety of other self serving endeavors.
 
  • #10
alan2 said:
For the very same reason we would be labeled crackpots if we were seriously discussing those things that I mentioned above. I know of not one single reputable learned sociologist of the last hundred years who thought there was any validity to Spencer's arguments. It has, however, been used in bits and pieces by various crackpots and sociopaths to justify genocides, eugenics, imperialism, and a variety of other self serving endeavors.
Yes, you are correct.

Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics [4] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#Criticism_and_controversy

social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas.[7] While most scholars recognize historical links between Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution[8] and that using biological evolution as a justification for policies of inequality amounts to committing the naturalistic fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
 

1. Is Social Darwinism a valid theory?

There is much debate among scientists and historians about the validity of Social Darwinism. While some argue that it is a valid theory based on the principles of natural selection, others criticize it for its lack of empirical evidence and its potential to justify social inequalities. Ultimately, whether or not Social Darwinism is considered valid is a matter of perspective and interpretation.

2. What is the main idea behind Herbert Spencer's theory of Social Darwinism?

Herbert Spencer's theory of Social Darwinism is based on the concept of "survival of the fittest" in society. He believed that competition among individuals and groups is natural and necessary for the progress of society, and that those who are more fit and successful will rise to the top while the weaker and less successful will eventually die out. This theory applied principles of natural selection to human society, emphasizing individualism and laissez-faire economics.

3. How did Social Darwinism influence social and political movements?

Social Darwinism had a significant impact on various social and political movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was used to justify colonialism, imperialism, and racism, as well as to advocate for laissez-faire capitalism and limited government intervention. It also played a role in eugenics movements, which aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. However, it also faced criticism and opposition from those who saw it as a flawed and dangerous ideology.

4. Is there any evidence to support Social Darwinism?

There is little empirical evidence to support the claims of Social Darwinism. While natural selection is a well-established scientific concept, it is difficult to apply it to human society in a deterministic manner. Many factors, such as social and economic structures, cultural norms, and chance, play a role in determining success and survival in society. Additionally, Social Darwinism has been criticized for its oversimplification and misuse of evolutionary principles.

5. How does the concept of Social Darwinism relate to modern society?

Although Social Darwinism is no longer a widely accepted theory, its influence can still be seen in modern society. The idea of competition and individualism is still prevalent in many aspects of our culture, and some argue that it contributes to social inequalities. However, there is also a growing understanding of the importance of cooperation and collective responsibility in creating a more equitable and sustainable society. Ultimately, the legacy of Social Darwinism continues to be debated and discussed in modern society.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
402
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
942
Replies
13
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top