My Photo

Categories

Roll Call

Become a Fan

« Sorry, there's just no good on it. | Main | Walking and talking with Louie and Liz »

Monday, 30 July 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2df453ef017743cb4c50970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Only, there's no such thing as Social Darwinism.:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JPool

The Impressionists didn't call themselves Impressionists either.

Your argument, it seems to me, is a worthwhile point in terms of intellectual history and the history of science, but you need to clarify it. Was there a body of thought, significant if not dominant, during the gilded age and progressive era which was based around the proposition that naked competition would produce the fittest classes of persons, who would then obtain political, cultural and economic power? In other words, is it truly a bogey man, as you argue, or a real phenomenon, identified by a misnomer perhaps and in need of refinement and disambiguation, as the wiki-kids say, but an actual and significant phenomenon none the less. It seems to me more of the latter. I'm no Americanist or Intellectual Historian, but the portion of the material I know best, related to the devolpment of Scientific Racism, would suggest to me that there was in fact a broad current of evolutionary thought applied to the social realm which, in fact, shaped both the terms of political debate and the direction of political policy.

In which case, I think what you want to argue is that Social Darwinism wasn't, strictly speaking, Darwinian, not that it didn't exist.

The comments to this entry are closed.