by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyDarwinism is correct. Social Darwinism is utter bunkum. Not surprisingly, the American right-wing despises Darwinism but, inexplicably, embraces Social Darwinism with messianic ferver.
Social Darwinism is at the very root of an impending economic collapse but it won't be the best or brightest who emerge unscathed on the other side! Social Darwinism is the survival of the most ruthless. Real Darwinism is reviled because it disproves the lies the rich tell themselves to help them sleep at night.
The right wing benefits when issues are obscured and when enough dust is kicked up by "intelligent design" to obscure the real issues and various strawmen to boot.
Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism". Worse, it attributes to Darwin positions Darwin never took. The term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter traces the phrase to 19th Century American robber barons, rail road men making fortunes connecting one coast with another.
Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.
These were most certainly the "robber barons" who wished to be photographed wearing laurel wreaths, pretending to be emperors. Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons. Few of them evinced the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare --'The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven". By contrast ...
[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.
—Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire CapitalismA fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "cold douche". One wonders: who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who decides who gets 'douched'? Recently, who decided that New Orleans would be left to its fate and the goons of Blackwater?
Currently, the nation faces economic calamity. However fallaciously, you can be sure that the right wing will not only benefit from the misfortunes of millions, they will try to figure out a way to blame them. It's the right wing way.
Spencer believed that because society was evolving, government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. It didn't matter to Spencer that government is but a function, indeed, a creation of society and responsible to it. Seen in that light, efforts by privilege to blame the poor for their own rapacious and often dishonest or incompetent behaviors are absurd. Nevertheless, American capitalism remains greatly influenced by Spencer. The 'model' is still found in textbooks for Economics 101. It describes an ideal of American capitalism --“rational man” making rational decisions in a free and --presumably --rational market. But, in practice, economic decisions may or may not be rational and the free market exists only hypothetically.
The market has been anything but rational and often manipulated by those who have the power to do so. Enron, before its collapse, is just one prominent example. Because the 'theories' of Spencer and, earlier, Adam Smith, often stress the 'practical', it is forgotten that Spencer and Smith were, themselves, 'theorists'. Every model we make of the world of sense experience is 'theoretical' by definition. The word "theory" is either misunderstood by the right wing or deliberately perverted for the propaganda value.
The word 'theory' is wrongly used as a pejorative. The right wing is inconsistent. 'Theories' from Spencer and, more recently, Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer are conveniently embraced while 'theories' from everyone else are called 'mere theory'. Last time I checked, 'right wing theories' were still 'theories' though most often and in reality they are simply frauds, lies, scams and 'white collar heists'.
Having waged war on the word "theory", the right wing likes to couple it with another word similarly victimized by right wing propaganda. That word is "conspiracy" --a perfectly good word, in fact, a legal term about which there is a venerable body of case law, thousands of SCOTUS decisions and some 400 years of common law. Given techniques perfected by Herr Goebbels for Adolph Hitler, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" is lethal. Nevertheless, the loss of these words to an adult vocabulary cripples the thought process itself, indeed, intellectual endeavor of any sort.
It must be noted that every great scientist was or is a theorist. Einstein was a "theorist" and so was Newton. Too much is made of 'right' and 'wrong'. It is a mistake to conclude, for example, that Einstein 'replaced' Newton. In fact, Einstein rests upon Newton's shoulders. Einstein is Newton seen from another angle. Einstein may be thought of as the hypothesis that Newton himself refused to make. [See: The Man Who Changed the Universe] Einstein does not refute Newton, he enlarges upon both Newton and Galileo. Galileo's equations describing the acceleration of falling bodies anticipates the very curvature of space-time.
Einstein has been confirmed no more times than Darwin; Newton is close enough for mundane applications or "government work" and Einstein will one day help us navigate the galaxy. Significantly, neither "theory" has been challenged in court —though both theories may very well be replaced one day by a "theory of everything", a TOE. Only theories not liked by the right wing wind up in court, an absurd place to settle questions of science in any case. Law courts are inadequate to decide questions better resolved by observation and experiment, not rhetoric, motion, case law. See: Darrow, Darwin & Dayton, the video at the end of this article.
There is a political agenda and a constituency behind the campaign of attacks on Darwinism. This constituency supports Intelligent Design for the same reasons the great rail road robber barons found support in the work of Herbert Spencer. The continued economic superiority of an entire class depends upon the widespread public acceptance of religious and/or ideological views which justify the existence of 'superior status'. Hitler, likewise, found in pseudo-science and mythology much justification for his anti-semitic crusades, his campaign of genocides, his wars of naked aggression.
Theories are often never of a final form —nor should they be! Unlike ideology, real science is self-correcting as new facts emerge from research. Darwin's theories were not only confirmed by Mendel, they accommodated Mendel which, in turn, strengthened Darwin. The science of genetics and the discovery of "mutations" confirm Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt. Every cowboy knows the truth of Darwin if he's never heard of him: "Never kill a slow roach; you just improve the breed!" As succinct a description of natural selection as I've ever heard. Likewise, every farmer who has bred for specific traits knows the truth of Darwin.
