Social Darwinsim History Essay Research Paper Social
Social Darwinsim History Essay, Research PaperSocial Darwinism HistorySocial Darwinism and its usage to Justify Business Practices of the 19th andtwentieth century.Thesis: The demand for a justification of tremendous wealth of a few and animpossible poorness of 1000000s was, as many tend to believe, fulfilled bythe outgrowth of a theory called Social Darwinism, which on one manus wasregarded as a primary defence of concern activities, and on the other, wasnil more than a myth.I. Definition and beginning of Social DarwinismA. Contribution of Charles Darwin1.
Natural choice2. Survival of the fittestB. Derivation of Social DarwinismC. First Social Darwinists1.
Herbert Spencer2. William Graham SumnerII. Changes in American SocietyA. Growth of the industryB. Myth of the ego made adult male1. John D.
Rockefeller2. Andrew CarnegieIII. Overemphasis on Social DarwinismA. Rarely used by enterprisersB. Relied on Christian and other statementsDuring the late 19th, and early twentieth century, the United States experienced agrowing of industry like it has ne’er seen earlier. New patents and innovationsflourished. New merchandises flooded the market.
While 1000s of hapless,hungry, and unemployed crowded the streets, the rich were busy exposingtheir tremendous wealth. Even though the demand for reform was overpowering,for the bulk of Americans, nil was being done. The large foremans wereable to purchase off the politicians and carry them to vote in their favour.
Whilethe rich were acquiring richer, and the hapless acquiring poorer, the politicianswatched. The demand for a justification of the tremendous wealth of a few and animpossible poorness of 1000000s was, as many tended to believe, fulfilled bythe outgrowth of a theory called Social Darwinism, which on one manus wasregarded as a primary defence of concern activities, and on the other, wasnil more than a myth. Social Darwinism, the experts say, & # 8220 ; was aephemeral theory of societal development, smartly discussed in America,which rationalized and justified the rough facts of societal stratification in aneffort to accommodate them with the prevailing political orientation of egalitarianism. Theoutgrowth of Social Darwinism was possibly the most seeable consequence on thesocietal scientific disciplines of Charles Darwin & # 8217 ; s The Origin of Species & # 8221 ; ( Tax and Krucoff402 ) . In simple footings, Social Darwinism was an application ( many believe amisapplication ) of Charles Darwin & # 8217 ; s Torahs of development and natural choice tohuman society. In his most celebrated book The Origin of Species, Darwinincluded four major statements: that new species appear ; that these newspecies have evolved from older species ; that the development of species is theconsequence of natural choice ; and & # 8220 ; that natural choice depends upon fluctuationsand the care of fluctuation in malice of the inclination of natural choiceto extinguish & # 8216 ; unfit & # 8217 ; discrepancies & # 8221 ; ( 403 ) . Darwin explains the procedure of naturalchoice in these words:As many more persons of each species are born that can perchance last ;and as, accordingly, there is a often repeating battle for being, itfollows that any being, if it vary nevertheless somewhat in any mode profitable toitself, under the complex and sometimes variable conditions of life, will holda better opportunity of lasting, and therefore be of course selected.
From the strongrule of heritage, any selected assortment will be given to propagate its newand modified signifier ( Darwin 21 ) .Harmonizing to Darwin, natural choice is depended on the battle forbeing among persons. Any being that is able to obtain thenecessary resources, frequently at the disbursal of other beings, will last,reproduce and base on balls on the & # 8220 ; favored & # 8221 ; qualities onto it & # 8217 ; s offspring ( the& # 8220 ; rule of heritage & # 8221 ; ) . In short, the weak, & # 8220 ; unfit & # 8221 ; will decease, and the strong,will go on its being. This whole theory was summarized in one laconicphrase & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; endurance of the fittest.
