Question

In 250 words Why did Social Darwinism have such broad appeal? Do not be afraid to go beyond the readings in this course to gain perspective. What Social Darwinist tendencies do you see in our society today? please type

Answer 1

Social Darwinism is a loose set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s in which Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was used to justify certain political, social, or economic views. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half.

Social Darwinism offered a justification for people's wealth. It told the rich people that they were rich and successful because they were simply better than everyone else. This meant that they did not need to feel guilty about having possibly exploited others. It meant that they did not have to worry that their society might be unfair. They could just accept the idea that they deserved their riches. It seems very clear that this would be an attractive theory because it would make the rich feel good.In a way, Social Darwinism would appeal to people in the middle class because it would explain why they deserved to be better-off than the poor. But it should not have been completely satisfactory because it implied that the middle class people were simply not as good as the rich. I would speculate that the middle class people who believed in Social Darwinism did so because they believed in the American Dream. They believed that they had what it took to become rich and that they would achieve that goal someday. Social Darwinism gave them the ability to hope that their hard work (and the talent they believed they had) would allow them to succeed. They did not have to simply hope that they would get lucky. This allowed them to feel that they were masters of their own destiny. If they worked hard enough, they would become rich because wealth came to those who worked hard and who deserved it.

Thus, we can speculate the Social Darwinism was appealing to the wealthy because it justified their wealth and that it was appealing to the middle classes because it gave them hope for the future.

Today advanced capitalist states base their capitalism on Social Darwinism to justify unfair competition and to dominate the weaker nations. US laissez-faire capitalism, under the rubrics of the free market and deregulation, oppose it in varying degrees: welfare, social security, universal healthcare or insurance, a sustainable minimum wage, affordable housing, low-cost college education, and any other programme that will help poor people get ahead, not to mention government regulation of almost anything. The pretext for all those positions is letting the free market operate, just as the pretext for giving tax cuts primarily to the rich, not to the lower or middle class, is trickle-down economics. Pretexts aside, however, the far right practices Social Darwinism in all but name; the poor and the lower middle class are expected to live within their dwindling incomes, even as the gap between the rich and poor widens. It obviously still exists, but it takes time to build up and become strong.