From the end of the 19c to the early 20c, Social Darwinism spread across all over the world. Although the wave of Social Darwinism was quickly diminished in spite of being welcomed in many countries, Social Darwinism gave an account of the social evolution from prehistoric times with the use of simple principles. Social Darwinism was eagerly accepted, yet the simplicity and shallowness of the ideology did not have enough capacity to sustain the social relationship in society as it becomes more complex. For its simplicity, however, Social Darwinism was applied in society based on situations of society, national politics, and traditional thoughts, and left much destruction behin. This paper explains variational differences and commonalities which can be conceived in Social Darwinism and overall how Social Darwinism was employed in different societies by comparing perspectives between Darwin and Spencer.
Darwin, in his book of “The Origin of Species,” formulated the mechanism of organic evolution through the analogy of artificial selection. The number of headcounts of species tends to increase beyond conditions of survival. Darwin called that phenomenon “the struggle for existence” (Darwin, p.250). However, in this struggle for existence, a mutation is an important factor for organisms to survive. Consequently, species that are able to generate favorable mutations are conserved and other inferior species are shaken out from the spiral of natural selection. As this cycle of selection is infinitely repeated, new species are formed, and former species are threatened with extinction.
After Darwin proved his theory of evolution in general organisms, he proceeded in his research to employ the theory in the evolution of humans. In the book, “Decent of Man,” Darwin attempted to verify the process of human evolution with the same procedure which he used for verification of organic evolution. Darwin also affirmed that humans evolved around natural selection “in the same manner as the lower animals” (Darwin, p.178). In the beginning of the book, Darwin identified the mutations of human’s bodily structures and those causes. Next, Darwin indicated the tendency toward human’s overpopulation beyond the capacity of food production. As a consequence, the struggle for existence appears between humans. In that struggle, like other animals, favorable mutations would survive, and those individuals who do not eventually fade from existence. Darwin concludes that people cannot escape from the spiral of struggles, and it still continues in the current modernized society (p.244).
So far, there are no differences in the mechanism of evolution between humans and animals. However, humans are indeed different from other organisms in terms of their development of social structure. For the larger-scale of struggle and the consequence of natural selection, kinds of mutations which are conserved would be varying in the human society. When the struggle occurs not between individuals, but between collectives, the favorable mutations for the collectives are more likely to be preserved. Darwin observes that obedience, solidarity, self-sacrifice, and moral features are suggested than bodily features in such kind of mutations in human society (p.247).
According to Yutaka Unoura (1990), a cultural anthropologist of Bunkyo Gakuin University, the collective social evolution (large-scale) pattern of humans different from the individualistic evolution (small-scale) pattern, which projects the mechanism of organic evolution. Unoura states that “Individualist Social Darwinism” (p.110) is the natural selection and struggle for existence at an individual level. Hence, individual freedom, the self, and competition, which can be seen in animal world, are affirmative features for survival. On the other hand, “Collectivist Social Darwinism” (p.110) is the unit at a mass level. Therefore, the importance of patriotism, reciprocal support, and obedience are emphasized over the individual level values of self-freedom and competition.
These two major types of social evolution patterns are derived from Darwin’s theory. Since the struggle for existence functions at different social levels (one at an individual level, and another is at the national or ethnic level), there is one critical difference between the two. In terms of social relations between individuals, Individualist Social Darwinist is “combative” (Unoura, p.110) and Collectivist is “cooperative” (Unoura, p.110). However, cooperation in Collectivist Social Darwinist society is a method for survival in society. Hence, in that sense, the latter Social Darwinism still remains within the combative mechanism of social evolution.
Ultimately, both patterns of social evolution are competitive and combative. In other words, they equally state that evolution takes place ultimately through struggles. Therefore, it does not matter which Social Darwinism society chooses because both of them proceeds with combative struggles. This is one of the essences of Darwin’s environmental ethic and his evolution theory.
Herbert Spencer (1820 −1903) is regarded as a main branch scholar of Social Darwinism. According to Paul Crook, Spencer is a herald who broadly applied Darwin’s combative evolution theory in human society by using the term “the survival of the fittest” instead of using “natural selection” (p.2). Crook states that Spencer also stated that the increase in struggle for existence once the population surpasses food production. As evolutionary processes in animal world, social evolution proceeds through the struggle for existence in human society (p.1). Thus, sooner or later, certain ethnic groups or races would appear that cannot adjust to the increase of population and social competitions, like in Darwin’s original evolution theory. These unadjusted groups are replaced by another group that is capable of adjusting to social structural changes. Therefore, according to Spencer’s concept of Social Darwinism, a species of humans that possess more developed skills, knowledge, and the ability of self-preservation would survive. Spencer called this series of process “the survival of the fittest” (Crook, p.3).
The emergence of this competitive view of Social Darwinism was an effective tool to generalize a concept of laissez-faire (let it be) for European colonists. According to Richard Hofstadter (1998), laissez-faire is associated with the facilitation of the reinforcement of capitalism, nationalism, militarism, and racism in Europe over a few centuries (p.20) The important factor of laissez-faire, which is the promise of noninterference, maximized the capacity of Social Darwinism. Richard Weikart (1998) pointed out that laissez-faire unleashed Social Darwinism’s ferocity, “brutal competition, rampant capitalism, and unrestrained individualism” (p.18) in society. These features were strongly reasonable justification for the power of European countries to urge imperial colonization in those days.
The thought of Social Darwinism is based on the rules of the strong preying upon the weak and logic of the strong-serving theory. In the capitalist society, measurements of the strength of one’s own collective (nation) are wealth and military. All of the nations are forced to compete to pursue those two components of strength. Weikart states that the consequence and relics of competition can be recognized in current society: economic inequality, racism, famines, environmental degradation, resource wars, etc (p.18). As an example, World War II demonstrates the influence of Social Darwinism in such ways as the adoption of fascism in several countries, a series of massacres stemming from racism, and Japan’s policy of increasing wealth and military power. Social Darwinism, because of its nature, urges people to become nationalists in society.
Overall, Social Darwinism contaminated economics and politics, and forced the world to enter the spiral of struggles. However, people should have realized that Social Darwinism did not have any scientific relevance to Darwin’s original biological evolution theory in itself. If people do not realize that they are in the evil cycle of Social Darwinism, another Holocaust may erupt onto the world stage. People need to develop the wisdom to break away from the ideas of Social Darwinism.