& # 8221 ; For about a decennary before Darwin & # 8217 ; s TheBeginning of Species was the first published in 1859, a good educatedEnglishman named Herbert Spencer had been composing about the philosophy ofdevelopment. He was foremost of all time to utilize the popular phrase & # 8220 ; endurance of the fittest & # 8221 ;and was among the first to use the philosophy of development to human society.Along with William Graham Sumner, they portrayed the society as an spherein which persons struggled and where the fittest survived.
They agreedthat from within societies, the business communities proved to be the fittest. Sumnerone time said, & # 8220 ; The work forces who have non done their responsibility in this universe ne’er can beequal to those who have done their responsibility. & # 8230 ; The category differentiations merelyconsequence from the different grades of success with which work forces have availedthemselves of the opportunities which were presented to them. & # 8221 ; Their philosophystated that the authorities should non interfere, and assist the less fit ( and bymaking so aching the society ) . It should keep a laissez faire policy. Therecould be no Torahs to assist the hapless. There could be no Torahs to modulate theconcerns & # 8220 ; for they created unreal barriers to natural choice of thestrongest firms.
& # 8221 ; Competition would modulate the industry. Others followedwith their resistance to duties, trade ordinances, province banking, authoritiespostal services etc, . ( Bryant, Jr. and Dethloff 253 ) . Those, at that clip reallycontroversial issues, brought them, but particularly Spencer, a batch of negativepromotion. In 1875, the economic expert John Elliott Cairnes announced thatSpencer & # 8220 ; transferred Torahs of physiology to the sphere of societal science. & # 8221 ; Tenold ages subsequently, the Belgian sociologist, Emile de Laveleye added that Spencerwas & # 8220 ; dying to see the jurisprudence of the endurance of the fittest and of naturalchoice adopted in human society.
& # 8221 ; A figure of intellectuals andsociologists had later accused Spencer and Summner of back uping the unjustand & # 8220 ; viciously individualistic government of Spencarianism & # 8221 ; or Social Darwinism( Bannister 34-36 ) There were of class bookmans who supported the thoughts ofSpencer and Sumner. Even Charles Darwin who in his The Origin of Speciespurpously avoided the issues of societal development subsequently addressed them in hisbook The Descent of Man in a cardinal chapter titled & # 8220 ; On the Development of theIntellectual and Moral Faculties. & # 8221 ; Darwin recognized the statement that if onewere to use the Torahs of & # 8220 ; endurance of the fittest & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; natural choice & # 8221 ; tosociety, should the society preserve it & # 8217 ; s weaker members? The cardinal transitionfrom The Descent of Man reads as follows: With barbarians, the weak in organic structureor head are shortly eliminated ; and those that survive normally exhibit avigorous province of wellness. We civilized work forces, on the other manus, do our uttermostto look into the procedure of riddance ; we build refuges for the idiot, themaimed, and the ill ; we institute poor-laws ; and our medical work forces exerttheir uttermost accomplishment to salvage the life of everyone to the last minute. & # 8230 ; Thus, theweak members of civilised societies propagate their sort.
No 1 who hasattended to the genteelness of domestic animate beings will doubt that this must beextremely deleterious to the race of adult male. It is surprising how shortly a privation of attention,or care wrongly directed, leads to the devolution of a domestic race ; butdemuring in the instance of adult male himself, barely anyone is so nescient as to lethis worst animate beings to engender ( qtd. in Bannister 30 )Clearly, even Charles Darwin wasn & # 8217 ; t ignorant toward the logical thinking behindSocial Darwinism. He ne’er truly declared whether he to the full supported it orwere against it.
Historians tend to believe that his sentiment laid someplace inbetween ( Bannister 30-31 ) . Social Darwinism in United States goes manus inmanus with the Gilded Age and with the rise of the industry. The Gilded Age,the period from 1865 to 1901, was an epoch of great industrial and economic
Rockefeller. With his nest eggs of$ 5,000, at a really immature age John D. Rockefeller opened his first oil refinery.At that clip oil was used merely for illuming and non many expected much moreof it. Rockefeller, nevertheless, guessed that oil would in a few old ages become oneof the most profitable industries.
