Trumpeting survival of the fittest works as long as one is winning
Social Darwinism
Origins of Social Darwinism
Proponents of Social Darwinism
Could Social Darwinism be Flawed?
How About Softer Versions of Social Darwinism?
Have softer version worked?
A Summary and a Suggestion
Welcome to the land of plenty. Let the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ sort out the matters in the human and societal realm. Let the best person among us win and amass the wealth and natural resources that are out there for taking. It is also ok for the best person who wins to be the master of those who lost but can still be useful for certain purposes; doing so is a win-win proposition for the winners and the losers.
And that is the inscription one reads when entering the land of Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is a socio-political theory that applies the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest, derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to human societies. This ideology suggests that human societies, like biological species during their evolutionary phase, are governed by competition, with the strongest and most capable rising to positions of power and influence, while letting the weaker ones fall behind, and if necessary, could be considered expendable.
Origins of Social Darwinism
The origins of Social Darwinism can be traced back to the late 19th century.
While Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was primarily biological, some scholars and thinkers extended these ideas to social and economic realms. One of the key figures in this intellectual migration was Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and sociologist, who coined the term “survival of the fittest.” Spencer argued that just as organisms evolve through natural selection, human societies progress through a similar process. He believed that competition and self-interest drive societal change and progress, and that government intervention should be minimal to allow these natural processes to function.
Another significant contributor to Social Darwinism was Thomas Huxley, a biologist and ardent defender of Darwin’s theories. Although Huxley had reservations about the social applications of Darwinism, his arguments indirectly supported the idea that human society could be understood through the lens of evolutionary theory.
In contemporary times, Social Darwinism evolved and manifests in various forms, often in subtle ways that are not so obvious. One of the most prominent modern forms is the belief in meritocracy, where individuals shall be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements, echoing the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest.
Proponents of Social Darwinism
In contemporary times, proponents of neoliberalism, such as economist Milton Friedman and political figures like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, have been linked to Social Darwinism’s principles through their advocacy for free markets and competition. While these individuals may not explicitly label themselves as Social Darwinists, their policies and ideologies resonate with the theory’s core ideas.
The current thinking of the Republican Party in the United States (that is also being mimicked in other countries), particularly in the context of economic and social policies, often emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and free-market principles. Many Republicans advocate for limited government intervention in both the economy and personal lives, believing that such an approach fosters innovation and self-reliance. They argue that a free-market system, where businesses and individuals operate with minimal regulatory constraints, leads to the most efficient and prosperous outcomes for society.
Recently, Project 2025 emphasized principles akin to Social Darwinism by advocating for minimal government intervention in economic and social spheres.
Is it possible that the notion of Social Darwinism may be flawed?
Could Social Darwinism be Flawed?
To see why the notion might be flawed, let us consider its counterpart in its original setting.
In nature, “survival of the fittest” operates in a relentlessly brutal manner. The notion of fittest works in the context of the environmental conditions and the goal is to increase the chance of survival and reproduction. It also focuses entirely on present environmental conditions and does not have a notion of what future may behold. The natural world also lacks the capability for consciousness and operates without any foresight or empathy.
Humans (thanks to evolution and the notion of survival of the fittest), on the other hand, now possess unique faculties such as consciousness, agency, and have the capability to empathize, perceive and plan for the future, recognize inequalities, and provide support to those in need. Human societies are also influenced by structures (laws, governments, finance) and hierarchies that nature lacks.
The proposal of blind application of “survival of the fittest” to human societies ignores these nuanced complexities and assumes that competition alone can be a viable proposition. Furthermore, it also ignores the critical role of the circumstances into which individuals are born setting the stage for what their future and future options could be.
In essence, the fundamental difference in the application of survival of the fittest lies in the fact that while nature operates without an agency, humans (thankfully) have that ability. Humans, if they choose, are also capable of creating equitable systems that balance competition with compassion.
How About Softer Versions of Social Darwinism?
There is no denying that competition does work in promoting excellence and innovation.
Starting from rudimentary self-replicating molecules, over three billion years the survival of the fittest has traced a stunning journey and has created us. But now that it has brought us here and has gifted us with remarkable capabilities, should its application continue along the same path, or could its implementation be adjusted to the reality we are in.
While traditional Social Darwinism emphasizes ruthless competition and minimal government intervention, several approaches adopt core ideas but strive for a more humane and balanced implementation. These softer versions incorporate social safety nets and opportunities for all individuals, creating a more equitable society while still encouraging innovation and competition. Some examples of these follow.
The Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft), primarily associated with post-World War II Germany, blends free-market capitalism with social policies that address inequality and provide support for the less fortunate. This approach maintains a competitive market system but ensures that all citizens have access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and social security. The goal is to combine economic efficiency with social justice, fostering an environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
Inclusive capitalism is another approach that seeks to reconcile the benefits (and as evolution has demonstrated, competition has benefits) of a free-market system with the need for fairness and inclusivity. It advocates for the idea that businesses should not only focus on profit but also consider the broader impact on society and the environment. By promoting fair wages, ethical practices, and investments in community development, inclusive capitalism aims to create a more sustainable and equitable economic system. This model encourages competition but recognizes the importance of corporate responsibility and shared prosperity.
These softer versions of Social Darwinism seek to balance the benefits of competition with the need for compassion and support. By acknowledging the complexities of human society and the inherent inequalities individuals can (and do) face, these approaches promote a more realistic and just system. They aim to create an environment where innovation and progress can flourish, while ensuring that no one is left behind.
Have softer version worked?
The answer is — Yes. There are several instances where these more compassionate approaches have shown promising results in various nations.
One notable example is Germany, where the Social Market Economy has been instrumental in ensuring both economic prosperity and social welfare. Since its inception, this model has helped Germany maintain a robust economy while providing comprehensive social benefits to its citizens. The balance between free-market principles and strong social policies has fostered a healthy environment for innovation and competition, while simultaneously reducing inequality and ensuring access to essential services.
In the Nordic countries, inclusive capitalism has been successfully implemented to create equitable societies characterized by high levels of social trust and economic stability. Nations like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have embraced policies that promote fair wages, corporate responsibility, and investments in education and healthcare. These countries have managed to achieve high standards of living and low poverty rates, demonstrating the effectiveness of inclusive capitalism in creating sustainable and inclusive economic systems.
These examples illustrate that by incorporating social policies and corporate responsibility into their economic systems, nations can create environments where both competition and compassion coexist. These approaches not only drive economic growth but also ensure that the benefits of prosperity are shared more broadly across society.
A Summary and a Suggestion
Competition is beneficial, but when left unchecked, it can be brutal and unforgiving. The irony lies in the fact that competition and the concept of survival of the fittest, operating without direction or agency, have brought us to this point. These forces have equipped us with capabilities that we can now harness to refine the very process moving forward.
Should we not seize this opportunity?
While there may not be perfect answers to tempering the concept of survival of the fittest and balancing free competition (which, due to positive feedback loops, can create runaway inequalities) with caring for those who, for various physical, cognitive, or psychological reasons, may be less adept at competition, there may be good solutions.
Given that we have the ability to foresee the future and the agency to change our current practices to set goal-oriented directions, should we not avail ourselves of that opportunity? Furthermore, should we not rely on our current understanding of how the environment we live in is evolving and how our actions might be altering its trajectory?
It would not be such a loss if we arrived in the future with a bit less progress, but with a better assurance that our future generations will be there. Wouldn’t making that choice be the better option?
I say the answer is yes, and in my mind’s eye, I can almost hear you say, “Amen.”
Ciao, and thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment