Social Darwinism

Beck, Naomi

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139026895.025

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…32 However, struggle -or rather, nature -will also be a factor in moral progress. 33 Here begins the ambivalence. In Descent of Man, Darwin takes pains with the instinctive origin of moral feelings, particularly those referred to other-regarding behavior.…”

Section: Darwin's Neutral Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Darwin’s politics of selection

Sanchez

2019

Polit. life sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The uses of natural selection argument in politics have been constant since Charles Darwin’s times. They have also been varied. The readings of Darwin’s theory range from the most radically individualist views, as in orthodox socio-Darwinism, to the most communitarian, as in Peter Kropotkin’s and other socialist perspectives. This essay argues that such diverse, contradictory, and sometimes even outrageous political derivations from Darwin’s theory may be partially explained by some incompleteness and ambivalences underlying Darwin’s concepts. “Natural selection,” “struggle for existence,” and “survival of the fittest” are open concepts and may suggest some hierarchical and segregationist interpretations. Circumstantially, Darwin accepted social “checks,” such as discouraging marriage of “lower” individuals to prevent them from reproducing, in a vein of Malthusian politics. This makes Darwin’s theory of selection by struggle collide with his theory of social instincts, by which he explains the origins of morality. It also favors reading Darwin’sOn the Origin of SpeciesorThe Descent of Manfrom opposite, mostly ideological perspectives. Darwin’s position is ambivalent, although hardly unreasonable. The recognition he makes of social instincts, as well as the use of the concept of artificial selection, entails accepting the role of human consciousness, by which social evolution cannot be reduced to natural evolution, as socio-Darwinians did next and as some neo-Darwinists seem to repeat. On these grounds, this essay argues the inadequacy of the conventional model of natural selection for understanding politics. If we want to describe politics in Darwin’s language,artificialrather thannatural selectionwould be the concept that performs better for explaining the courses of politics in real society.

show abstract

Section: Darwin's Neutral Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Darwin’s politics of selection

Sanchez

2019

Polit. life sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When evolution is looked through the lens of Spencerian evolutionism, society is an organic whole, its evolution is amount to progress, progress is gradual and unhurried, evolution brings about the harmonious equilibrium state (Spencer, [1862] 1890, pp. 524-5; see also, Laurent, 2000;Beck, 2013). 7 Furthermore, the law of the survival of the fittest coupled with the natural section doctrine implies that "nature determines the best competitors and this natural selection process leads to continuing improvement," and nature, at the same time, punishes lazy, inefficient, incompetent individuals (Hofstadter, 1955, pp.…”

Section: Evolutionary Approaches In Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hodgson (2004Hodgson ( , 2013b argues that Spencerism should not be equated to social Darwinism, which is an ideological label used by leftist scholars and which should not be used to throw out the evolutionary accounts of society all together. Although Hodgson is right on this, it is hard to deny that Spencerism nourished the social Darwinian thinking in social sciences and political-public discourse, which lends support to the view that social evolution resembles natural evolution represented by the law of the survival of the fittest, that individuals are responsible for their own success or failure, that individuals must adapt to the present system which is assumed to be the 'best of all the possible worlds,' and thereby that any action aiming to change the present system and to curb individual freedom should be avoided(Hofstadter, 1955;Bannister, 1979;Beck, 2013). Due to a significant overlap or connection between Spencerism and social Darwinism, it is not completely misleading to substitute social Darwinism for Spencerism insofar as its meaning and implications, not the label, are concerned.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory

2021

Journal of Economic Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is often argued that Richard Nelson and Sydney Winter's evolutionary theory is an alternative to neoclassical economics and is compatible with or complementary to Veblenian evolutionary economics. This paper subjects such arguments to critical examination. I argue that while Nelson and Winter's theory provides a more realistic account of the firm behavior than Marshallian-neoclassical theory does, it is a neoclassical evolutionary theory in much the same sense as Marshall's economics is quasi-evolutionary, 'neo-classical' economics according to Veblen. Therefore, Nelson and Winter's evolutionary theory is in fact a protective modification of the neoclassical economics and is antithetical to Veblen's evolutionary economics.

show abstract

General Discussion: Economemetics and Agency, Creativity, and Normativity

Schlaile

2020

Economic Complexity and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Darwinism

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Darwin’s politics of selection

Darwin’s politics of selection

A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory

General Discussion: Economemetics and Agency, Creativity, and Normativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About