Future discoveries, like those of Mendel, may modify our views of Darwin, but will not discount them. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is confirmed in many ways, notably at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
Light, indeed, bends around stars and other 'gravity lenses', time slows at near light speeds, space-time is a four dimensional continuum. More to the point, no one has ever sued because Einstein's theories were at odds with a particular dogma or a political agenda. The right wing's disingenuous position is analogous to that of the Pope who forced Galileo to recant. I was critical of Ron Paul because his economic thinking was stuck in 19th Century mud. The "greater" right wing, however, is stuck in the 17th.
It is certain that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design"! Theories explain "facts" but facts can often confirm good theories, Over the years facts have tended to confirm both Darwin and Einstein.
Doggerel is beyond confirmation of any kind. A.J.Ayer defined 'meaning' itself as that property of a 'sentence' that makes it subject to empirical confirmation. The theoretical core of ID is not meaningful and most certainly not of a type that would have been recognized by the philosophers upon whom Western Civilization is based.
Intelligent design is of a religious nature and people have a right to believe it. Treating Intelligent design as science is dishonest. As science, ID raises more questions than it explains. Most obviously: who designed the designer? ID assumes a designer to 'explain' creation but cites 'creation' to prove the existence of a designer. This is the classic circulus en probando fallacy.
People are free to believe fallacies, but they must not be free to impose them upon other people —especially at tax payer expense! A fact, for example, is the equation describing the acceleration of falling objects; examples of theory are both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view of "gravitation" —seen differently by both. The entire science of genetics confirms Darwin who, interestingly, did not have the benefit of Mendel's research when he wrote Origin of the Species and the The Descent of Man. It was Mendel's research that described the very mechanism by which Darwin’s “traits” are passed on to succeeding generations. Accurate predictions are, in themselves, evidence in support of theories. [See: Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley]
Critics of Darwin have said that no one has yet produced an entirely new specie by selection. But they have indeed done just that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Related to ancient grasses, wheat is clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection". Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass. But it didn't and isn't.
Social Darwinism has harmed mankind. It rationalizes and justifies the perpetual and deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society. The GOP will support this as a matter of policy so long as someone like Ronald Reagan can, nevertheless, make them "feel good about themselves". It is bad enough that this callous disregard for human life is fallaciously and insidiously associated with Darwin. That it is also a bald-face lie, a misstatement of Darwin, is unconscionable. We have thus reduced the philosophical basis for the American right wing to a single line from one of the world's great writers, Charles Dickens, whose character, Scrooge, epitomizes the American right wing:
"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."
—Scrooge, A Christmas Carol
10 comments:
I don't think http://march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com/ was the "Social Darwinism" the Reich Wing had in mind. Tsk.
Got another trinket for you !
http://www.westga.edu/~psydept/dodson-postapocalyptic.html
Thanks for the links, opit. I am enjoying, especially, the opus about post-apocalyptic films. The idea is almost "Jungian"; we are perhaps born with this idea. Of those mentioned or referenced, Waterworld is my least favorite only because I have this aversion to being surrounded by nothing but water.
"Unlike ideology, real science is always self-correcting as new facts emerge from research" - Len Hart
great post Len...
Although I do not think science per say will protect us from human greed, I had certainly felt that the liberal movements of the last century which seemed to trend towards integration of science, law and humanitarianism were to be the prevalent forces of the new (21st) century. The "neo-con" Bushist movement proved how fast things may change (although the Reagan years should have been an eye opener in their own right) , I also think the "neo-liberal" concept was a pure cop out (Clinton years) which also helped set the stage for these current abusers of power.
I believe you are correct in placing most conservatism in the realm of main stream 16th -17th century thinking, as they continue to rationalize and modify that world view through junk science, political movement and class warfare. From the beginning, American expansionism parroted many of the corrupt regressive world views of the (for the most part) defunct once elite ruling class of European societies, which have/had dominated the global economies for the past 3-4 centuries, typically through the use of force. We just never were really all that much different from the root stock.
benmerc
benmerc sez...
Although I do not think science per say will protect us from human greed, I had certainly felt that the liberal movements of the last century which seemed to trend towards integration of science, law and humanitarianism were to be the prevalent forces of the new (21st) century.
It's not comforting to think how far we might have come, had we not gotten sidetracked. A collary of logical positivism is that science cannot make meaningful 'ought' statements. See: Language, Truth and Logica by A.J. Ayer. Bronowski, himself a 'positivist' is positivism's best critic because he save positivism from itself. The pursuit of science is, according to Bronowski ['Science and Human Values'] is, itself, an ethic.
From the beginning, American expansionism parroted many of the corrupt regressive world views of the (for the most part) defunct once elite ruling class of European societies, which have/had dominated the global economies for the past 3-4 centuries, typically through the use of force. We just never were really all that much different from the root stock.
Sometimes I think we have not yet caught up with Ancient Greece. We often think of the Middle Ages as a 'Dark Age'. I see a 'Dark Age' following Rome's conquest of Greece. We are still in it.
