Customer Reviews

Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (American Civilization)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you went through high sdhool and college as I did, your History textbook probably mentioned Darwin and his Origin of Species and then went straight to "Social Darwinism" in which we were led to believe that several thinkers took Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest" and applied it to humans, both individuals and races, espousing the idea that only the strong survive.-Bannister debunks both the history and logic of this supposed history.-To begin with, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean that the "strongest" survive. It means that those "adapted to existing conditions survive." In other words, a grizzly bear may be terribly strong, but he would die in equatorial regions where weaker, but more adapted, creatures survive.-Further, Bannister shows through thoroughgoing research that the term "Social Darwinism" did not even come into vogue until the 1940's, not, as most of us were led to believe, in the late 19th century. In fact, Bannister, in searching for references to those Social Darwinists he and I and probably you were so familiar with through History books, "came close to concluding that someone had made the whole thing up." Furthermore, the seldom times the term is used in the late 19th century, it is always pejorative and used to castigate someone ELSE who had a "Nature red and tooth and claw" perspective on human beings. In other words, proclaiming one's self a Social Darwinist in the late 19th century would be the equivilant of proclaimimg one's self a Nazi today...Remember, it was the Victorian age.-The reason I gave the book 4 stars instead of the superlative 5 is because he gives short shrift to Nietzsche in his chapter on him. While mentioning that there were thinkers that did not equate Nietzsche with Social Darwinism, he doesn't dwell on them or give their arguments. Instead, he dwells on those who equate Nietzsche with the most extreme form of Social Darwinism...Anyone who has read Nietzsche in detail realizes that this is far from the case. Simplification of Nietzsche abounds in almost all scholarly works not concentrated on him. Unfortunately, Bannister's is no exception.-But, aside from this scholarly neglect, the book was an eye-opener, debunking most of what I thought of the history of Social Darwinism.-Give it a read.

This is an important text in the study of Social Darwinism, written partly in response to Hofstadter's classic work on the subject. Somewhat revisionist it challenges some of the findings in that earlier work. It is a useful exercise to read both works, and one might in addition read a recent essay on the history of Hofstadter's work leading into Bannister's in an essay in Eric Foner's Who Owns History. Although I would recommend Bannister's work as essential reading here, I think the question of "Social Darwinism" is often misinterpreted depending on our prior and assumed views of Darwin's theory. If we are 'Darwinists' and accept his theory of selectionism in any strong form as a full theory we will inexorably become tacit 'social Darwinists', for the simple reason that we believe the rigors of natural selection will produce the highest evolved complexity. Therefore more of the same, etc... This obstinate fallacy springs from the failure to see that theories have temporal domains, and that a true theory of evolution must separate the past, present and futre, something Darwinian thinking is too clubfooted to do. The results are historically disatrous. Thus we are automatically likely to miscalculate our place in an historical context. Mimicking natural selection in social history is a nobrainer and will not produce further evolution in man, and yet we tend unconsciously to think so. And, despite Bannister's pointing to the thinness of the actual references to the term 'Social Darwinism', the fact is that vast numbers of people quietly and without much public discourse feel obligated to act in a social Darwinist manner.
In fact, because of this confusion over theory, it should be said that Darwin, always defended from the charge usually pinned on Spencer, is really a clear 'Social Darwinist', by the very nature of the case. So analysis here stands or falls on the status of Darwin's theory, and there the point is precisely that we lack the full proof of that natural selection is the real answer in toto for man's descent. It is a disastrous confusion, and one that mars this otherwise interesting complement to the literature.
In a broader context, the calamitous influence of Darwin cannot be explained away so easily by focussing solely on the concepts of something called 'Social Darwinism'. Its effect on the First World War generation and later can't be explained away so easily, nor the overall influence absolved.
The main point is to see that Darwin's actual selectionist theory is probably false, and then research here can start all over.