Editing Social Darwinism (section)

==Origin of the term==
The term ''Darwinism'' was coined by [[Thomas Henry Huxley]] in his March 1861 review of ''[[On the Origin of Species]];''<ref name="westminster">{{cite web|url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A32&pageseq=29|title=ART. VIII. – Darwin on the origin of Species|author-link=Thomas Henry Huxley|date=April 1860|publisher=[[Westminster Review]]|pages=541–570|quote=What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular?|author=Huxley, T.H.|access-date=19 June 2008}}</ref> by the 1870s, it was used to describe a range of concepts of evolution or development, without any specific commitment to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.<ref name="b179">{{harvnb|Bowler|2003|p=179}}</ref>

The phrase ''social Darwinism'' first appeared in Joseph Fisher's 1877 article on ''The History of Landholding in Ireland'', which was published in the ''[[Royal Historical Society|Transactions of the Royal Historical Society]]''.<ref name="oed"/> Fisher was commenting on how a system for borrowing livestock called "tenure" had led to the false impression that the early Irish had already evolved or developed [[land tenure]];<ref name="fisher77"/>
{{quotation|These arrangements did not in any way affect that which we understand by the word "tenure", that is, a man's farm, but they related solely to cattle, which we consider a [[Personal property|chattel]]. It has appeared necessary to devote some space to this subject, inasmuch as that usually acute writer Sir Henry Maine has accepted the word "tenure" in its modern interpretation and has built up a theory under which the Irish chief "developed" into a [[feudal baron]]. I can find nothing in the [[Brehon law]]s to warrant this theory of social Darwinism, and believe the further study will show that the ''[[Early Irish law#Cáin Sóerraith and Cáin Aicillne|Cáin Saerrath]]'' and the ''[[Early Irish law#Cáin Sóerraith and Cáin Aicillne|Cáin Aigillne]]'' relate solely to what we now call chattels, and did not in any way affect what we now call the [[Freehold (law)|freehold]], the possession of the land.|Joseph Fisher<ref name=fisher77>{{harvnb|Fisher|1877|pp=249–250}}</ref>}}

Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is primarily linked today with others, notably [[Herbert Spencer]], [[Thomas Malthus]], and [[Francis Galton]], the founder of eugenics. In fact, Spencer was not described as a social Darwinist until the 1930s, long after his death.{{sfn|Hodgson|2004}} The term "social Darwinism" first appeared in Europe in 1879, and journalist [[Émile Gautier]] had coined the term with reference to a health conference in Berlin 1877.<ref name="oed">{{harvnb|Fisher|1877}}, as quoted in the [[Oxford English Dictionary]]</ref> Around 1900 it was used by sociologists, some being opposed to the concept.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Ward|first=Lester F|author-link=Lester Frank Ward|year=1907|title=Social Darwinism|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=12|issue=5|pages=709–710|doi=10.1086/211544|doi-access=free}}</ref> The American historian [[Richard Hofstadter]] popularized the term in the United States in 1944. He used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed that promoted competitive strife, racism, and chauvinism. Hofstadter later also recognized (what he saw as) the influence of Darwinist and other evolutionary ideas upon those with [[Collectivism and individualism|collectivist]] views, enough to devise a term for the phenomenon, ''Darwinist collectivism''.<ref name="TCL" /> Before Hofstadter's work the use of the term "social Darwinism" in English academic journals was quite rare.<ref>{{harvnb|Hodgson|2004|pp=445–446}}</ref> In fact,

{{blockquote|...{{nbsp}}there is considerable evidence that the entire concept of "social Darwinism" as we know it today was virtually invented by Richard Hofstadter. [[Eric Foner]], in an introduction to a then-new edition of Hofstadter's book published in the early 1990s, declines to go quite that far. "Hofstadter did not invent the term Social Darwinism", Foner writes, "which originated in Europe in the 1860s and crossed the Atlantic in the early twentieth century. But before he wrote, it was used only on rare occasions; he made it a standard shorthand for a complex of late-nineteenth-century ideas, a familiar part of the lexicon of social thought."|Jeff Riggenbach<ref name=Riggenbach>Riggenbach, Jeff (2011-04-24) [https://mises.org/daily/5206/The-Real-William-Graham-Sumner The Real William Graham Sumner], [[Mises Institute]]</ref>}}

=== Usage ===
Social Darwinism has many definitions, not all of which are compatible with one another. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics'' states:<blockquote>Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics|last=McLean|first=Iain|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0199207800|location=Oxford University|page=490}}</ref></blockquote>

