Custom essays, dissertations, coursework & essay help from the UK's original custom essay writing services provider
Free Essays - Sociology Essays
Discuss critically AT LEAST TWO Social Darwinist authors who took opposing positions on the relationship between the sexes.
Social Darwinism can be argued to have had a pervasive if varied influence on the development of the social sciences, more often than not it needs to be acknowledged of a negative nature. This is particularly true of conterminous developments utilising evolutionary theory such as Eugenics which led to the sterilisation of thousands of 'evolutionary failures' in the US and elsewhere and their ultimate extermination in Nazi Germany, (Lynn, 2001). What is true of Social Darwinism is doubly so of Darwinism itself with the constructs of Darwinian thought to be found for example in the writings of Marx. More generally and broadly society itself is entwined and suffused with Darwinian and evolutionary inspired mindsets, (Dickens, 2000). This is never more so the case than currently with the emergence and dominance of a new paradigm inspired by revolutions in genetic science, (Kerr and Shakespeare, 2002).
Logically it must be assumed that in order to understand Social Darwinism it is necessary to understand Darwinian thought and to do this the context and cultural specifics which engendered and encapsulated Darwin's work must similarly grasped, (Hawkins, 1997). In this sense although Darwin's theory is often held up as the quintessential scientific theory, the perfect rationalist answer as to the questions of humanity's existence and hence also for many the answer to the universe's existence it is not the case that Darwin was uninfluenced by the context and characteristics of the society which he inhabited, (Bannister, 1979) . If anything Darwin's work is suffused with the societal values of which he was a product of and this is even truer of Social Darwinism which readily applies cultural values to societal analysis based upon evolutionary theory.
The Origins of the Thesis
Although Darwin is credited with the formulation of evolutionary theory this is a case of misattribution. Evolutionary theories were expounded prior to Darwin and indeed Darwin's contemporary Alfred Wallace came up with a similar hypothesis but was beaten to publication by Darwin. Darwin's initial reluctance to publish his work displayed an acute awareness of the levels of controversy which the publication of his work would cause, (Burkhardt, 1996). Indeed it was this feared controversy which initially caused Darwin to hesitate in the publication of his work. What then are the bones of Darwin's work, Darwin theory at its most simplest proposes that the different species and the characteristics of that species are a result of random mutations over the course of evolutionary history, (Darwin, 1901). When an organism finds that one of these mutations has been beneficial in terms of it being able to compete more effectively in its environment and increase it chances of reproduction which both contribute to ensuring that this beneficial mutation is passed on to a subsequent generation and thus the process of evolution continues, (Darwin, 1968).
Such a relatively simple theory had a devastating impact on Darwin's society, culture and globally as the theory delivered a fatal blow to religious explanations as to the origins of humanity, (Crook, 1994). With Darwin's theory the rationality begun by the processes of the Enlightenment was almost complete in that a scientific teleology in relation to the biological as opposed to the spiritual explanations as to the development of the human species was triumphant, (Dickens, 2000). Ranged against the creationist arguments as humanity as being of the divine spark and created by God humanity instead in light of the Theory of Evolution was simply seen as being as the result of the development and operation of the blind laws of nature like everything else in the world around them, (Jones, 1980).
Of course as we have suggested above Darwin is perhaps better seen as the culmination of a process building upon a number of theories which were contemporaneous with his ideas and which preceded his work. It is worth examining a couple of these as not only do they illuminate the specific contextual basis of Darwin's theories but also to the societal influences which both shaped and were shaped by these theories and Darwin's work. The first one we consider here is the work of Malthus. Malthus's simple proposition was that nature and human existence was characterised by a constant struggle for food as the population increased, (Malthus, 1926). However unlike Darwin's later work which would postulate that the result of such pressures and competition would be the evolutionary development of the species in a positive sense Malthus saw only negative consequences to the developments of modern society.
In particular and considering the later analysis we will make of Social Darwinist thought Malthus criticised particular social structures as contributing to the ills which modern society's faced as a result of the operations of the laws he hypothesised, (Malthus, 1970). Thus in Malthus's case the behaviour of the Poor and the consequences of the Poor Law in the UK caused the Poor to reproduce more putting pressure of food supplies and thus ultimately contributing to the decline in the standards of living enjoyed by all those in society, (Malthus, 1970). As such Malthus advocated a return to the harsh realities of life engendered by nature in the sense that those who were unable to provide food for themselves would be removed by natural causes. This theme of the natural order of things we find repeated in the work of the seminal Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer and other Darwinian inspired accounts on the relationship between the sexes.
Social Influences and Contexts of Darwinian Thought
All of this of course leads to an understanding of the elements involved in Social Darwinist accounts of the relationship between the sexes as from our discussion above it is readily apparent that wider social trends had a considerable influence on the formulation of Darwin's theories. Thus it can be assumed and will be demonstrated in the ensuing discussion here that the wider role of women in society at the time determined to a large extent the perceptions and theorising concerning women as it was outlined within Darwinian thought, (Sanderson, 1990). Similarly as we shall also discuss changing externalities related to the role of women since the original expositions of Darwin's ideas is also reflected in changing and shifting conceptions within Social Darwinian views concerning the relationship between the sexes, (Wright, 1996) .
Of all the elements of Darwinian theory it can be strongly argued that Darwin's conception of the nature of the relationship between the sexes is the one most strongly influenced by externalities concerning the view towards women of Darwin's social and cultural environments. In The Origin of the Species it is clear that men are the active ones, engaged in competition amongst themselves to have the right to mate with the female of their choosing, (Darwin, 1901). Females in this sense come across as the passive receptors of male attention with little function other than to care for offspring and provide the eggs necessary for fertilisation to produce offspring, (Richards, 1983).
Though Darwin was loathe to generalise from his observations to wider trends within society it is also clear however that these wider trends even if he did not comment on them specifically within his work influenced the structure of his ideas. Critically this can be said to be true of the interpretations he made of the animal behaviours and actions which he observed during his expeditions and recounted in his works, (Banton, 1961). As such then Darwin in a sense was a subtle Social Darwinist as while he may not have overtly applied his ideas to society it is clear from The Descent of Man that implicit assumptions are made as to the relevance of evolutionary theory to an understanding of society. Thus Darwin's observations and interpretations of animal behaviour in terms of relationships between the sexes can be clearly linked to other more prevalent views in the society around him, (Oldroyd and Langham, 1983). Darwin however it must be acknowledged was not as explicit as others who took the mantle of his ideas.
Herbert Spencer as mentioned has been identified as one of the originators of Social Darwinism although when examining his work it is clear that Spencer was forming an evolutionary theory of society before Darwin by drawing primarily on the work of the French biologist Lamarck, (Mayr and Provine, 1980). Lamarckian inheritance in contrast to Darwinian inheritance proposed that characteristics of parents could be passed onto their immediate off spring in a fully developed sense, or as a crude example a blacksmith's offspring would have the strong arms of their progenitor. Darwinian inheritance instead holds that random mutations which successively and gradually change an organism is the key to understanding the process of evolution, (Desmond, 1989). Spencer however quickly became enamoured of Darwin's ideas even if Darwin's was relatively cool towards the sweeping generalisations which Spencer made concerning the application of his theory.
Indeed Spencer's term 'survival of the fittest' which he used to describe his sociological understanding of the dynamics of society has become synonymous with Darwinian theory itself, (Dickens, 2001). At the core of Spencer's ideas is that society is a form of 'super organism' subject to the same laws and dynamics of evolution as the smaller organisms of which it was composed. The critical elements to remember here was that Spencer considered the laws of evolution which affected the outcomes and development of society as natural ones, (Spencer, 1857). As natural laws then Spencer was continuously concerned with the detrimental effects he foresaw for intervention and tinkering with these laws through in particular the practices associated with modern governmental institutions, (Spencer, 1893). This is the reason Spencer was associated with the 'laissez faire' politics of his day and while Spencerian Social Darwinism became such a popular ideology in the US at the beginning of the 20th century. Simply put for Spencer nature at both the level of organisms and super organism was best left to its own devices, (Spencer, 1893).
In this we can see then a tension inherent within the work of Spencer. For on the one hand change is to be welcomed but on the other change is nothing which humans can affect or if they do affect will only be in a negative sense as they impede the workings of the natural laws of evolution. Spencer believed that the nuclear family like situation was the proper and natural relationship structure between the sexes and went so far as to lament the trend towards higher and further education of women in his time as impeding their natural tendencies towards reproduction, (Spencer, 1898). Like Darwin he saw the development of characteristics within men and women as complementary and as part of the overall synthesis in which superorganic evolution would take place. These characteristics were to see men as the more energetic and competitive, extolling in other words traditionally held views on 'manly' virtues of the time. Women conversely were more passive, more intuitive and possessed of a caring instinct which led to the propensity and better suitability for rearing the offspring within a relationship, (Spencer, 1898).
Both Spencer's and Darwin's sexism must be viewed in the light of broader social views on women yet at the time of their writing other developments were occurring which offered opposing viewpoints to these prevailing notions. One of the dominant questions in the UK at the turn of the 20th century was the 'Woman' Question as the UK saw a large mobilisation of feminist and other groupings agitating for the implementation of universal suffrage, (Desmond, 1989). While for many Darwin's work legitimated traditional and conservative attitudes towards the marinating of certain structures within society for others it led to radical interpretations and theorising concerning possible structures which society could take and how specific existing structures which were unfair or perceived to be as such could be removed, (Bowler, 1990). As some have commented then Darwin's work almost in a sense had something for everyone who read it whatever their political leanings were.
Havelock Ellis embraced both Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement. While Social Darwinists were relatively confined to theorising about the issues raised by the ideas of Darwin in their application to Society Eugenics took those ideas and combined them with an express desire to implement policies within society reflecting these biological laws. Eugenics has often been associated with the right of politics and the excesses of the Nazi's in particular but to do so is to simplify a complex political movement, (Kelves, 1995). In particular in the UK the Eugenics movement attracted numerous left wing radicals who saw in it's articulation of rational scientific laws of governance based on the principals of evolution a perfect engine for radical legislative change. While there were certainly tensions between radicals and conservatives within the UK Eugenics movement it can be argued that radical socialists were a consistent feature of this melding socialism, Social Darwinism, political reformism and Eugenics into a workable movement criticising particular structures within UK society at the time, (Searle, 1976).
Havelock Ellis is particularly representative of this. However while Ellis was a committed campaigner on the issue of women's rights and for greater equality between the sexes his reading and comments in relation to a Social Darwinian view of women must be seen as placing him in the middle ground. In this sense Ellis argued that that both men and women were equal but that they were equal in respectively complementary social spheres. Thus while evolution may be about the survival of the fittest, what counted as the fittest between men and women depended on the roles and functions which were in question, (Ellis, 1894). This can be seen to share similar thoughts to the works of Darwin and Spencer. However Ellis did admit that social structures as they existed placed more emphasis and celebrated more the social spheres in which men were the fitter which thus led to false inequities being developed in that women were subordinated as the social spheres which they excelled in were subordinated within the social structures of the time. Thus for Ellis a re-evaluation of the priorities for society were necessary, while Ellis acknowledged that women could compete oftentimes successfully in the social spheres dominated by men he felt that this was counterproductive and against women's natures in a sense by not allowing them to use their full potentials, (Ellis, 1933).
While Ellis occupies a curious middle ground the work of Gamble can be seen as particularly representative of the coalescing of feminist praxis with the evolutionary ideas presented by Darwin. Gamble indeed can be seen to have hit upon one of the key elements which later feminists and biologists have concentrated upon as one of the critical weaknesses in Social Darwinism and generally Darwinian considerations of the relationship between the sexes, (Hawkins, 1997). Indeed it was not that Gamble invented anything new but rather that she interpreted a key observation within Darwin's work and highlighted this observation which for Darwin himself he had ignored and had thus been an almost invisible feature of his theorising on evolution. This was the blatantly simple observation that in reproductive matters it is the female that chooses whom to mate as males of a species compete amongst themselves for the female's choice of reproductive partner, (Gamble, 1894).
Gamble continues further by suggesting that one of the critical problems within modern societies in terms of injustice and inequitable treatment of women is not that the laws of evolution are working correctly but that they are impeded from doing so by social structures implemented as result primarily of capitalist concepts. In particular the development of private property and the patriarchal need to ensure property remained in the hands of first born males led to the imposition of social structures which degraded the egalitarian position of women within more primitive hunter gatherer societies. For Gamble then the return and reinforcement of the natural operation of the sexual selection would in turn force again a more equitable position for women to exist and also return humanity in general to a more natural and egalitarian position, (Gamble, 1894).
Conclusion
This selection of writers has highlighted some of the fundamental tensions within Social Darwinian thought concerning society and in particular on the relative roles and relationships between the sexes. It has illustrated also the important influences which social and cultural elements have on the theory and in particular on the interpretations made from the theory and applications to theorising about society. It is worthwhile noting that such tensions within Social Darwinian thought are still present within more modern forms of this thinking. E. O. Wilson's socio-biology and the thesis he outlined there and the more recent development of Evolutionary Psychology have continued to replay evolutionary debates concerning the position of men and women within society, (Cosimides, 2004).