He was right & # 8212 ; within merely a few old ages,oil was being used for warming, lubrication, fuel for ships and cars,etc, . His dream was to command the whole oil industry in America. At age of30 he founded the Standard Oil Co. of Ohio and bought over 25 refineries.After merely a twosome of old ages, Rockefeller was one of the richest and mostpowerful work forces on the planet. Rumor had it, that he & # 8220 ; had in the thenar of hismanus & # 8221 ; the best United States Senators and province legislative assemblies that money couldbargain. He non merely controlled over 90 % of the oil industry, but besides was able topersuade railway proprietors to allow him particular menus on railway transit( discounts ) . Rockefeller was ( what he and others called him ) a true SocialDarwinist.
He believed that everyone was given the same chance, andthat merely those who were excessively lazy or excessively stupid were hapless. He argued that his1000000s were a wages for difficult mundane work & # 8211 ; the celebrated phrase & # 8220 ; Godgave me my wealth & # 8221 ; or,The growing of big concern is simply the endurance of the fittest. & # 8230 ; TheAmerican Beauty rose can be produced in the luster and aroma whichconveying cheer to its perceiver merely by giving the early buds which grow uparound it. This is non an evil inclination in concern.
It is simply theworking-out of a jurisprudence of nature and a jurisprudence of God. ( qtd. in Hofstadter 45 )Andrew Carnegie & # 8217 ; s calling was similar to that of John D. Rockefeller.
& # 8220 ; [ He ]had three fortes: steel, doing money, and giving it off & # 8221 ; ( Cooke ) .Carnegie was a boy of a hapless weaver, born in Scotland. In 1848 his householdcame to America and settled in Pittsburgh. He started his calling at age of 12,as a spool male child. Then he became a telegraph courier, a railway clerk, arailway overseer, a manager, and so, steel entered his life. He createda monopoly which throughout his calling brought him over 400 milliondollars. Carnegie opposed the formation of pools and trusts ; & # 8220 ; His preferredsolution to the jobs of consolidation was perpendicular integration. & # 8221 ; Heachieved about a entire control of the steel industry in the state.
& # 8220 ; His routeto success was guess for accretion & # 8221 ; ( Cashman 66 ) . Similarly asRockefeller, Carnegie was besides a Social Darwinist. He was known to idealiseHerbert Spencer & # 8217 ; s theories of societal development. Carnegie wrote in & # 8220 ; PopularIllusions About Trusts & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; [ The concentration of wealth ] is an development fromthe heterogenous to the homogenous, and it is clearly another measure in theupward way of development & # 8221 ; ( qtd. in Bannister 79 ) .
There of class wereothers besides Carnegie and Rockefeller. Those two, nevertheless, were the mostcelebrated and their callings most interesting. Possibly it & # 8217 ; s because theyrepresented the American myth of & # 8220 ; shreds to riches & # 8221 ; ; possibly because afterdoing their 1000000s, they gave most of their lucks off. For Rockefellerit was get downing the Rockefeller & # 8217 ; s Foundation or the edifice of the Universityof Chicago. For Carnegie it was constructing libraries. & # 8220 ; Carnegie believed that aadult male who dies rich, dies disgraced. By his agencies, he didn & # 8217 ; t decease disgraced & # 8221 ;( & # 8221 ; Andrew Carnegie: The Principles Illustrated by his Career & # 8221 ; 5 ) . With clip,many Americans came to believe that Social Darwinism was a main defence ofthe unjust, pitiless and cut-throat concern patterns of the late 19th and theearly twentieth century.
& # 8220 ; The great fiscal colossuss themselves seized on thetheories of Spencer and Sumner to warrant their places. & # 8230 ; SocialDarwinism appealed to business communities because it seemed to legalize theirsuccess and confirm their virtuousnesss. It appealed to them because it placed theiractivities within the context of traditional American thoughts of freedom andindividualism.
