Wikipedia has been ideologically captured on all politically-adjacent topics for several years now. It's great for basic stuff about chemistry, physics, or medicine. But every article that has political implications is informed by the same worldview that governs the New York Times and Washington Post, Yale and Stanford, and many of our government agencies.
Wikipedia's editors have the power to determine which sources are credible, and which edits are plausible. And they are driven by ideological assumptions that they themselves probably fail to understand since it's part of the dominant elite culture. Incredible how they can buttress the fact that Google (and YouTube, which Google owns) elevates them in their "equity algorithm" to shape the worldview of people around the globe.
It's always confused me that there seems to be a conflation between the idea that 'Darwinism applies to human societies - or even to modern humans at all' and the idea that 'Darwinism provides some kind of guide for what we ought to do.' So you can use the charge of 'social Darwinism' to attack any attempt at the former, by pretending it implies the latter. Which it doesn't.
Natural selection is death. That's all it is at base level: some die while others do not. Remembering that death exists is essential. It doesn't mean that you're taking its side. I find this genuinely strange.
I think this confusion might be caused by the confusing word "should". I think this word has like 7 different meanings and people often do a slight of hand by getting you to accept one of them but then use another. For example see "Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase"
It's kind of like eugenics itself. Everyone more or less believes in it just on their own definition of what's good whether that's Jews doing genetic screening to avoid a higher rate of various genetic disorders or an Arthur Chu or leftist academics calling for conservatives or white people generally to be sterilized as genetic defects in the human race. And it's the strong should see their wealth and power increase
Social Darwinism denotes a set of 19th- and early 20th-century ideologies that extended principles of biological evolution—particularly natural selection and the "survival of the fittest"—to explain and justify social hierarchies, economic competition, and political structures in human societies.[1][2] The concept originated primarily with British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who developed a synthetic philosophy integrating evolutionary theory across biology, psychology, and sociology, arguing that societal progress arises from uncoerced individual and industrial competition rather than state-directed militarism or altruism.[3][4] Spencer's ideas, predating widespread awareness of Darwin's work, emphasized that interference with natural processes, such as through welfare or regulation, would hinder the adaptation and improvement of societies by preserving less fit elements.[5][6]
Proponents in the United States, including William Graham Sumner and industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, adapted these notions to defend laissez-faire capitalism, viewing wealth disparities as evidence of superior fitness and moral worth in a competitive market.[7][8] This framework influenced arguments for limited government intervention, portraying poverty and failure as outcomes of inherent inadequacies rather than systemic flaws.[4] However, the ideology faced sharp criticism for allegedly promoting ruthless individualism and was later invoked to rationalize imperialism, racial superiority, and eugenics programs aimed at improving human stock through selective breeding or sterilization.[9][10] Scholars have contested the coherence and prevalence of "Social Darwinism" as a unified doctrine, noting that the term gained pejorative traction in the mid-20th century through works like Richard Hofstadter's, which conflated diverse evolutionary social theories with free-market advocacy to critique conservatism, often overlooking Spencer's anti-imperialist and anti-eugenic stances.[4][11] Despite such debates, the ideas underscored a causal view of social outcomes rooted in differential abilities and choices, influencing policy discourses on inequality and progress into the 20th century.[1][12]
Rupert Sheldrake’s critique of the Darwinian hypothesis offers a vital counterpoint to the concept of Social Darwinism. Sheldrake emphasizes that nature thrives on cooperation rather than competition or supremacy—be it physical, racial, philosophical, or cultural.
In Buddhism, the concept of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) underscores that all beings and phenomena are interconnected and reliant on each other for existence. Similarly, Hinduism teaches the principle of dharma, which includes the idea of living in harmony with nature and all living beings. These philosophies highlight that survival and prosperity are not about being the “fittest” in a competitive sense but about fostering the most cooperative and harmonious relationships.
Sheldrake argues that the longer we continue to seed the misleading hypothesis of Darwinian competition, the longer we perpetuate bias and separation. This notion of competition extends beyond biology and finds parallels in capitalist foundations and various modern scientific approaches to human affairs.
By shifting focus from competition to cooperation, we can dismantle harmful biases and promote a more inclusive and harmonious understanding of evolution and societal progress.
Further, it’s crucial to recognize that Social Darwinism’s misuse of Darwin’s name has led to dangerous ideologies and adaptations, such as eugenics, racism, and imperialism. These practices are not only scientifically discredited but also morally indefensible.
Which is funny because the reason it became such a pejorative was its association with US intervention in Latin America, but those regimes definitely didn't agree with the global capitalist vision people calling themselves neoliberals today do while leftists today, including ones who were alive then, do agree in essence with that global capitalist vision
Social darwinism would actually mean not that the best survive, but that anyone who passes the barrier of survival. Here are more ants than ant eaters.
Right, so its foolish to pretend that 'stop the inferior people breeding so that the superior people can take their rightful place' is Darwinian. That really is pseudoscience.
Wikipedia has been ideologically captured on all politically-adjacent topics for several years now. It's great for basic stuff about chemistry, physics, or medicine. But every article that has political implications is informed by the same worldview that governs the New York Times and Washington Post, Yale and Stanford, and many of our government agencies.
Wikipedia's editors have the power to determine which sources are credible, and which edits are plausible. And they are driven by ideological assumptions that they themselves probably fail to understand since it's part of the dominant elite culture. Incredible how they can buttress the fact that Google (and YouTube, which Google owns) elevates them in their "equity algorithm" to shape the worldview of people around the globe.