Within Evolutionary Psychology in particular debates rage concerning this central question. Where some writers emphasise the specificities of development between men and women as leading to the development of specific traits necessary for certain roles and thus correspond to the more traditional Darwinian views more feminist interpretations look instead to the perceived suppression of natural laws by social structures, (Buss, 2004). Sexual selection and theories concerning it in particular has become a central feature of debates within Evolutionary Psychology, (Buss, 2004). Perhaps the most controversial representation of this has been work such Crawford and Klebs' (1998) as to the evolutionary explanations of rape. This article suggests rape can be explained by the inability of certain males to secure a mate through competition and thus do so by force, linked with this thesis is the proposition that women should take more care in not provoking rape from men who are not successful within mating rituals, (Thornhill, 1999).
This article has rightly generated a storm of controversy and criticism but what it demonstrates more than anything is the enduring capability of evolutionary theory to be used in explanations of social events, the teleological aspect of the Theory of Evolution as such remains strong. This can be argued will be further enhanced with continuing developments in Genetic sciences and as such the fact that interpretations of scientific findings will in a sense be labelled as scientific facts themselves. As our brief review has suggested this is a trend which should be countered as not only is evolution more complex than Darwin held as biologists such as Steven Rose have argued criticising the ultra-Darwinian viewpoint, (Rose, Kamin and Lewontin, 1984) . But society and the particular features of any given society hunter gatherer or liberal democratic is significantly more complex than such writings would have us believe also.
References
Bannister, R. C. (1979); Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought, Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Banton, M. (1961); Darwinism and the Study of Society, Tavistock, London
Bowler, P. (1990); Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Burkhardt, F. [ed] (1996); Charles Darwin's Letters: A Selection 1825-1859, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Buss, D. M. (2004); Evolutionary Psychology, Pearson, Boston MA
Cosimides, L. (2004); What is Evolutionary Psychology, Yale University Press, New Haven CONN
Crawford, C.B. and Klebs, D. (1999); Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ.
Crook, P. (1994); Darwinism: War and History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Darwin, C. (1901); The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Murray, London
Darwin, C. (1968); The Origin of the Species, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Desmond, A. (1989); The Politics of Evolution, University of Chicago Press, London
Dickens, P. (2000); Social Darwinism, Open University Press, Buckingham
Ellis, H. (1894), Man and Woman, W. Scott, London
Ellis, H. (1933); Psychology of Sex, Heninemann, London
Gamble, E. (1894); The Evolution of Woman, Putnam and Sons, London
Hawkins, M. (1997); Social Darwinism in European and American Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jones, G. (1980); Social Darwinism and English Thought, Harvester, Brighton
Kelves, D. J. (1995); In the Name of Eugenics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
Kerr, A. and Shakespeare, T. (2002); Genetic Politics: From Eugenics to Genome, New Clarion Press, Cheltenham
Malthus, T. (1926); First Essay on Population, Macmillan, London
Malthus, T. (1970); An Essay on the Principle of Population, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Lynn, R. (2001); Eugenics: A Re-Assessment, Praeger, Westport CONN
Mayr, E. and Provine, W. B. (1980); The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
Oldroyd, D. R. and Langham, I. [eds] (1983); The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, Reidel, Boston MA
Richards, E. (1983); 'Darwin and the Descent of Woman' in Oldroyd, D. R. and Langham, I. [eds]; The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, Reidel, Boston MA
Rose, S., Kamin, L. and Lewontin, R. (1984); Not in Our Genes, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Sanderson, S. (1990); Social Evolutionism: A Critical History, Blackwell, Oxford
Spencer, H. (1857); Principles of Biology, Vol. 2, Williams and Norgate, London
Searle, G. R. (1976); Eugenics and Politics in Britain: 1900-1914, Nordhoof, London
Spencer, H. (1893); The Principles of Sociology, Vol. 1, Williams and Norgate, London
Spencer, H. (1898); Principles of Biology, Vols. 1&2, Appleton, New York
Thornhill, R. (1999); 'The Biology of Human Rape', Jurimetrics Journal, 137
Wright, R. (1996); 'The Dissent of Woman: What Feminists can Learn from Darwinism', Demos Quarterly, 10
Sociology Essays - Find your free sociology essays...
We have a large assortment of free essays available to use as research material. Visit our sociology essays from our free essays section.
All of the essays in the "Free Essays" section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism!
UK Essays Sitemaps
UKEssays.com RSS Feed