& # 8221 ; ( Current 506-507 ) & # 8211 ; a citation from a history text edition. Thisperceptual experience, Irvin G. Wyllie argues, is greatly overdone. In world, merely areally few elect enterprisers like John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegieon occasion used Social Darwinism as an statement to warrant their patterns.Others, nevertheless, when called upon to warrant their activities, fell upon oldstatements like Christian virtuousnesss and & # 8220 ; moral cliches, & # 8221 ; that in no mannercorrelated with Social Darwinism ( Wyllie 157-169 ) . It & # 8217 ; s interesting to readabout work forces like Carnegie or Rockefeller, who regarded themselves as trueSocial Darwinists. Work force who on one manus promoted the thought of modulatingindustry by competition ( the really kernel of societal Darwinism ) , and on theother devoted their lives to extinguishing competition from within their ainindustries.
Work forces who spent two tierces of their lives rip offing, purchasing offpoliticians, and turning tremendously rich at the monetary value of doing others hapless.Work forces who so retired, and became altruists, and gave off 100sof 1000000s of their lifetime net incomes. And eventually work forces who were & # 8220 ; studious & # 8221 ;and intelligent plenty to utilize the theory of Social Darwinism to warrant theirruthless and unjust concern patterns. Unfortunately, there were merely reallyfew work forces like that. Social Darwinism, was in fact merely a & # 8220 ; ephemeral theory & # 8221 ; ;nil more than a greatly overemphasized myth, given much more recognitionthan it really deserved.
Plants Cited:& # 8220 ; Andrew Carnegie: The Principles of Industrial and Social ProgressIllustrated by His Career. & # 8221 ; The Monthly Bulletin Of the National City Bankof New York, Sept. 1919.
Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Scienceand Myth in Anglo & # 8211 ; American Social Thought. Philadelphia: Temple U P,1979. Bryant, Keith L. , and Henry C.
Dethloff. A History of AmericanBusiness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990. Cashman, Sean D. Americain the Gilded Age: from the Death of Abraham Lincoln to the Rise ofTheodore Roosevelt. New York: New York U P, 1984. Cooke, Alistar.Richard N.
et Al. American History: a Survey. New York: Knopf, 1983.Darwin, Charles. The Beginning of Species. New York: Random House, 1993.
Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. New York:George Braziller, Inc. , 1969. Krucoff, Larry S.
and Sol Tax. & # 8220 ; SocialDarwinism. & # 8221 ; International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968 erectile dysfunction.Wyllie, Irvin g. & # 8220 ; Social Darwinism and the Businessman. & # 8221 ; PivotalInterpretations of American History. Vol.
II. ed.Carl N. Degler.
New York:Harper & A ; Row, 1966. 157-170.7de& # 8220 ; Andrew Carnegie: The Principles of Industrial and Social ProgressIllustrated by His Career. & # 8221 ; The Monthly Bulletin Of the National City Bankof New York, Sept. 1919.
Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Scienceand Myth in Anglo & # 8211 ; American Social Thought. Philadelphia: Temple U P,1979. Bryant, Keith L. , and Henry C. Dethloff. A History of AmericanBusiness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990.
Cashman, Sean D. Americain the Gilded Age: from the Death of Abraham Lincoln to the Rise ofTheodore Roosevelt. New York: New York U P, 1984. Cooke, Alistar.Richard N.
et Al. American History: a Survey. New York: Knopf, 1983.Darwin, Charles. The Beginning of Species.
New York: Random House, 1993.Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. New York:George Braziller, Inc. , 1969. Krucoff, Larry S. and Sol Tax. & # 8220 ; SocialDarwinism.
& # 8221 ; International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968 erectile dysfunction.Wyllie, Irvin g.
& # 8220 ; Social Darwinism and the Businessman. & # 8221 ; PivotalInterpretations of American History. Vol. II. ed.
Carl N. Degler. New York:Harper & A ; Row, 1966. 157-170.