It's always confused me that there seems to be a conflation between the idea that 'Darwinism applies to human societies - or even to modern humans at all' and the idea that 'Darwinism provides some kind of guide for what we ought to do.' So you can use the charge of 'social Darwinism' to attack any attempt at the former, by pretending it implies the latter. Which it doesn't.
Natural selection is death. That's all it is at base level: some die while others do not. Remembering that death exists is essential. It doesn't mean that you're taking its side. I find this genuinely strange.
I think this confusion might be caused by the confusing word "should". I think this word has like 7 different meanings and people often do a slight of hand by getting you to accept one of them but then use another. For example see "Social Darwinists believe that the strong should see their wealth and power increase"
It's kind of like eugenics itself. Everyone more or less believes in it just on their own definition of what's good whether that's Jews doing genetic screening to avoid a higher rate of various genetic disorders or an Arthur Chu or leftist academics calling for conservatives or white people generally to be sterilized as genetic defects in the human race. And it's the strong should see their wealth and power increase
Since you wrote this Grokipedia came online, note the difference in how it handles social darwinism: https://grokipedia.com/page/Social_Darwinism
Social Darwinism denotes a set of 19th- and early 20th-century ideologies that extended principles of biological evolution—particularly natural selection and the "survival of the fittest"—to explain and justify social hierarchies, economic competition, and political structures in human societies.[1][2] The concept originated primarily with British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who developed a synthetic philosophy integrating evolutionary theory across biology, psychology, and sociology, arguing that societal progress arises from uncoerced individual and industrial competition rather than state-directed militarism or altruism.[3][4] Spencer's ideas, predating widespread awareness of Darwin's work, emphasized that interference with natural processes, such as through welfare or regulation, would hinder the adaptation and improvement of societies by preserving less fit elements.[5][6]
Proponents in the United States, including William Graham Sumner and industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, adapted these notions to defend laissez-faire capitalism, viewing wealth disparities as evidence of superior fitness and moral worth in a competitive market.[7][8] This framework influenced arguments for limited government intervention, portraying poverty and failure as outcomes of inherent inadequacies rather than systemic flaws.[4] However, the ideology faced sharp criticism for allegedly promoting ruthless individualism and was later invoked to rationalize imperialism, racial superiority, and eugenics programs aimed at improving human stock through selective breeding or sterilization.[9][10] Scholars have contested the coherence and prevalence of "Social Darwinism" as a unified doctrine, noting that the term gained pejorative traction in the mid-20th century through works like Richard Hofstadter's, which conflated diverse evolutionary social theories with free-market advocacy to critique conservatism, often overlooking Spencer's anti-imperialist and anti-eugenic stances.[4][11] Despite such debates, the ideas underscored a causal view of social outcomes rooted in differential abilities and choices, influencing policy discourses on inequality and progress into the 20th century.[1][12]
Great post. One comment.
"Darwin did not define the fittest as the strongest, or most clever, but recognized that the fittest could be those who cooperated with each othe"
This is easy. Darwin defined fittest as "the ones who survived".
Social Darwinism is mentioned in AP US history when covering the Gilded Age.
In the context of Robert's last few articles on cultural drift, this preamble to Social Darwinism is very interesting.
I'm on the edge of my seat for the next article.
Rupert Sheldrake’s critique of the Darwinian hypothesis offers a vital counterpoint to the concept of Social Darwinism. Sheldrake emphasizes that nature thrives on cooperation rather than competition or supremacy—be it physical, racial, philosophical, or cultural.
In Buddhism, the concept of interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) underscores that all beings and phenomena are interconnected and reliant on each other for existence. Similarly, Hinduism teaches the principle of dharma, which includes the idea of living in harmony with nature and all living beings. These philosophies highlight that survival and prosperity are not about being the “fittest” in a competitive sense but about fostering the most cooperative and harmonious relationships.
Sheldrake argues that the longer we continue to seed the misleading hypothesis of Darwinian competition, the longer we perpetuate bias and separation. This notion of competition extends beyond biology and finds parallels in capitalist foundations and various modern scientific approaches to human affairs.
By shifting focus from competition to cooperation, we can dismantle harmful biases and promote a more inclusive and harmonious understanding of evolution and societal progress.
Further, it’s crucial to recognize that Social Darwinism’s misuse of Darwin’s name has led to dangerous ideologies and adaptations, such as eugenics, racism, and imperialism. These practices are not only scientifically discredited but also morally indefensible.
It has been similarly argued that the term "neoliberalism" was coined pejoratively and mostly used in that sense, but there are some people who call themselves "neoliberal". https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4730122&
Which is funny because the reason it became such a pejorative was its association with US intervention in Latin America, but those regimes definitely didn't agree with the global capitalist vision people calling themselves neoliberals today do while leftists today, including ones who were alive then, do agree in essence with that global capitalist vision
It was coined pejoratively without any reference to US intervention in Latin America, prior to WW2 and the Cold War.
That has nothing to do with what I said though, and you're not even right. Rustöw didn't use it as a pejorative
Rustow didn't coin it, Max Adler had already been writing about "Neoliberalismus" in 1922.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3681101
Richards has a chapter based on his book in this new volume:
'Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods'
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/darwin-mythology/that-hitler-endorsed-and-was-influenced-by-darwins-theory/F18A8AEBEEF9978AEA1BF65979EA4A77
Social darwinism would actually mean not that the best survive, but that anyone who passes the barrier of survival. Here are more ants than ant eaters.
Do any social darwinists use that frame?
There are more bacteria than multicellular organisms, and even more virions.
Right, so its foolish to pretend that 'stop the inferior people breeding so that the superior people can take their rightful place' is Darwinian. That really is pseudoscience.
Spencer's first book on the topic came out before Darwin's Origins. But many take Spencers view as defining "social Darwinism".