- Introduction to the Gilded Age
- The Gilded Age and the Second Industrial Revolution
- What was the Gilded Age?
- Social Darwinism in the Gilded Age
- Misunderstanding evolution: a biologist's perspective on Social Darwinism
- Misunderstanding evolution: a historian's perspective on Social Darwinism
- America moves to the city
- Development of the middle class
- Politics in the Gilded Age
- Gilded Age politics: patronage
- Laissez-faire policies in the Gilded Age
- The Knights of Labor
- Labor battles in the Gilded Age
- The Populists
- Immigration and migration in the Gilded Age
- Continuity and change in the Gilded Age
- The Gilded Age
The video discusses the misuse of Darwin's theory of natural selection by Social Darwinists. It highlights how they wrongly applied biological concepts to social issues, leading to harmful ideologies like eugenics. The video emphasizes that all humans have evolved equally and that cultural differences don't indicate biological inferiority.
Want to join the conversation?
- How did Darwin react when people started misinterpreting Social Darwinism as something that applied to wealth or race issues?(6 votes)
- Darwin did not view "social Darwinism" as a misinterpretation. In fact, he believed in it wholeheartedly.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man(14 votes)
- At6:59, Kim uses the term "white supremacy." Do not all racial groups include adherents of racial supremacy for that particular group?(3 votes)
- Not necessarily all racial groups, but if you're (or were, I see this is quite a late response) asking about other accounts of perceived racial supremacy in other races, then yes. To get a few quick examples (just from a Wikipedia page on "Supremacism") There was a form of perceived racial supremacy in Japan ("During the early 20th century until the end of World War II, known as the pre-1945 Shōwa era, in Japan, the propaganda of the Empire of Japan used the old concept of hakko ichiu to support the idea that the Yamato were a superior race, destined to rule Asia and the Pacific. Many documents, such as Kokutai no Hongi, Shinmin no Michi, and An Investigation of Global Policy with the Yamato Race as Nucleus, discussed this concept of Japanese supremacy." and another example "In Africa, black Southern Sudanese allege that they are subjected to a racist form of Arab supremacy, which they equate with the historic white supremacism of South African apartheid. The alleged genocide in the ongoing War in Darfur has been described as an example of Arab racism". I assume, after 2 years, you're no longer interested in an answer, but I hope this is helpful to others. :)(6 votes)
- How do we know what programs DNA to allow adaptations and variations? Doesn't a program need a programmer?(3 votes)
- So, Spencer thought that how you "evolved" would impact your social class?(3 votes)
- yes that is right spencer thought that others say social Darwinism was fine but it was and is not acceptable(1 vote)
- But didn't Darwin himself introduce that theory of race? In his book "The Descent of Man" he considered his race (white) further advanced than the "lower organisms" (referring to the pygmies), also calling different races "savage" and "degraded".(3 votes)
- Darwin did not introduce the theory of race. The artificial division of humans into races existed long before Darwin and his theory of natural selection.
My understanding of Darwin is that he viewed certain social groups (people who thought like him: affluent Europeans) as more advance than others, not races. For example, he believed that people who were educated in a similar way to him were more advanced. Education is not inherited and Darwin viewed education as something that the individual could do and teach to others, not inherit.(2 votes)
- survival to the fittest does apply to it because naturual selection and for all humans its used more for the term genetic adaptability(0 votes)
- As the vast majority of the scientific community informs us, "survival of the fittest" is not a term from Darwin, but rather a term from a sociologist who misapplied it in an attempt to comment on societal aspects of human beings.(3 votes)
- Why would people apply this to other humans and not keep it to nature?(2 votes)
- These people believed that humans were an equal part of nature instead of its sentient caretakers.(0 votes)
- Why did they think that if you picked up a trait in your live the next generation would inherit it?(0 votes)
- Because people could see certain patterns applied to certain traits, one of those patterns was that certain traits are found repeatedly in the same biological families but not in others. Seeing a pattern correlates to a particular biological family could mean that the trait was inherited or is it learned and taught to the next generation (nurture vs nature).
