Social Darwinism

[Muaguana]

That talk of gun violence in another thread reminded me of an acquaintance of mine from Youtube, Pekka-Eric Auvinen. We were "friends" on Youtube, which meant we subscribed to each others' channels and had occasional discussions on video games and music. So, really, just acquaintances. I fundamentally disagreed with his personal philosophy, a kind of warped contortion of Social Darwinism that entailed the worship of Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, so I made an effort to avoid any discussion about it. Which I kick myself for to this day, since as some of you may know, this eventually happened: Jokela school shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shocking, but in retrospect, not all that surprising. So as you can imagine, I don't have the most positive view of Social Darwinism. But I started doing some research and I have to wonder, was there any validity to the original ideas that gave birth to the theories classified by this phrase, particularly the notion that society, like nature, possesses forces which select the most "fit" humans for propagating the species? I have my own opinions about the matter, but obviously I can't learn anything by talking to myself about this...

So, once more, I turn to you, TB'ers: What are your thoughts on the original ideas behind Social Darwinism? Are they valid? Applicable to modern society? Or perhaps they are relevant in a slightly altered form?

Please keep the discussion pertinent to Ye Olde theories, so no eugenics, no Nazis, and no racism. Thank you for your time.

[theNoseBleedKid]

Being a good Marxist, I tend to stray towards society as a construction, rather than as it's own entity.

So I wouldn't agree that Social Darwinism is valid, I'd suggest the 'truths' or 'accuracies' you're considering are actually products of other forces/ideas/circumstances. For example, I'd argue that society doesn't result in the strongest/fittest members, rather, an ideal is constructed, and people who stick closest to that ideal, who are more successful at obtaining and reflecting that ideal are the "fit" humans that 'propagate'.

Although, given that almost anyone can father a child (from normal people, to multi-billionaires, to people who can't feed themselves) I don't know if society is all that powerful a determining factor in who procreates.

[fdeck]

In my view, Social Darwinism is sufficiently malleable that it could be anything that you want it to be. Literally the only references to it are: 1) Cases where people are trying to stamp an imprimatur of "science" or inevitability on a reprehensible act. 2) Attacks on Darwinism through guilt-by-association.

I doubt that it will ever form itself into an explanatory or predictive theory.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by theNoseBleedKid

Being a good Marxist, I tend to stray towards society as a construction, rather than as it's own entity....

not to hijack the thread, but just asking a quick question...

what part of "tried that and it didn't work" am i missing here?

[Bongolation]

What are your thoughts on the original ideas behind Social Darwinism? Are they valid?

If they are, they're inescapable. QED.

[Musiclogic]

Originally Posted by theNoseBleedKid

Being a good Marxist, I tend to stray towards society as a construction, rather than as it's own entity.

This pretty much answers your question about a society perpetuating social development towards the mentally and physically fit.

This statement would espouse a complete lack of any social evolution.

[Munjibunga]

I think human intellect can throw a wrench into evolutionary processes. I consider it highly likely that, if we survive as a species for, say, another 1,000 years, we will have genetically engineered ourselves into a completely different species. It could possibly happen in a much shorter period of time. No other organisms have the capacity to consciously evolve into something else. Genetic engineering can make things happen much faster than Darwinian evolution, and thereby render its relevance marginal. However, it could be argued the evolution of the human intellect and the resultant acceleration of human evolution is just another form of evolution - maybe "super evolution."

I also think that serious, if not insurmountable, social consequences will arise as a result of this. Can we change our social dynamic as fast as science can engineer our genes? Given the worldwide propensity for deeply-ingrained superstitious beliefs and behavior, I suspect not. Bummer.

[madmatt]

I just had thoughts about the ego in another thread and they appear to be relavent here too.
Would anyone agree that the ego plays a major factor in the whole Social Darwinism picture?
I am guessing that as any given group's concept of what is important (values or morals) changes, then society changes accordingly if said group has enough power or influence to persuade the overall population. Method of persuasion may be violent or passive.

The evolution of the Human ego. If I could envision it I would say it looks like a lava lamp. The same mass just turning over and over again. It appears to be changing, but it is just the same mass of goop: never really changing in the real sense of the word.
What is the difference between Human Darwinism and animal Darwinism? Animals do not have an ego.
Arghhh, another deep subject...

[Musiclogic]

The id the ego and the superego all play a part, and may be the one thing to save us from ourselves by allowing subtle differences in how each evolves within the constructs of a fluid and ever more egocentric society,

[hrodbert696]

First of all, I'd just point out that "social darwinism" was originally a pejorative expression with which people would criticize others' ideas. Herbert Spencer often gets pegged as the original Social Darwinist because he described society "evolving" but he never used the term for himself and did NOT argue for survival-of-the-fittest as the dynamic of history. He was really more of a social Lamarckian, arguing that society gradually grows more and more complex due to an innate human drive.

The first true social darwinists are your 19th-20th century eugenicists. Not sure why you've excluded discussion of them, unless you meant you didn't want us advocating a return to eugenics. After that, I suppose the idea gets popular with Ayn Rand.

It would be a tautology to say that those who are unfit to survive, won't. But what people mean by social darwinism is more the "ethical" stance that this is as it should be, that compassion and charity have no valid standing, and that everyone should unashamedly, aggressively compete to be among the "fittest" and go ahead and beat down or eliminate anyone not as "fit" as themselves.

The problem with this notion, as Hobbes already understood in the seventeenth century and as history has repeatedly shown, is that no matter how strong an individual is, the collective is always stronger. The person who acts out so aggressively and makes himself a threat to the group will find that the group closes ranks against him and eliminates HIM. The group will protect and reward values that serve group interests - like compassion and charity.

So when people try to espouse an ethic of the survival of the fittest, it usually turns out that the ones unfit to survive are themselves.

[MakiSupaStar]

Richard Dawkins kind of talks about this in his book 'The God Delusion'. He talks about how certain behaviors are passed on from generation to generation, because society has deemed them necessary for survival. He called them 'meme's'. Things like table manners that have lasted throughout the years, grammar, behavior we consider polite, and behavior we consider rude. He theorized that there must be some kind of importance that we have placed on these meme's otherwise we wouldn't bother to pass them from generation to generation. But there have been some other kind of meme's that have survived through time, but they're not necessarily accepted in society. Things like bullying, what we call murder, and other types of animalistic behavior that we frown upon, but within another construct, so within a hunter/gather tribe these behaviors might not be punished, and might even be accepted. So, I think social darwinism is nothing more than recognizing the birth and survival of certain meme's juxtaposed against certain types of behavior that might have survived from times when man was more 'wild'. While on the surface, behaviors that led people to commit murder and mayhem(which are condemned and socially punished) against their fellow man are condemned, the behaviors that led up to this result (bullying, establishing a social heirarchy) have still survived over the years. So as a society do we place value on these behaviors? Is this social darwinism?

[Muaguana]

Thank you all for your input so far.

Originally Posted by hrodbert696

First of all, I'd just point out that "social darwinism" was originally a pejorative expression with which people would criticize others' ideas. Herbert Spencer often gets pegged as the original Social Darwinist because he described society "evolving" but he never used the term for himself and did NOT argue for survival-of-the-fittest as the dynamic of history. He was really more of a social Lamarckian, arguing that society gradually grows more and more complex due to an innate human drive.

The first true social darwinists are your 19th-20th century eugenicists. Not sure why you've excluded discussion of them, unless you meant you didn't want us advocating a return to eugenics. After that, I suppose the idea gets popular with Ayn Rand.

It would be a tautology to say that those who are unfit to survive, won't. But what people mean by social darwinism is more the "ethical" stance that this is as it should be, that compassion and charity have no valid standing, and that everyone should unashamedly, aggressively compete to be among the "fittest" and go ahead and beat down or eliminate anyone not as "fit" as themselves.

The problem with this notion, as Hobbes already understood in the seventeenth century and as history has repeatedly shown, is that no matter how strong an individual is, the collective is always stronger. The person who acts out so aggressively and makes himself a threat to the group will find that the group closes ranks against him and eliminates HIM. The group will protect and reward values that serve group interests - like compassion and charity.

So when people try to espouse an ethic of the survival of the fittest, it usually turns out that the ones unfit to survive are themselves.

Very interesting. And I stand corrected. Thank you.

Originally Posted by fdeck

In my view, Social Darwinism is sufficiently malleable that it could be anything that you want it to be. Literally the only references to it are: 1) Cases where people are trying to stamp an imprimatur of "science" or inevitability on a reprehensible act. 2) Attacks on Darwinism through guilt-by-association.

I doubt that it will ever form itself into an explanatory or predictive theory.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Bongolation

If they are, they're inescapable. QED.

Ah, I was wondering when you would show up, Conveyor of the Bleeding Obvious.

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

I think human intellect can throw a wrench into evolutionary processes. I consider it highly likely that, if we survive as a species for, say, another 1,000 years, we will have genetically engineered ourselves into a completely different species. ... Genetic engineering can make things happen much faster than Darwinian evolution, and thereby render its relevance marginal. However, it could be argued the evolution of the human intellect and the resultant acceleration of human evolution is just another form of evolution - maybe "super evolution."

I also think that serious, if not insurmountable, social consequences will arise as a result of this. Can we change our social dynamic as fast as science can engineer our genes? Given the worldwide propensity for deeply-ingrained superstitious beliefs and behavior, I suspect not. Bummer.

Good point, and I think this is something we may see (or are already seeing) in the semiconductor/IC industry, with its accelerated evolution of technologies allowing faster and faster processors. There is a cultural impact of greater IC technology, and things may progress to a point where the culture can't keep up with the scientific advances. Or not. Either way, it's quite interesting.

