Social Darwinism is a theory that competition between all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term is an extension of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest.
The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent.[1]
While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.
Some claim that it supports racism on the lines set out by Arthur de Gobineau before Darwin published his theories, which directly contradict Darwin's own work. This classification of social Darwinism constitutes part of the reaction against the Nazi regime and the Holocaust.
Contents
Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and his works were widely read by social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[2] In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 he described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect -
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected
Violence against minorities
Social Darwinism was popularized back in 1944. Social Darwinism tries to apply Darwinism of evolution to politics and sociology. It is most popularly used in the UK and United states.
Social Darwinism lead to racism
Social Darwinism was not used in the American Revolution because it didn't exist until about 100 years or more after the American Revolution. Social Darwinism is the idea that conflict between human groups causes only the most fit societies to survive, while the others are destroyed, somewhat like natural selection only on the scale of human society.
No, the Progressive reformers did not believe in Social Darwinism. They believed that its competition and conflict were both detrimental to their society.
Social Darwinism justified that women had more balls than men at the time, and still can possibly do. Hope it helped:)
Violence against minorities
It led Europeans to believe that they were better than Asians and Africans.
it helps solve social, political, and ecumenical issues. :)
Social Darwinism was popularized back in 1944. Social Darwinism tries to apply Darwinism of evolution to politics and sociology. It is most popularly used in the UK and United states.
Social Darwinism lead to racism
Social Darwinism was not used in the American Revolution because it didn't exist until about 100 years or more after the American Revolution. Social Darwinism is the idea that conflict between human groups causes only the most fit societies to survive, while the others are destroyed, somewhat like natural selection only on the scale of human society.
No, the Progressive reformers did not believe in Social Darwinism. They believed that its competition and conflict were both detrimental to their society.
Social Darwinism (the process of allowing those least capable to die off) discourages government regulation, such as the provision of welfare and indigent health care.Social Darwinism discouraged Government Regulation of businesses. Social Darwinism encouraged competition, hard work, industrialization, and accumulation of wealth. Darwin explained this as a concept of natural selection of the businesses, or survival of the fittest.Social Darwinism discouraged Government Regulation of businesses. Social Darwinism encouraged competition, hard work, industrialization, and accumulation of wealth. Darwin explained this as a concept of natural selection of the businesses, or survival of the fittest.
Social Darwinism :)
An example of social darwinism is when Spain was beating up on Cuba before the Spanish-American war.
There is some debate about Rudyard Kipling's views on social Darwinism. Some argue that his works may have reflected elements of social Darwinism, while others suggest that he critiqued the idea through his portrayal of characters and societies in his stories. Ultimately, it is not definitive whether Kipling was explicitly against or in favor of social Darwinism.