Social Darwinism: Its Legacy and Modern Influences

Written by Noah Y.

With unwavering conviction, in the 1970s, American eugenicists declared “certain individuals unfit, ‘feebleminded’ or anti-social,” administering the involuntary sterilization of 60,000 individuals, primarily “Latinxs, Native Americans, African Americans, poor whites and people with disabilities” as reported by the National Human Genome Research Institute. Their rationale? An aspiration to prevent the proliferation of what these lab coats so modestly labeled as inferior genetics. According to historian Erna Kurbegovic, eugenics planted itself firmly in Social Darwinism, a now antiquated social theory. This foundation paradoxically served as the ideological backbone of the supposed “scientific” eugenics movement, a perfect explanation for its incoherent reasoning. Social Darwinism propagates itself as the intuitive derivative of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection; however, what Social Darwinism stands on is not Darwin’s basis for evolution but rather a series of ethnocentric ideologies, irrespective of the original theory. From a modern lens, we see Social Darwinism continue to exert subtle influences on contemporary debates, acting as the crux of many political agendas that ultimately reveal their inability to adapt and evolve.

For the past four decades, education and employment have been subject to a prevailing system that sought to address centuries of systemic racism, affirmative action. Nevertheless, this summer, in a split 6 to 9 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned affirmative action, claiming “race-conscious college admissions processes…are unconstitutional” and admissions were not built on “challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.” In the context of the statement, when universities omit race in college admissions, focusing solely on what they perceive as merit, they inadvertently echo principles of Social Darwinism. They pretend that minorities from disadvantaged backgrounds, who lack the external support that wealthier students access, must compete in a system where privilege is no longer a factor. Some may argue that this reflects meritocracy, mirroring sentiment in the original Constitution, “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”; however, it is imperative to understand that proponents of this overturned decision fail to recognize the years of inequity that have accumulated from historic oppression. It is as if admissions officers are hosting a race to determine college acceptances but minorities start a mile behind rich white students. By disregarding the systemic inequities that have historically put minorities at a disadvantage, the decision to omit race in college admissions perpetuates the notion of Social Darwinism, echoing the sentiment held by eugenicists. 

I was first introduced to Darwinism during my summer reading. Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction detailed the next wave of extinction and offered an in-depth elaboration on the history of Darwin’s theory. The theory was first conceived in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. In the book, Darwin defined natural selection as the “preservation of favored races in the struggle for life,” a theory that he claims to be strictly tied to the natural world (Darwin 1). After examining the famed “Darwin’s Finches” on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin marveled at their diversity in beak size and length, each adaptation connecting to a unique dietary niche (Kolbert 51). Darwin inferred that environmental factors must have driven these finches to speciation, so in order to survive, they evolved, exploiting all food resources on the island. By observing the close relationship between the environment and evolution, this small microcosm served as the pivoting point for Darwin’s theory of evolution, also known as Darwinism. 

Social Darwinism does not involve a long process of research and ideation—rather, its justification is forged by the mere addition of “Darwinism” to its name. This strategy mirrors a trend in the ’60s where companies Astron, Dutron, and Transitron, misleadingly appended “tron” to their names to create a facade of electronic expertise, despite involving zero elecTRONics. Who could have ever guessed they would crash and burn shortly after? In the late 19th century, industrialization and urbanization were reshaping society, and with them, increasingly noticeable disparities in social and economic standings arose. As the gap between the rich and poor widened, a need arose for a framework for understanding the rapid class stratification — enter Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism provided justification for the prevailing laissez-faire policies, arguing that economic and social success were indicators of fitness and merit, and people who lived in the trenches of the city were there, not because of systemic inequalities, but rather what professor R.J. Halliday describes in his article “Social Darwinism: A Definition”, “the law of natural selection of favorable heritable variants”— those who are successful are so because they are an innately elevated human being.

Social Darwinism was not coined by Charles Darwin. Instead, it was Herbert Spencer who applied his principles to a social context. Spencer, renowned for condensing Darwin’s theory of evolution to the phrase “survival of the fittest,” brandished this concept like a sword and shield, using it to defend the “inherent” qualities that made people like him above the poor and wield it against those fighting against the Capitalist agenda — those who were deemed “unfit.” Darwin never condoned a societal application of his natural theory; rather, Social Darwinists “accepted these auxiliary and unnecessary concepts as the essence of Darwin’s theory” (280). It was the works of external minds such as Spencer who drew connections between natural selection and society and weaponized his theory to justify their own socio-economic views.

