Difference between revisions of "Social Darwinism"
British cons (talk | contribs) (→Social Darwinism Today: expansion) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==Social Darwinism Today== | ==Social Darwinism Today== | ||
| − | + | Most of Social Darwinism’s appeal left it in the early part of the 20th century. There were a number of reasons for this including: | |
| + | * It was seen as contributing to German militarism and [[Nazism]]. | ||
| + | * Humanity came to be seen as socially more aware than animals. | ||
| + | * Revulsion at Hitler’s attempt to build a "master race" removed support for [[eugenics]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally an improved understanding of [[genetics]] removed the basis of this “dog-eat-dog” philosophy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Consequently, with the fall of the [[fascist]] states Social Darwinism entered a period of disrepute and few societies, if any, now embrace its ideas that the weak should be disregarded; that there are "superior" and "inferior" races; or that war is an appropriate way to show a countries "virility". | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:23, April 22, 2008
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection. [1]
Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the Survival of the fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die.
Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.
David Klinghoffer
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928:
- "An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."[2]
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that
- "crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political ‘world-view.’ "
Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called "social Darwinism" is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.
Social Darwinism Today
Most of Social Darwinism’s appeal left it in the early part of the 20th century. There were a number of reasons for this including:
- It was seen as contributing to German militarism and Nazism.
- Humanity came to be seen as socially more aware than animals.
- Revulsion at Hitler’s attempt to build a "master race" removed support for eugenics.
Finally an improved understanding of genetics removed the basis of this “dog-eat-dog” philosophy.
Consequently, with the fall of the fascist states Social Darwinism entered a period of disrepute and few societies, if any, now embrace its ideas that the weak should be disregarded; that there are "superior" and "inferior" races; or that war is an appropriate way to show a countries "virility".
References
- ↑ Social Darwinism at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008
- ↑ [1]