Christmas Day… Boxing Day… why not keep up the holiday cheer with Beagle Day? On 27 December 1831, Charles Darwin set sail on HMS Beagle out of Plymouth Harbor, and promptly got seasick. Which is worth mentioning because Darwin has become more than a man to us. As Lewis Mumford wrote, “he is like some great earth-god mingling with his own creations.” We hold him responsible for much — too much. Darwin and his -ism did much less than we think. Especially, and for the love of Mike, would people please stop writing about “social Darwinism”?
It’s a cliché of the history paper that during the industrial era, misery and suffering stalked the land: Infernal mills sent vile plumes up to cloud the skies. Steam machines sank their filthy limbs into the earth to draw forth its riches. Steel rails and tractor furrows bound nature to the unyielding grid of reason, enslaved to the god of profit. The grimy, poverty-struck, and disease-ridden hordes of humanity scuttled along in service to these mighty apparatus and the lords of plutocracy, who in their comfort surveyed this war of a few against everything and pronounced it good: “survival of the fittest,” they said; “natural selection.” It will all end up well, because social Darwinism said. Bad Charles Darwin!
But it ain’t so, for at least two reasons. First, Darwin himself understood Darwinism to prescribe no such policy. Why? Because he noticed, if you haven’t, that let to run on its own, natural selection often leads to the elimination of species that had for a time been well adapted to their environments. Darwinism predicts no progress to a happier future and so, Darwin wrote, you shouldn’t expect to ride it anywhere good: “if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”
Second, the contrary idea, that unchecked exploitation of the weak would lead to a better tomorrow, actually predated Darwin’s On the Origin of Species — as one of its principal authors, Herbert Spencer, was keen to point out. It was Spencer who recommended “the mercy of severity,” who claimed “the well-being of existing humanity [is] secured by that same beneficent, though severe discipline, to which the animate creation at large is subject: a discipline which is pitiless in the working out of good,” and who mildly noted that “The forces which are working out the great scheme of perfect happiness, taking no account of individual suffering, exterminate such sections of mankind as stand in their way, with the same sternness that they exterminate beasts of prey and herds of useless ruminants. Be he human being, or be he brute, the hindrance must be got rid of,” all in Social Statics, which appeared in 1850, nine years before On the Origin of Species, and whose policy recommendations included the elimination of the Poor Laws, the Sanitary Laws, and any other institutions that permitted disobedient imperfections (also known as unfortunate human beings) to thrive. It was the optimistic Spencer, the Spencer who assured everyone that present misery led to future perfection, whom the heartless lionized. “The American nation will be a long time in evolving its ultimate form…. but … its ultimate form will be high,” he declared.1
Well, so what, you may ask. So “social Darwinism” really should be called “social Spencerism.” It’s all just names, right? No. It’s about the substantial difference between faith and reason. When we defame Darwin as the author of a vicious doctrine that underwrites the mistreatment of our fellows, we not only libel a decent person who went out and got sick on the Beagle for our betterment, we perpetuate the worst part of anti-Darwinist polemics: the idea that Darwinism licenses amorality and heartlessness. Darwin made himself as clear as he could on this point: it is precisely the idea that natural selection predicts no necessary good outcome that presses us to behave better than our brute urges. It is Spencer’s great and comforting lie that perfection awaits if only we can countenance savagery now, which lets us smile and smile and see murder done in our names.
1The discussion here owes almost entirely to the brilliant Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought, in which Bannister points out that although the later Spencer was more pessimistic, it was not the later Spencer whom laissez-faire promoters admired.
There’s also an excellent point to be made as Frank Sulloway does with respect to the finches that it was the idea of natural selection that led to Darwin’s ability to understand his Beagle evidence — not the Beagle evidence that led Darwin to develop the idea of natural selection.
39 comments
December 27, 2007 at 10:48 am
SEK
Would that someone were writing a dissertation about this!
Mark Francis’ recent intellectual biography of Spencer argues against this portrait of Spencer — early, late or otherwise — but it’s a little too partisan to be convincing. One of these days I’ll write the damn thing up. (But probably not until I finish the damn diss.)
December 27, 2007 at 10:52 am
eric
Ack, I’m sorry, SEK. I meant to link you, but I got all tangled up in books.google.com, which hasn’t got the user-friendliest way of doing citations.
Hey everyone, SEK’s doing a dissertation on This Very Thing!
December 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Polemic Pontification » Blog Archive » Target: death. Range: 39 years and closing fast
[…] evidence to support the idea of evolution. But William Gibson’s blog pointed me to someone who already offered some insightful commentary on Darwin and the modern world, so I’ll just let that slide. What the hell; it’s my birthday, and […]
December 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm
SEK
No need to apologize, Middle Name. I’m just trying to be open-minded to what might be the new directions in Spencer scholarship: Me and Francis down in the schoolyard.
December 27, 2007 at 7:50 pm
ari
You’re letting him off the hook way too easily, SEK. Remember, he’s half a Jew. Press the advantage that his guilt provides; demand reparations.
December 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm
urbino
[NB: This is x-posted from another thread. It appears, Ari, that the “Comments” link on your Darwin post leads to the comments page of your book-burning post.]
You mentioned the beginning of Darwin’s voyage. More interesting, I think, is the end, when the Beagle returned to England with a trio (I think) of South American natives, including a grown man and a girl somewhere around 13, IIRC. The girl became the delight of London society — until, that is, she turned up pregnant with the grown man’s child, and the lot of them had to be spirited out of England.
You’re old news, Jamie Lynn!
December 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm
SEK
I would, Ari, but Eric struck preemptively: “Shanda fur de goyim,” he wrote me. Given how goy the Internets are, I’ve basically been silenced.
This is how professors treat graduate students these days. Zol er krenken un gedenken is what I say.