A trait can be "picked up" in your life AND the next generation would inherit it, if and only if, that trait is a new mutation that is beneficial to survival/reproduction (mutation in somatic cells) AND the mutation is in the gametes, not just the somatic cells. However it is nearly impossible for a new mutation that leads to a new trait to occur in both the somatic and gametes cells of the same organism. The mutation which leads to a new trait exists in the population before the trait becomes beneficial to survival/reproduction.
Evolution is complicated to understand. Social Darwinists did not understand the science. Evolution is slow process that can be hard to observe within a human lifetime. Most people back then did not know enough science to question the elite, who where often more educated in new ideas and technologies.(2 votes)
- [Voiceover] So Emily and I have been talking about how natural selection, Darwin's theory of evolution, has differed from some of the ways that people have interpreted evolution over time, and specifically, was interested in this group known as the Social Darwinists, who were mostly a group of sociologists and other sort of public policy-makers who were trying to apply Darwin's theories to how the world should be ordered, and how races should relate to each other, classes should relate to each other, basically how this idea of evolution could be used to explain the world around them in a social way. So, Emily, you were explaining to me how natural selection actually works. - [Voiceover] So just as like a quick recap on whether that natural selection works in biological populations, is that there's some variation in the population that's heritable, meaning that it's in the organism's genes and it can be passed on to offspring, and if that variation affects how well the organism can survive and reproduce. So, if it affects how many offspring it's able to leave behind in the next generation, then it's possible for certain traits that are well-suited to the organism's immediate environment to become more and more common in the population over generations. So that's kind of the idea of natural selection in a nutshell. - [Voiceover] And we also talked about the fact that there's no such thing as one race or one organism being more evolved than another organism because we've all been evolving this whole time. So what I'd like to do now is just to talk about some of the ways that the sociologists of this time kind of mis-applied Darwin's theories, and just get your opinions on how what they were saying actually relates with how Biology really works. So, Herbert Spencer was a sociologist from England. He's actually the person who coined the term "survival of the fittest", which I think is interesting. So it wasn't Darwin who coined this term but rather, Spencer. And I think what was animating people like Spencer and other Social Darwinists in this time was just to say, "Why are some people "in a better social position than others?" So, why are some people poor versus rich, why do African-Americans or people from colonized nations have a worse situation in the world than people in civilized nations, or "civilized," kind of in air quotes, from that time period? And what Spencer said was, "Oh, this must be Darwinism." Right, it must be that people who are wealthy are better adapted to their environment; they're more evolved than people who are poor. So I think this idea of difference between the classes was one of the first animations behind the idea of Social Darwinism. So, is there any way that that actually relates to how Biology explains Darwinism? - [Voiceover] I mean, I think that that's really a case of an idea from Biology being not very accurately applied to society. You know, I think that there is probably a strong motivation for someone in Spencer's position to want to explain things in that way because that would justify inaction on his part and sort of say that this is acceptable because it's "natural". And, you know, I think that it's really not a very scientific or even an investigative perspective. I think that it was sort of an effort to fit something, sort of a round peg in a square hole, so to speak. - [Voiceover] Yeah, it's interesting. As I've been learning more about this, I've noticed that people in general seem to take up one of these explanations for like how the universe works, and then try to apply it to everything, even if it might not necessarily apply. So I think your word "inaction" here is really accurate because one of the things that Spencer is just wondering about is like, "Should the government do something "for people who are poor, "for people who are in a bad position?" And he basically says, "No," 'cause his idea is that if the government helps them, then you're interfering with this survival of the fittest, and that those sorts of people should naturally be bred out of the populace to make our other race more evolved. So is there any truth into this idea that you could make the human race more evolved by breeding out certain parts of it? - [Voiceover] My tendency would be to say that any program designed to reduce variation in a biological population is probably