Social Darwinism Analysis

1089 Words5 Pages
The history of the United States provides different pieces of evidence that proves intellectuals can interpret the historical process through any prism needed in accordance with their current political and economic challenges. Thus in the late 19th century, when the U.S. became one of the most developed and prosperous country, it had to choose one of two possible ideologies to survive. The first was the policy of protectionism, according to which the state had to protect its economy from foreign intervention while resisting international aggression towards and from other states. The other was involved overseas expansion, colonialism, and imperialism (The United States Becomes a World Power). Undoubtedly, early generations of Americans who tried…show more content…
In fact, both theorists grounded their ideas on the statement that all relations between people are similar to those between animals, who always struggle in order to survive (Tindall and Shi 874). The resources of the world are limited, thus, both animals and people have to reach it through the struggle. The survival of one animal means the deaths of the others who have no access to the resources needed. According to Spencer’s principle of “survival of the fittest,” the same situation happens between people, because such relations are natural (Tindall and Shi 874). Darwin’s disciple, Sumner, claimed that all social institutions were the results of irrational tradition (Tindall and Shi 875). In such a way, the best way of development is a natural competition through which only the best people or nations manage to survive. To realize it, people have to deny their moral superstitions and start to struggle. Through this struggle is where people will start to find their strength to fight instead of…show more content…
It is the logical mistake or even conscious misconception of social Darwinism, because there is no reason to draw the parallels between society and nature. People belong both to the natural and social worlds, and social relations are different from natural ones. Therefore, it is reasonable to separate these two domains. Spencer makes a mistake, because his implication of Darwinism to social sciences has no reason. Both Spencer and Mahan do not want to understand that people have more possible ways of life than animals have, including productive collaboration regulated by social institutions (such as the state) and moral norms. Animals have no choice because they do not have any of these possibilities. Social Darwinists reduce people to the same primitive

More about Social Darwinism Analysis

Open Document