(Also, while transferring all my files from my dying laptop to my shiny new desktop, I learned I owe you a couple of emails. I don’t check that address that often, because I’ve lost the password and can only access it through Outlook, which I rarely use. Just don’t want you to think I’ve been ignoring you.)
December 27, 2007 at 8:13 pm
eric
You mentioned the beginning of Darwin’s voyage. More interesting, I think, is the end
Well, maybe on October 2, we’ll get around to that. I mean, who could skip a pregnancy scandal!
December 27, 2007 at 8:14 pm
eric
Given how goy the Internets are
It’s widely known that the Internets are a goyische conspiracy, much like noodle salad and Velveeta.
December 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm
urbino
Ouch. Now that was just uncalled for.
December 27, 2007 at 8:21 pm
ari
Plus, ambrosia!
December 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm
SEK
“Goyische?” Germanische poseur.
December 27, 2007 at 8:30 pm
ari
It’s okay, SEK, I’ll have my revenge for your inattention to my e-mails. No bond, not even one sealed with Yiddish, can survive such a lack of courtesy. You think Eric has been hard on you. Mutters: Zol es im onkumn vos ikh vintsh im (khotsh a helft, khotsh halb, khotsh a tsent kheylik).
December 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm
SEK
Gay k’ken in yam, Ari.
December 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm
eric
Germanische
I come by it honestly — that’s the other half. Or part of the other half, anyway.
December 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm
ari
Y’know, I’m in Florida right now — where else would a nice Jewish boy be at Christmas — so I might just do that.
December 27, 2007 at 8:37 pm
SEK
Fine then, go make like an onion. (Can’t remember the Yiddish. Me oy vaxe tza deaf people suck at transliteration.)
December 27, 2007 at 8:37 pm
eric
khotsh halb, khotsh a tsent kheylik
What is that, preemptive bargaining?
December 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm
SEK
Duh, Eric: Jews.
December 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm
ari
Vahksin zuls du vi a tsibeleh, mitten kup in drerd. But it’s all sand here. Pay attention.
December 27, 2007 at 8:40 pm
eric
Anti-semite.
Also: Vahksin zuls du vi a tsibeleh, mitten kup in drerd.
December 27, 2007 at 8:42 pm
eric
Oy. Weiner-pwned.
December 27, 2007 at 8:44 pm
SEK
That’s odd. I’ve never heard the “mitten kup in drerd” bit before, but that makes sense. I always thought this was an ostrich-type thing.
December 27, 2007 at 8:44 pm
ari
Totally pwned you, half a goy. Don’t bring that sh*t around here. I’m in my bubbe’s apartment. Actually, she would be disgusted to hear me cursing in such a common language. Yiddish, in her view, was for country folk. She, like her parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, spoke only Polish or French. Very sophisticated, very European, don’t you know. Until Hitler came; then they were just Juden.
December 27, 2007 at 8:46 pm
eric
Until Hitler came; then they were just Juden.
Way to kill the funny.
December 27, 2007 at 8:49 pm
ari
Dude, Hitler’s funny.
December 27, 2007 at 8:50 pm
ari
Crap, I don’t think that worked. So let’s try this again: Dude, Hitler’s funny.
December 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm
ari
Huh, it just got kinda quiet around here. I think I just crossed a line.
December 27, 2007 at 8:53 pm
SEK
Yiddish, in her view, was for country folk.
Blasphemy. I don’t want to further slaughter the funny, but when I had to escort my dying grandmother on an airplane to Houston, she mumbled in Yiddish the whole way down the aisle. One of the flight attendants overheard her, said something I didn’t catch, and then they started shouting. The pilot came in, heard what they were saying, and put the flight attendant in his place. We were then whisked away to first class, where my bubbe proceeded to pee herself. The captain was a mensch, helped us out, &c. Something about survivors, I suppose.
You know, I’d tell this story in full, but then it’d look like I was a mensch, when in fact my bubbe was so sarcastic I didn’t even realize “mensch” was a compliment until my advisor told me a few years back. I mean, really, all I heard growing up was “That Reagan, what a mensch.” How was I to know?
December 27, 2007 at 8:58 pm
SEK
Also, Hitler can be funnier. (Not that ogged would dance.)
December 27, 2007 at 8:58 pm
ari
“That Reagan, what a mensch.”
No! This can’t be true. But if it, yes, you’ve killed the funny.
December 27, 2007 at 8:59 pm
SEK
Actually, I’m not sure where my comments are going. Are you there, folks? It’s me, Kaufman.
December 27, 2007 at 9:01 pm
ari
We had an election
Well kinda sorta
And before you knew it
Hello new order
December 27, 2007 at 9:01 pm
SEK
Wait, there they are. So:
No! This can’t be true. But if it, yes, you’ve killed the funny.
Did you miss the sarcasm? Bubbe’d be in the walk-in prepping pressed fish, hear the TV and declare, all archly-like, that Reagan was a mensch. What kind of Jews are you? Have you no sense of
decencysarcasm, sir?December 27, 2007 at 9:02 pm
ari
Yeah, the blog is being clunky. I think Eric is rejiggering it to intercept all of the money flowing into Ron Paul’s website. At least I hope so.
December 27, 2007 at 9:04 pm
ari
Oh, yes, better now: both the blog and your bubbe.
December 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm
ari
Come to think of it, I have to finish reading a colleague’s manuscript and then write a post on Peggy Eaton and John C. Calhoun’s resignation. Hott! Have a good night all.
December 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm
SEK
Ron Paul, meshuga zol er verm un aremloifyn, with a speedometer tied to your profits.
December 28, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Free Charles Darwin! « The Edge of the American West « Baited Breath
[…] Free Charles Darwin! « The Edge of the American West Free Charles Darwin! « The Edge of the American West […]