Sometimes I think we have not yet caught up with Ancient Greece.-LH
Interesting view, certainly a very arguable position to have. I do agree there is not much difference, if any between the middle ages and the dark ages, and certainly much was lost when the dominate culture turned from sciences and philosophy to road building and super expansionist militarism. But, don't forget that Christianity was the last nail in Greek philosophical culture, once the Greek church established it's power, (although, some unification occurred overtime) all opposing thought was suppressed, as typical with any oppressive/regressive belief system no matter the origin; Pagan, Christian, Islamic or Hebrew etc. et el... (Tom Paine, age of Reason). Also, already into Roman rule, there was still much lost in the great fire of Alexandria's library, where most of the worlds advanced knowledge was stored in Greek texts, yet to be visited and in many cases no other copies existed...all of this seemed to contribute to catastrophic civil decline. Another well known, but ignored fact by many in todays western culture (typically American), is that Islam, which was many centuries younger then Christianity, achieved high culture ( had open trade, allowed other religious, and or world views to co-exist, had advanced mathematical and natural sciences, etc.) in the 12th-13th century (much sooner then the Christian counter part) and in fact helped kick start the western renaissance during the 14th-15th centuries, despite (I say) the "Church" (they were mum once the wealth was conceived by the developing merchant classes...as long as they got their cut).
But of course there have been many great minds, brave individuals and or movements over the years throughout the globe that have opened and expanded the human dialog and condition with their progressive foresight and efforts. So, I will try to remain a positivist, in that there really is no other rational choice. Also, AJ Ayer readable by a lay person? I am not so scholarly adept in the technical aspects of philosophy.
benmerc
benmerc, what a great post, an article in its own right. As you may have gathered, I am no admirer of Rome, despite Poe's immortal line about "...the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome." This seems to be the image our culture embraced. In fact, the empire at its height was a 'Christian Empire'. Onward Christian Soldiers!!
You point out the fact that "Christianity was the last nail in Greek philosophical culture ..." By the time Suetonious Paulinus defeated the warrior Queen Boudicca somewhere north of present day London (Londinium, 61 AD), Christians were the dominant 'cult' back in Rome. About three years later, Christians would be blamed by some for the great fire. Nero may have been unfairly accused by Christians. Certainly, Nero did not 'fiddle' while Rome burned, and, after a slow start, personally supervised efforts to bring the fire under control. I can't imagine him doing that had he ordered or caused the fire.
Nero certainly got bad press --Tacitus and Seutonius. There may be a reason for that. Rome, like the US today, was an empire and empire is a racket. Nero made powerful enemies early when he proposed major troop withdrawals --primarily from Briton. The 'NEOCONS' of the day were having none of that.
It's not hard to imagine Christianity following Rome into conquered territories, laying waste to indigenous cultures. A great loss being, as you point out, Greek culture. Certainly, for Greece, this was the onset of the dark ages. Seen in this light, the 'dark ages' did not wait for the fall of Rome; rather, the 'dark age' was Rome at the height of its Christian power.
While a student, I concluded that Rome never really fell; rather, the military apparatus fell away because it could not be sustained. Valens, after all, fought 'barbarians' with 'barbarians' of his own, most certainly 'converted' barbarians. The Roman Empire still exists. It is called the Roman Catholic Church.
AJ Ayer readable by a lay person?
Neither Ayer nor Russel's technical works (Principia Mathmatica et al) are readable. Perhaps not at all. I had some good profs and some encouragement. Bronowski, on the other hand, is a joy to read. He slices through all of Ayer and, instead of discrediting Ayer's 'Verifibility Criterion of meaning', he builds upon his critique of it, an ethic that Ayer might have discounted. And --not surprisingly --it is but a form of existentialism.
"Bronowski, on the other hand, is a joy to read"
Len, what Bronowski writes do you recommend? I need to wrap my mind around something positive these days, so a recommendation would be appreciated.
Also, thanks for the complement, but as I say, the knack of perspective regarding American, or world history and the deeply nuanced insight of the American psyche found in most of your posts, certainly sets the stage for the follow up comments, always something interesting to read at the Cowboy.
benmerc
benmerc, that's an easy one. I still have my old, well-thumbed paperback copy that I read in high school: Science and Human Values. And, as a treat to one's self, if you can find a DVD of his class documentary series, The Ascent of Man, grab it. Or, failing that, get a copy of the book. It is still in print, I am sure.
At the end of his pithy critique of Ayer (whom I still admire), Bronowski springs this gem: "Behave in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so". He states that the 'discipline' of science is premised upon that idea. I wish it would catch on. Bronowski writes as convincingly of the creative process as he does of the scientific method. It is a profound fusion.
always something interesting to read at the Cowboy.
That is high praise, indeed, benmerc, from one who has never failed to challenge and inform this forum. Have always appreciated and respected your writings and thoughts. Would hate to think about what this message board would be without them. My thanks.
Len,
Thanks for the link, I will make use of it.
benmerc
Post a Comment