not going to be beneficial for that population. So that's kind of a broad statement but if you look at factors that make endangered species endangered, one of the big ones is that they have very low genetic variation in their gene pool. And that means that harmful gene versions are more likely to come together in the same individuals, so it's more likely for there to be genetic defects or genetic disorders. In general, a high level of variation is an indicator of a healthy population and a low level of variation, or any population where you have intensive inbreeding of similar individuals, that's gonna be a population that's probably less healthy. - [Voiceover] Interesting, because there's this very popular movement in the United States and then moving on to places like Germany, where we see this very strongly in the Holocaust of eugenics, right? The idea that you can make your race and your country more evolved, more fit, this survival of the fittest, by breeding out certain things that are termed "undesirable." - [Voiceover] I mean, in terms of long-term population survival from a biological standpoint, I don't see how that could be beneficial. I mean, you never know what's down the road. You never know if there's a new infectious disease that's gonna show up and who's gonna be resistant to it. Somebody who has genetic variation, that doesn't matter right now, but you don't know who that's gonna be. So it's that sort of general principle applies that the reason variation is great, is it prepares a population to deal with an uncertain future. - [Voiceover] This is so interesting to me because I think you see this a lot in history, because people in some ways here, there are very much confusing culture for Biology, because in many cases, they're saying that traits that they see as culturally undesirable, you know, looking through the eyes of white supremacy and sort of this racial and cultural supremacy of people from England, from the United States, from Western Europe, you know, they're looking around them and they see people who are different from them, and they ascribe that to a kind of biological inferiority when, in fact, it's just a cultural difference. - [Voiceover] I think that that's a very good way to state it; I think that there's just a big conflation here of cultural and biological, and applying ideas that might be great for one in a place where they're not actually as well-suited. - [Voiceover] Yeah, and I think that one thing that also interests me about this is the way that things like eugenics are used as justifications, and using Darwinism as a justification for not helping certain people, for saying, "Oh, you're less evolved; "you belong at the bottom of the social scale, "and if I help you, then I'm not helping us "evolve as a race," with also kind of a flip-side of saying, "Oh, we must help certain cultures "become more civilized." And you see that a lot in the era of colonialism, which is also big in the Gilded Age. It's kind of becoming a world event in the Gilded Age as England begins to take colonies in India, and Africa, and other nations do the same. One of the justifications that they're giving is "These people are less civilized than us. "They're less evolved than us, "and so we have to help them. "It's the white man's burden," a phrase by Rudyard Kipling, to help these other races evolve. - [Voiceover] Yeah, that's a very definite conflation of biological and social, I mean, teaching people to behave in a different way does not affect their biology. That was actually one of Spencer's misconceptions. He was an adherent of Lamarckian evolution which would suggest that if you gain a trait during your lifetime, you will biologically and genetically pass it on to your offspring and you may pass it on to your offspring by teaching them something, but genetic traits that are acquired during your life, you don't pass those on. You actually don't generally inherit-- - [Voiceover] They are acquired genetic traits. - [Voiceover] Yeah, exactly. So I think that that definitely reflects the confusion in terms of what biological evolution is and how it works mechanistically. - [Voiceover] I think if there's anything for us to take away from this, it's that one, there's no such thing as one person being more evolved than another person, or one race being more evolved than another race. I think there's actually not much of a biological basis for the concept of race, to start with, since human beings are biologically 99.9% the same. - [Voiceover] Yeah, I mean, from everything that I've seen, race is really something that people have come up with in an effort to categorize the world around them, but it's not actually reflected very meaningfully in people's genetics. You know, there are certain very superficial physical traits that are inherited, that we define as "race", but if you actually look at the genomes of the people who belong to a particular racial group, that is socially defined, there's a huge amount of variation there, and there's much more variation within what we would consider a race, than there are differences that separate races. Basically, it's a pretty arbitrary way to categorize people.