The term ''social Darwinism'' has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used pejoratively by its opponents.<ref name="h428"/><!--<ref>{{cite book|last=Johnson|first=D. Paul|title=Contemporary Sociological Theory|publisher=Springer|location=Berlin|year=2008|page=492|chapter=The Historical Background of Social Darwinism|quote=In the social realm the competitive struggle may be among individuals or among different groups within society, different societies, or different racial or ethnic populations.|isbn=0387765212}}</ref>--> The term draws upon the common meaning of ''[[Darwinism]]'', which includes a range of [[evolutionism|evolutionary views]], but in the late 19th century was applied more specifically to [[natural selection]] as first advanced by Darwin to explain [[speciation]] in populations of [[organism]]s. The process includes competition between individuals for limited resources, popularly but inaccurately described by the phrase "[[survival of the fittest]]", a term coined by [[sociologist]] [[Herbert Spencer]]<!--? or "[[The Gospel of Wealth]]" theory written by [[Andrew Carnegie]]-->.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-06-14 |title=Survival of the Fittest {{!}} Definition & Examples {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/survival-of-the-fittest |access-date=2024-06-19 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> Spencer published<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Spencer |first=Herbert |date=1852 |title=4"A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Human Fertility |journal=Westminster Review |volume=57 |pages=468–501}}</ref> his [[Lamarckism|Lamarckian]] evolutionary ideas about society before Darwin first published his hypothesis in 1859, and Spencer and Darwin promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported ''laissez-faire'' capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred [[Self-help|self-improvement]] which could be inherited.<ref>{{harvnb|Bowler|2003|pp=301–302}}</ref>

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a [[logical consequence]] of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology).<ref name="Paul 220">Paul, Diane B. in {{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X1InLet11j0C&pg=PA219|title=The Cambridge Companion to Darwin|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521711845|pages=219–20|quote=Like many foes of Darwinism, past and present, the American populist and creationist William Jennings Bryan thought a straight line ran from Darwin's theory ('a dogma of darkness and death') to beliefs that it is right for the strong to crowd out the weak|author=Gregory Radick}}
</ref> Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of [[appeal to nature]] and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon ought to be used as a moral guide in human society.<ref name=pinker>{{cite web|title = Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate'|url = http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/10/30/QA-Steven-Pinker-of-Blank-Slate/26021035991232/|website = [[UPI]]|access-date = 5 December 2015|date = 30 October 2002|last = Sailer|first = Steve|archive-date = 5 December 2015|url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151205074319/http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/10/30/QA-Steven-Pinker-of-Blank-Slate/26021035991232/}}</ref> While there are historical links between the popularization of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, most scholars agree that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.<ref name=":4" />

Darwin's writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.<ref>{{harvnb|Bowler|2003|pp=300–301}}</ref> Darwin's early evolutionary views and his opposition to slavery ran counter to many of the claims that social Darwinists would eventually make about the mental capabilities of the poor and [[indigenous peoples]] in the European colonies.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Adrian Desmond and |first1=James Richard Moore |title=Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution |date=2009 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |location=New York}}</ref> After publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' in 1859, one strand of Darwin's followers argued natural selection ceased to have any noticeable effect on humans once organised societies had been formed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eddy |first1=Matthew Daniel |date=2017 |title=The Politics of Cognition: Liberalism and the Evolutionary Origins of Victorian Education |journal=British Journal for the History of Science |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=677–699 |doi=10.1017/S0007087417000863 |pmid=29019300 |doi-access=free}}</ref> However, some scholars argue Darwin's view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from other theorists such as Spencer.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Claeys |first=Gregory |year=2000 |title=The 'Survival of the Fittest' and the Origins of Social Darwinism |journal=[[Journal of the History of Ideas]] |volume=61 |issue=2 |pages=223–240 |doi=10.1353/jhi.2000.0014 |s2cid=146267804}}</ref>

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of [[evolution]] by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th-century clergyman [[Thomas Malthus]], and Darwin's cousin [[Francis Galton]] who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.{{fact|date=January 2024}}

The massive expansion in [[History of colonialism|Western colonialism]] during the [[New Imperialism]] era fitted in with the broader notion of social Darwinism used from the 1870s onwards to account for the phenomenon of "the Anglo-Saxon and Latin overflowing his boundaries", as phrased by the late-Victorian sociologist [[Benjamin Kidd]] in ''Social Evolution'', published in 1894.<ref>[[Benjamin Kidd]], ''Social Evolution'', Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007, 400 pages, {{ISBN|978-0548805237}}, p. 47.</ref> The concept also proved useful to justify what was seen by some as the inevitable "disappearance" of "the weaker races{{nbsp}}... before the stronger" not so much "through the effects of{{nbsp}}... our vices upon them" as "what may be called the virtues of our civilisation." [[Winston Churchill]], a political proponent of eugenics, maintained that if fewer "feebleminded" individuals were born, less crime would take place.<ref>King, D. (1999). ''In the name of liberalism: illiberal social policy in Britain and the United States'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press).</ref>