Observations – Online Discussions on Social Darwinism and Reform Darwinism.

I want to clarify the concepts of these two theories and speak to how these were applied during the historical period of the 1890s. A fair number of you demonstrated that you understood the two concepts as well as the ideas expressed by the authors of the primary sources. But many did not fully grasp the definitions, failed to distinguish between the ideas of social Darwinists and Andrew Carnegie, and made judgments about the value of these two concepts based on today’s society rather than the historical time.

Since you will be writing on this topic for the exam essay, I think it useful to make clear the following:

Social Darwinism: Based on Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. Sumner states that if the weaker members in society get help, society will become weaker. He is entirely against any type of intervention by private entities and government intervention and regulation. Many in the discussion used Herbert Spencer’s ideas rather than Sumner’s. While it is true that Spencer, an Englishman, was among the first to apply Darwin’s theory to society, William G. Sumner was the one that applied these ideas to the issues facing the United States in the late 19^th century.

Andrew Carnegie: Many of you cited Carnegie as a leader or promoter of Social Darwinism. This is not accurate. Carnegie promoted the Gospel of Wealth. As stated in the textbook, Carnegie argues that the wealthy have the social responsibility to use some of their wealth to help the “worthy poor.” His emphasis is on charity or philanthropy, rather than government intervention.

Edward Bellamy: He is a Reform Darwinist. His parable of the coach refers to the inequalities in American society in the 1890s, most especially when caused by the large swings in the business cycle. Though his point of view is not explicit in the parable, the reading includes a footnote that clarifies his point of view.

The issue of Reform Darwinism in the late 19^th century: It is a theory that emphasizes Darwin’s theory of adaptation: that life forms (Darwin) need to adapt to a changing environment. Jane Addams, Bellamy and other reform Darwinists sought to find ways to change the living environments of recently arrived immigrants and others living in poverty. Their approaches included support from private groups such as Hull House and government regulation and intervention such as building codes that assure safe housing, curbs on the excess profits of monopolies, etc.

Many in the discussion equated Reform Darwinism to welfare programs and policies in effect today. No doubt social policies to assist the poor include some type of welfare or support systems. But the more relevant connection today is the use of local, state and national government programs that foster support systems for those who suffer discrimination need a better education, etc. For example, student loans and book vouchers are an application of Reform Darwinism. This financial assistance gives students the capacity to go to college --- but, once there, it is their responsibility to be successful. In the reading by Jane Addams, she extends help to the woman in the county facility because that facility did not give adequate care. She seeks to change the environment of the elderly woman to one that is healthy and caring.

So, when thinking about applications of Reform Darwinism then or now, it is not a system of endless handouts for those who want to exploit the system. Rather it is a concept based on the belief that all citizens in America are entitled to necessary support systems and laws that give them the means to find work, get an education, have health care, etc.

Social / Reform Darwinism – Foreign Policy

Only a few of you participated in this discussion. However, I want to clarify some points because the issue of American foreign policy will continue to be a theme in this class.

With regard to the evolution of foreign policy in the late 19^th century, the leaders of industrialized nations (U.S., England, France, Germany, etc.) believed that their specific nation had a superior political, economic, and social system than all others --- their nation represented a survival of the fittest. In the 1890s, political leaders and commentators advanced a policy of American expansion in the Pacific Rim because they believed that America’s greatness must include expanding its influence beyond its geographical borders. This point is made by Strong, Beveridge, and McKinley regarding the Philippine Islands. At the same time, however, each of these men not only speaks to the economic and strategic value of the Philippines, but also states that American should infuse its democratic principles and its protestant Christianity into the culture of the Filipinos. The assumption is that the culture of these peoples was inferior to ours. At the end of the Spanish American War, the Filipino people wanted their independence; instead the United States took control

Regarding how each of these three men reflects social and reform Darwinism: Each believed that the United States had a superior culture (Social Darwinism). But they also state that American should “reform” the Filipino people by converting them to Christianity and introducing a modern economic market system (Reform Darwinism).

What does this all mean? One can argue effectively that each of these men was social Darwinists, e.g. they were primarily interested in extending the reach of American power. One could also argue that they were Reform Darwinists because they wanted to “change the environment” for the Filipino people, even though this was not their choice. Or one can argue that each of these men (Strong, Beveridge and McKinley) combined Social and Reform Darwinism.