Before diving into Social Darwinism, lets backtrack to middle school remind ourselves of what plain ol' Darwinism means:
To put it shortly, Darwinism really boils down to one small but all-encompassing mantra: survival of the fittest. Those who are able to survive in the environment they are in will flourish and will produce similarly successful offspring. These triumphant beings are considered to be "evolutionarily fit." Those who are unable will fall victim to that very same environment, and will be shed from it altogether. Now, how could this possibly relate to humans nowadays?
Herbert Spencer, a British scientist and philosopher, popularized the concept of Social Darwinism in the late 19th century:
Thus, the same mantra of survival of the fittest rings true in this arena as well, we've just switched from animals and plants to human beings. According to him, society functions like a living organism. Natural selection will occur within said society, and will result in the surivial of the best competitors and "continuing improvement" of the population (Britannica). Herbert believed the best competitors and the weakest competitors all had the same chance at becoming one or the other, it was only a matter of how well one adapted to its surroundings. In other words, its your own fault if you find yourself at the bottom of the food chain.
So, how does this relate to inequality, poverty, and illness?
In this view, poverty is a natural consequence of a person’s inadequacy to survive within their environment, thus poverty is legitimized as well as the illnesses it produces, including malnutrition. If you really think about it, malnutrition is the physical manifestation of a person’s “unfitness”for survival, and is thus simultaneously the means by which a perceivably "inadequate" will be flushed from society. If malnutrition causes those afflicted to die, that is a good and natural thing. It is important to remember that in this view, lack of success is an individual failing and is completely unrelated to barriers society has built up. This ignores the fact that inequality within society exists, and can severely limit a person's life opportunities. So, if a person is in poverty, it is because they are making the active choice to remain in poverty, and thus putting themselves at risk for further health complications.
Additionally, Social Darwinists believe that any State or governmental assistance towards these persons struggling is actually a bad thing. Herbert argues the State ought not try and combat poverty or malnutrition, such as implementing government programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), because that interferes with the “purifying process” of natural evolution. As said in lecture, “if the unfit are allowed to survive, they will produce similarly unfit offspring.” These unfit offspring will continue to be the weak link in society, and because of this will eventually be naturally purged. This purge, Herbert argues, is just simply mother Earth doing her job, and to interfere with this is to deny nature's process. Thus, poverty is a natural consequence for those who are not fit to survive, and malnutrition may be the means by which these “unfit” are eliminated.
Overall, the Social Darwinist perspective overlooks inequality in society, and blames poverty on individual failing. This in turn can expose the individual to forms of illness, particularly malnutrition, which may be considered the physical manifestation of a person's "unfitness" for survival within their environment. Any governmental or State programs that provide extra assistance to those who are afflicted by poverty are intervening with nature's purging process, and should not be in operation. Despite inequality being the cause of poverty within itself, "survival of the fittest" remains gospel to the Social Darwinists of past and present.
Darwinism is the theory of "biological evolution...stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce" (Wikipedia).
To put it shortly, Darwinism really boils down to one small but all-encompassing mantra: survival of the fittest. Those who are able to survive in the environment they are in will flourish and will produce similarly successful offspring. These triumphant beings are considered to be "evolutionarily fit." Those who are unable will fall victim to that very same environment, and will be shed from it altogether. Now, how could this possibly relate to humans nowadays?
Herbert Spencer, a British scientist and philosopher, popularized the concept of Social Darwinism in the late 19th century:
Social Darwinism is the theory that "human groups and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had perceived in plants and animals in nature" (Britannica).
Thus, the same mantra of survival of the fittest rings true in this arena as well, we've just switched from animals and plants to human beings. According to him, society functions like a living organism. Natural selection will occur within said society, and will result in the surivial of the best competitors and "continuing improvement" of the population (Britannica). Herbert believed the best competitors and the weakest competitors all had the same chance at becoming one or the other, it was only a matter of how well one adapted to its surroundings. In other words, its your own fault if you find yourself at the bottom of the food chain.
In this view, poverty is a natural consequence of a person’s inadequacy to survive within their environment, thus poverty is legitimized as well as the illnesses it produces, including malnutrition. If you really think about it, malnutrition is the physical manifestation of a person’s “unfitness”for survival, and is thus simultaneously the means by which a perceivably "inadequate" will be flushed from society. If malnutrition causes those afflicted to die, that is a good and natural thing. It is important to remember that in this view, lack of success is an individual failing and is completely unrelated to barriers society has built up. This ignores the fact that inequality within society exists, and can severely limit a person's life opportunities. So, if a person is in poverty, it is because they are making the active choice to remain in poverty, and thus putting themselves at risk for further health complications.
Additionally, Social Darwinists believe that any State or governmental assistance towards these persons struggling is actually a bad thing. Herbert argues the State ought not try and combat poverty or malnutrition, such as implementing government programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), because that interferes with the “purifying process” of natural evolution. As said in lecture, “if the unfit are allowed to survive, they will produce similarly unfit offspring.” These unfit offspring will continue to be the weak link in society, and because of this will eventually be naturally purged. This purge, Herbert argues, is just simply mother Earth doing her job, and to interfere with this is to deny nature's process. Thus, poverty is a natural consequence for those who are not fit to survive, and malnutrition may be the means by which these “unfit” are eliminated.
(Benefits Data Trust, 2016)
Overall, the Social Darwinist perspective overlooks inequality in society, and blames poverty on individual failing. This in turn can expose the individual to forms of illness, particularly malnutrition, which may be considered the physical manifestation of a person's "unfitness" for survival within their environment. Any governmental or State programs that provide extra assistance to those who are afflicted by poverty are intervening with nature's purging process, and should not be in operation. Despite inequality being the cause of poverty within itself, "survival of the fittest" remains gospel to the Social Darwinists of past and present.
No comments:
Post a Comment