The Birth of Social Darwinism - Steven Pinker Speaks Out

Charles Darwin never endorsed the horrible
theory named after him.

Two fallacies against Social Darwinism are presented by Steven Pinker. Darwin's theory of evolution was never intended to be used as a means to control.

Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) was misinterpreted as a guide to moral progress rather than simply an explanation for how living organisms adapt to their environment, ie. the survival of the fittest. This gave rise to dangerous thinking - philosopher and social scientist, Herbert Spencer, (1820-1903) said that "do-gooders" would impede the progress of evolution if they tried to help those less fortunate than themselves.

This attitude came to be known as Social Darwinism. although Charles Darwin (1809-1882) refused to subscribe to it. It took only a very small shift in thinking from the first proposition to foreshadow a world-wide monumental outrage, the holocaust.

1. Some people believed that Social Darwinism was a good thing, because it discouraged the less fit from "breeding." Francis Galton, cousin of Darwin, described this as "eugenics."
2. Canada, the Scandinavian countries, thirty American states and Germany passed laws requring the involuntary sterilization of delinquents and the feeble-minded. (The Nazi's ideology which found other races inferior, was the basis for the murder of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals.)

Charles Darwin Proposes Kinship Between Man and Animal

Darwin had deliberately avoided reference to man's place in nature in The Origin of Species. In later work, he emphasised the kinship beween man and other species, for example, in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872.) In these works, says the Cambridge Guide, anthropological, primate studies and sociology are combined, and strong objections were evoked to Darwin's suggestion that there could be "kinship" between man and animals.

Two Fallacies that Refute Social Darwinism

Steven Pinker says that the fact some people have inborn talent or great qualities does not make Social Darwinism acceptable. He posits two fallacies to refute this:

1. The first fallacy is an all-or-none mentality. Pinker says that the likelihood inborn differences contribute to social status, doesn't mean that these are the only contributor. There could be others, such as inherited wealth, race and class prejudice, unequal opportunity, schooling, connections, culture, etc. To agree that talent is important doesn't mean that prejudice and unequal opportunity are not factors in the equation.
2. Secondly, even if inherited talents lead to success, this doesn't imply the success is deserved morally. "Social Darwinism," says Pinker, "is based on the assumption that we can look to evolution to discover what is right - that "good" can be boiled down to "evolutionarily successful." This ties up with the "naturalistic fallacy" which is the belief that anything that happens in nature must be good.

Social Darwinism - a Lasting Legacy

It would be reasonable to assume that belief in the naturalistic fallacy, ie. that everything in nature must be good, would have been overcome by Social Darwinism, but it re-emerged during the Romantic period of the sixties and seventies.

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker says: "Many writers today casually equate behavioural genetics with eugenics, as if studying the genetic correlates of behaviour were the same as coercing people in their decisions about having children. Many equate evolutionary psychology with Social Darwinism, as if studying our evolutionary roots were the same as justifying the station of the poor."

The problem is, says Pinker, that these confusions don't arise purely from the illiterate, but from serious publications such as Scientific American, and Science.

Pinker finds it abhorrent that anyone believes that the rich and the poor both deserve their status or that we might abandon principles of justice. Certainly, this was the last thing on Darwin's mind. He was seeking the truth by pursuing the idea of evolution by natural selection to its full extent, thereby presenting the world with a brand new vision of existence. He was curious and honest and benevolent and his contributions to human understanding have laid the foundation for a rational anthopology.

Sources:

• Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate, BCA, 2002.
• Huxley Julian and Kettlewell, H.B.D. Charles Darwin and his World, Book Club Associates by arangement with Thames and Hudson Ltgd. 1975.
• Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, Ed. Ian Ousby, Multiple Contributors, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 1993.