[madmatt]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

Good point, and I think this is something we may see (or are already seeing) in the semiconductor/IC industry, with its accelerated evolution of technologies allowing faster and faster processors. There is a cultural impact of greater IC technology, and things may progress to a point where the culture can't keep up with the scientific advances. Or not. Either way, it's quite interesting.

This integration of tech, and genetic engineering, I believe, only make us weaker. And the last thing we need is genetically modified anything. At this stage of our knowledge we are playing with some dangerously out of control fire. It has taken Mother Nature a long time to get things to this point, and it works. Don't fix it if it aint broke. Same thing goes for nuclear energy.
I was watching a science show the other day and they were talking about how we're all going to have chips in our heads so we can control things mentally (that was the basic jist of it). No thanks, I think I'll pass. I hope none of you out there allow yourselves to be "chipped" when it starts gaining momentum, or some kind of "acceptance" level.
Anyway...

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by theNoseBleedKid

I'd argue that society doesn't result in the strongest/fittest members, rather, an ideal is constructed, and people who stick closest to that ideal, who are more successful at obtaining and reflecting that ideal are the "fit" humans that 'propagate'.

This is very much related to Bourdieu's concept of fields, in which a number of socially constructed realities exist with their own rules, values, and forms of capital. Therein, "social Darwinism," if it truly exists, would be fluid. In modern society, I'm intelligent and educated; ergo, I have a good chance of upward mobility and survival. However, I'm not a very physically built person. In a society that values hunting or hard labor, I may not be as fit. I wouldn't have the necessarily capital, as Bourdieu would say. Capital in itself is not valuable, but rather is valuable insofar as what the field accepts as valuable. For example, street smarts may be considered valuable in a gang, whereas book smarts may be considered valuable in a university - but street smarts may not be as valued in a gang and street smarts may not be as valued in a university.

As hotrodbert pointed out, any time you start talking about evolution, you run into a tautological problem. Related to that, you also run into a teleological problem. Generalized to the social sciences, these problems arise in structural-functionalist theory:

Question: Why does something exist?
Answer: Because it facilitates a function?
Question: How do you know it facilitates a function?
Answer: Because it continues to exist.

Of course, Merton came along and smashed the tautological and teleological issues by introducing the concept of dysfuction.

Originally Posted by madmatt

I just had thoughts about the ego in another thread and they appear to be relavent here too.
Would anyone agree that the ego plays a major factor in the whole Social Darwinism picture?
I am guessing that as any given group's concept of what is important (values or morals) changes, then society changes accordingly if said group has enough power or influence to persuade the overall population. Method of persuasion may be violent or passive.

Be careful here; you could be engaging in an ecological fallacy. You're attempting to use micro-level behavior to explain macro-level behavior, which introduces a number of epistemological issues. What you are referring to are what Durkhiem called social facts, which are different than psychological constructs.

[flypejose]

Originally Posted by Muaguana

...

Please keep the discussion pertinent to Ye Olde theories, so no eugenics, no Nazis, and no racism. Thank you for your time.

A discussion of Social Darwinism without Eugenics?!?

[theNoseBleedKid]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

This is very much related to Bourdieu's concept of fields

...and Bordieu, being a good Marxist, is a pretty clever guy .

Question: Why does something exist?
Answer: Because it facilitates a function?
Question: How do you know it facilitates a function?
Answer: Because it continues to exist.

Oh deduction, how silly you are .

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

For example, street smarts may be considered valuable in a gang, whereas book smarts may be considered valuable in a university - but street smarts may not be as valued in a gang and street smarts may not be as valued in a university.

I'm glad we have philosophers to figure out these things for us. Going further, knowing how to fix a toilet would be valuable in a culture whose toilet is plugged, whereas knowing how to pick a lock would be valuable in a culture that is stealing a bicycle.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I'm glad we have philosophers to figure out these things for us. Going further, knowing how to fix a toilet would be valuable in a culture whose toilet is plugged, whereas knowing how to pick a lock would be valuable in a culture that is stealing a bicycle.

Well, Bourdieu was a sociologist; his fellow Frenchman, Foucault, skirted the line between sociologist and philosopher a lot more.

...and yeah, the concept of fields sounds pretty self-evident from my example. It does get a lot more complicated than what I posted about with concepts like habitus and such.

But what would be a valuable skill in a culture that uses outhouses?

[Muaguana]

Originally Posted by flypejose

A discussion of Social Darwinism without Eugenics?!?

Can't blame me for trying.

Originally Posted by LiquidMidnight

But what would be a valuable skill in a culture that uses outhouses?

Being able to close one's nostrils without using one's hand and/or clothes pin?

Excellent post earlier, BTW. Do you have a background in sociology?

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I'm glad we have philosophers to figure out these things for us. Going further, knowing how to fix a toilet would be valuable in a culture whose toilet is plugged, whereas knowing how to pick a lock would be valuable in a culture that is stealing a bicycle.