Beck, Naomi (2012) : Social Darwinism, Papers on Economics and Evolution, No. 1215, Max-Planck-Inst. für Ökonomik, Jena 

This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/88263

Huxley reiterated this conclusion with greater conviction in a famous lecture on evolution and ethics: “Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” According to Huxley, in the course of our development, the idea of justice underwent a gradual sublimation from punishment and reward according to acts, to punishment and reward according to desert. As a result, the conscience of humans began to revolt against the moral indifference of nature. Huxley denounced “fanatical individualism” for misunderstanding the nonmoral character of natural evolution and deplored the fallacy that arose from the “unfortunate ambiguity” of the phrase “the survival of the fittest”; whereby “fittest” received the connotation of “best” or “good” in a moral sense. He then continued to claim that laws and moral precepts should be directed to the end of curbing nature and to reminding the individual of his or her duty to the community in making peaceful and protected existence possible. Social organization should aim “not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive” (Ruse 2009, pp. 80-83). Huxley was undoubtedly one of the most critical voices against attempts to draw a connection between biological and cultural evolution. He saw nature as a formidable power, red in tooth and claw, yet believed, somewhat contradictorily, that humans’ intelligence would provide enough stamina to counter this cosmic force. In the meantime, an alternative understanding of the nature of the evolutionary process emerged, carrying with it a very different message. It is most commonly associated with the view of Russian zoologist and anarchist Peter Kropotkin, though he was by no means the only one, or even the first, to enounce it. Kropotkin argued that mutual aid and support were as much a law of nature as the struggle for existence. He distinguished between two different aspects of the struggle for existence: the exterior war of the species against the harsh environment and other species, and the intraspecies war for means of subsistence. The latter, Kropotkin claimed, was often greatly exaggerated. He brought forth as #1215 12 evidence his own observations made in Siberia of many adaptations for struggling in common against the adverse circumstances of the climate or against various enemies. Kropotkin ([1902] 2008, pp. 5, 12, 137) concluded that the animals which acquired habits of mutual aid were “undoubtedly the fittest” and the most highly developed. These findings applied also to human beings, whose history Kropotkin reviewed, asserting “the ethical progress of our race, viewed in its broad lines, appears as a gradual extension of the mutual aid principles from the tribe to always larger and larger agglomerations.” Huxley’s gladiatorial view was simply a “very incorrect representation of the facts of Nature.” Faced with the grim reality of the 1914 hostilities, Kropotkin wrote a preface to a reprint of Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution in which he condemned the use of the struggle for existence as an explanation for the war horrors. Though clearly the evidence for his theory was at this point far from convincing, Kropotkin did not lose faith. This might prompt us to ask whether some of the other viewpoints surveyed above relied on stronger foundations, and to ponder the essence of social Darwinism. Our survey shows that under the auspices of the theory of evolution the most disparate conceptions of progress, and diametrically opposed political positions, were heralded. Today there is still great disagreement as to how evolutionary principles apply to the human domain and what practical conclusions we can gain from understanding them. We know more about biology, and we have better tools to study the particularities of our species. Yet Darwin’s prediction seems to hold: “light will be thrown,” and we have still much to learn from further research into the history, psychology, and social behaviour of our species. Evolution is too complex a theory to yield quick or simple answers, and this complexity is at the core of many partial interpretations and abuses of it. It is also what makes the theory of evolution so fascinating: we know that it must provide invaluable insights if only for the reason that we are part of the living world.