What is Social Darwinism? How was it used to explain a variety of circumstances (e.g. economic and racial/ethnic) in the late 19th century? Do you hear any of the same sentiments echoed today? Evaluate the theory. Do you find it valid? Why or why not?
Social Darwinism refers to Charles Darwin's Theory that in nature, it is the fittest who survive. In other words, the species best suited in a given environment will take the place of, or overpower, the species that was less able to adapt. In the late 19th Century, Social Darwinism referred most to the idea of "to each man his own."
In the late 19th Century, the idea of Social Darwinism appealed most to the upper class citizens, who always strove to become wealthier than their poor counterparts. I feel the reason as to why Social Darwinism explained many unfortunate circumstances in the late 19th Century all comes down to one little word with deep rooted meaning- liberty. It was accepted due to the fact that liberty allowed a man in America to strive for whatever he wanted. It was an employer's "liberty" to decide what he felt was an agreeable pay. If a man wasn't satisfied with the pay his employer offered, then it was his "liberty" to find a higher paying job somewhere else. Although this does seem unjustly beneficial to the employers and their monopolies, I can understand the angle at which they interpreted Social Darwinism. To give money to the poor out of the pockets of the wealthy would seem unfair, to a certain extent. I believe William Graham Sumner made a valid point in saying the government shouldn't become involved in individual's finances, because that would be taking away their liberty. And so as Sumner put it, "Society faced two and only two alternatives: 'liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest.'"
Personally, I don't feel Social Darwinism is accepted at all in today's government. At least, not publicly. Yet, I'm sure it still exists to some extent in the labor force and other places, as far as women earning a smaller amount of income as men do who work the same job. Take for instance, the Glass Ceiling Theory, the idea that women in the corporate world will eventually hit an invisible barrier that will make them less likely than men to achieve higher executive positions. It seems to me as if the government has become far more involved in aiding those who have fallen behind economically (i.e. welfare and legislation against monopolies). With the economic crisis our country is faced with today, the government must step in if they want to keep America afloat. Bailing out Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, A.I.G., the Auto Industry, Citigroup, and Wall Street all within the past year surely prove to me that the theory of Social Darwinism is no longer as relevant as it once was.
Not trying to seem rude or uncompassionate, I'd have to say I do agree with Social Darwinism on a very small scale. This is my only reason- although I agree with welfare for those who have become unfortunate due to circumstance they were unable to control personally, I disagree with those who have depended on welfare for generations. We should feel obligated to help the less-fortunate people around us get back on their feet, but for families to depend on welfare as their sole income is unjust. And in order to keep the economy in good standing, not everyone should be allowed welfare for unlimited periods of time. It would throw the nations economy under in no time. However, I do strongly disagree with one of the views in Social Darwinism. To believe that the poor are "essentially responsible for their own fate" seems highly controversial to me. How is one to be held accountable for getting laid-off at work, or in losing their job due to the loss of a loved one? Overall, I'd have to conclude the theory of Social Darwinism as invalid. I grew up with the phrase, "A group will only be as strong as their weakest link." Therefore, Americans need to do what they can in their power to keep themselves afloat, while still offering help and community service to others. A nation facing success as a whole in due time is worth far more to me than a nation with large separation in social and economic classes.
