The Kayapo - Response to James Hartman Jr

Social Darwinism
His 204: American history since 1865
June 9, 2008

Social Darwinism based on Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) theory of evolution was a term created in the late 19th century suggesting that humans were like animals and plants, in which they too battled for existence and the natural selection resulted in “survival of the fittest” in the world of business (MSN Encarta, 2008). Herbert Spencer (1820­1903) seen as an advocate of Social Darwinism had his own suppositions that were enhanced by Darwin 's theories. Many wealthy American business owners also believed that natural selection proved their superiority in contrast to the poorer classes. However, Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), an American industrialist and philanthropist, felt that wealth was not something one used to show superiority but modesty and generosity during life. In comparison, Spencer and Carnegies ideas concerning wealth and society’s social evolution differed greatly.

Social Darwinism
Herbert Spencer, a long time believer of evolution felt that progress was a series of changes that were inevitable during development regardless of whether it was a tree, a culture, or a business everything changes; that this law of organic progress is the law of all progress [ (Halsall, Modern history sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857, 1997) ].
Human progress, according to Spencer, was nothing more than the result of more advanced individuals and cultures over their inferior competitors, progress aided in highlighting the differences among the classes. The rhetoric that Spencer conveyed was a way to justify class and race discrimination. Andrew Carnegie, however, felt that progress was not a way of differentiating the classes but essential for preserving the literature and the arts for all the refinements of civilization [ (Halsall, Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889, 1997) ]. His belief was that it was better that not all were equal in wealth, so that there was not universal squalor.
Spencer stated that:
“…Humans had become more heterogeneous among the more civilized divisions of the species and that the species, as a whole, had been growing more heterogeneous in virtue of the multiplication of races and the differentiation of these races from each other” This elucidates the hierarchy of civilization according to Halsall (1997), it also explains Spencer’s conviction that evolution caused certain groups to be in certain social brackets.
Carnegie, however, in his essay did not indicate a particular class was believed to better than the next but that circumstances are better supported in interest of the race and that accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good [ (Halsall, Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889, 1997) ]. In other words, despite the discrepancies in wealth among society, it is still a viable situation and should be viewed as such.
Both Spencer and Carnegie may share the same belief that human progress is inevitable and dependent on the wealth of society; they differ in the ways that it is shared. Spencer stated that with evolution, humans break into different industrial tribes and that the trade of merchandise everywhere would have the effect of specialization among the different tribes [ (Halsall, Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889, 1997) ]. In other words, free trade is how wealth would be spread among the people. Carnegie felt that because there is a balance in the wealthy being wealthy and the poor being poor, it was better to distribute wealth after death if the rich hoarded it during their lifetime [ (Halsall, Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889, 1997) ].
In a roundabout way, both Spencer and Carnegie believed that the wealth of a society was dependant on the society evolving, however, Spencer felt that the evolution involved the splitting of groups into specific groups, whereas Carnegie felt that society benefited from sharing and working together to achieve further evolution.

Works Cited
Halsall, P. (1997, August). Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html
Halsall, P. (1997). Modern history sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html
MSN Encarta. (2008). Social Darwinism. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from MSN Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579584&pn=1&s=5#s5

Cited: Halsall, P. (1997, August). Modern history sourcebook: Andrew Carnegie: The gospel of wealth, 1889. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html Halsall, P. (1997). Modern history sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html MSN Encarta. (2008). Social Darwinism. Retrieved June 9, 2008, from MSN Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579584&pn=1&s=5#s5