Darwinism: Real vs. Social
Darwinism was more readily accepted by the Church in England than it was by the rigid Protestant sects of the New World, a pattern that is maintained by the almost complete absence of present-day controversy [NB: the author was writing this c. 1997] over evolution in Great Britain, in contrast to the continuing clashes between fundamentalists and secular authority in the United States. Nevertheless, social Darwinism was more warmly embraced in the United States than in Europe. Herbert Spencer's banner "the survival of the fittest" proved a rallying point for moneyed laymen, tenured academics, and worldly clerics. Said John D. Rockefeller, "The growth of large business is merely the survival of the fittest," and his conviction was confirmed by Graham Sumner, a professor of political science at Yale, who diplomatically saw millionaires as "the naturally selected agents of society" (you never know who the university's next benefactor will be). The blessing of the Church was bestowed on mammon by Bishop William Lawrence of Massachusetts, who incredibly expressed the opinion that "godliness is in league with riches … The race is to the strong." We could be generous and interpret that as a cry of woe, but it was not. The dinstinctly un-Christian Bishop might have applauded Spencer's opinion, borrowed from Malthus and expressed in Spencer's Man versus the State (1884), that it was not the business of the state to help the poor, whom he implicitly categorized as "unfit."
[Brian L. Silver, The Ascent of Science (Soloman Press, New York, 1998) p. 131.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Plus Ca Change...
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 24 September 2005 at 01.12
Permalink
How pathetically ironic that President Bush is so devoted to a philosophy that has as a basic tenet that the race is to the swift. At the risk of sounding terribly judgmental, "swift" is not his strong suit.
on Saturday, 24 September 2005 at 17.25
Permalink
Oh, but you misunderstand! "Swift" in this instance is identical to "rich", and we know that the rich are deserving of their place in society because, well, because they're rich, therefore "swifter" and "fitter" — but not "better", certainly not better — exactly. Or something like that. Darwin said so.
But apes aren't rich, so we can't really be related to them, although maybe poor people can, since they're less evolved, if you believe in that sort of thing.