Practitioners of Social Darwinism attempt to establish a perceived connection between “genetic and social structures,” invoking the notion of “inferior genetic material” to rationalize “deprived economic and social status” (Halliday). They assert that Darwin's theory of natural selection applies to human evolution, regardless of the fundamental distinction between man and animal development — social evolution. This idea is what differentiates humans from animals. In contrast to animals, our transmission of information is “emancipated from the limitations of space and time imposed by biological evolution” (Rogers). Humans possess the innate capability to leverage information passed from “generation to generation,” a faculty potentially rendering biological evolution “superfluous for survival.” This concept fundamentally demolishes the assumptions of Social Darwinists who champion the notion of “inferior genetic material” or “favorable heritable variant”' as the sole architects of societal hierarchies. In their unwavering adherence to evolutionary theory, they stray from Darwin’s original purpose, overlooking the clear disparities between human and animal evolution. It is our capacity for “social evolution” that empowers human advancement. It is this transmission of information, serving as the cornerstone of our societies, that ensures success is not dictated by biological evolution, instead, it hinges on our ability to leverage the past.

With the relevance of Republican figures such as Donald Trump, echoes of Social Darwinist ideas have emerged in the political landscape, inadvertently influencing the ideas of the GOP, specifically Right-Wing Egalitarianism (RWE). Right-Wing Egalitarianism holds a dominant position against the implementation of social welfare programs, believing that it forms a “culture of dependency.” In the Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society Patrick Boleyn-Fitzgerald published an article wherein he quotes Marvin Olasky saying “the welfare state has artificially, needlessly created a large dependent class… stripped of dignity and autonomy” and paraphrases House Representative John Mica in the sentiment that “government only makes things worse. The poor are better off when the government does nothing.” Scholars and politicians like Olasky and Mica turn a blind eye to the implications of their stance on social welfare programs, emphasizing self-reliance while failing to acknowledge centuries of systemic oppression, physical disabilities, and economic depressions. Here, we see glimpses of Social Darwinism in Right-wing Egalitarianism. Like Affirmative Action, Right-wing Egalitarianism emphasizes merit as being the sole determinant of one’s social status; however, through the omission of deep-rooted historical inequities and uncontrollable circumstances, Right-wing Egalitarianism gives a big screw you to those genuinely relying on welfare, ignorantly telling them if they simply work harder and stop being so lazy they can achieve upward social mobility. The U.S. government built itself upon Rousseau's Social Contract, a theory where citizens relinquish natural rights in exchange for the benefits of joining a collective society. One may question whether Right-wing Egalitarianism fundamentally contradicts these principles. Olasky and Mica, people who greatly benefit from the structure of society, seem to suggest that despite universal consent to relinquish natural rights, only those deemed “fit” or self-reliant can feast upon the fruits of a collective society. Is this not a blatant contradiction to our constitution? As citizens, are we not universally entitled to our natural rights in exchange for adherence to the law? In its unwitting emulation of Social Darwinism, like a broken record, Right-wing Egalitarianism endlessly replays Spencer’s distorted justification for social stratification, murking its objection to social welfare with unconstitutional reasoning while burying itself in Social Darwinism.

Ultimately, as we see with the work from Rogers and Halliday, Social Darwinism holds no basis. Its desperate attempts to hop on the bandwagon of Darwinism are nothing more than that, attempts. While it claims to be a societal application of Darwinism, connecting animals to humans, it is this blind equation that exposes its self-defeating nature. Charles Darwin outwardly expressed his disapproval of any social applications of his theory because he understood that beyond our shared biological evolution, unlike animals, we evolve socially, leveraging the knowledge of the past millennia of human experiences. Before conducting research, I found it difficult to imagine Social Darwinism in contemporary applications, yet surprisingly, its influences continue to run amuck, infiltrating the political agendas of the elite. By resorting to desperate ruses to legitimize their status, insisting that their success was achieved through merit alone while insinuating that the impoverished simply lack the work ethic, this elitist mentality roots itself in the same justification for eugenics, carrying on the legacy of Social Darwinism today.