Category: Social Darwinism

The Battle Royal is a non-fictional work of Ralph Ellison and talks of the black people fighting for their freedom in the Whites society. The main theme of the story is social Darwinism. It implies that one must work hard to ensure he or she gains respect in society. The words that Ralph use creates imaginary pictures for the readers. For instance, he says, It was a large room with a high ceiling. Chairs were arranged in neat rows around three sides of a portable boxing ring (Ellison 1555).

The author also uses both metaphors and similes to help readers understand his story. He talks of the boys, who blindfolded boys, moving like blind, cautious crabs&testing the air like the knobbed feelers of hypersensitive snails (Ellison 1559). He also uses the first single voice in work, making it more captivating and interesting. The diction used is unpretentious, clear, and straightforward. In addition, there is the use of a modest, sincere, and humble tone in the story.

The tone helps pass information to the audience and reveals the authors past life, failures, and success. Furthermore, Ralphs diction is average in a way that any average person can easily understand. However, Ralph uses irony as a narration style. The reader can identify the irony where, in the story, the author thinks that he had a painful learning experience of innate things.

Hard work is the main social behavior presented in the story. It is common in modern society because human beings work hard to ensure that they succeed in their day-to-day endeavors (Goloboy 537). However, competition is an aspect of human life, and winning is the only means to get respect and good life (Brown and Goetzmann 679). Furthermore, a good life is also embedded in hard work and determines the amount of respect in society.

Works Cited

Brown, Stephen J. and Goetzmann William N. Performance Persistence. The Journal of Finance 50.2 (1995): 679- 698. Print.

Ellison, Ralph. Battle Royal. The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 2^nd Edition. Ed. Gates, Henry L, and Nellie Y. McKay. 1555- 1563. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.

Goloboy, Jennifer L. The Early American Middle Class. Journal of the Early Republic 25.4 (2005): 537- 545. Print.

Introduction

The second half of the nineteenth century marked the dawn of evolutionary thought beyond human biology into human society and culture. This paradigm grew rapidly over the next century as well, with understanding of human society and culture becoming more complex and detailed with every new theorist. The onset of social evolution was considered to be analogous with biological evolution, however it’s main pitfall laid in the fact that it didn’t consider a historical account for it. Theorists such as Linneaus, Buffon, Lamarck, all dealt with evolutionary questions to discern ideas of individual differences, whether it be in relation to adaptation to an environment or even potential driving changes in organisms; evolution had been up for deliberation, although it’s scope was limited to biology. The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ came forward only with Charles Darwin, who declared that only the individuals that survive to reproduce will pass on their genes, and only mutations that enable this survival will be favoured. This suggested adaptations only favour those who have the ability to survive in a competitive environment, and therefore the famous “survival of the fittest” sprouted out of Darwin’s thought.

When it comes to Anthropology however, while Darwin received considerable credit for his theory’s biological implications, social and cultural connotations were also beginning to attach themselves to it. The forefathers of Evolutionary Thought in Anthropology however, dated themselves before Darwin, since Tylor and Morgan were also actively interacting with the same ideas of evolution in human society in the same year – 1871 (Barnard, 2000). Evolution here onwards was then categorised as unilinear, universal, multilineal and more recently, Neo-Darwinism. These definite categories of evolution and anthropology therefore gave it an edge over the biological or archaeological theories since those were mainly based on conjecture without necessary and enough scientific evidence.

The unilinear trope adopted the idea that a dominant sequence of development follows wherein all societies pass through the same stages at different rates. Classical social evolutionism utilises this idea, and theorists such as Morgan, Spencer and Tylor have delved into research of various aspects of culture (kinship, language, religion, technology) to understand and analyse this phenomenon. The universal school emerged in the 20th century with the advent of more rigorous scientific methodology in the form of ethnography and archaeology to gather evidence supporting the stage by stage approach of evolution (savagery, barbarism, civilisation). The multilinear school was primarily devised by Julian Steward to counter the vague generalisations of unilinear evolution and incorporate the role of the environment and geography as a focal point. Lastly, neo darwinism takes on a dual focus with integrating sociobiology and the revolutionist school of thought (Barnard, 2000).

The aim of this paper is limited to only classical social evolutionism and neo-evolutionism, in terms of understanding the scope of the theories. It explores the theoretical background for the theories on the basis of the ideas propounded by its theorists, the merits and demerits of the theory and finally, the paper concludes with comparing classical social evolutionism and neo-evolutionism.

Social Evolutionism

The hallmark of the 1850’s was the beginning of social evolutionary schools of thought, with the onset of a “golden age” of evolutionary thinking in both sociology and anthropology. Social Evolution can be referred to as a form of social change that displays a directional sequence of integration and advancement (Sanderson, 2001). The onset of social evolution then also prompted the idea of Social Darwinism, wherein individuals from this school believed that the “industrial advances and burgeoning economic and military power” presented Western societies as being at the most advanced stage of social evolution. This implied that if biological evolution suggested progress and “survival of the fittest ”, it was rightful for Wester societies to dominate those that were less technologically advanced (McGee and Warms, 2004). The most significant thinkers amongst the many of this era were thinkers such as Herbert Spencer, Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward and Burnett Tylor.

Elaborating and expanding on the theorists’ schools of thought, Spencer’s belief was that evolution was progressive and evolutionary change signified movement from simple to complex states. In Social Organism (1860), he postulated that evolution was a “moral force” that focused on transmission of learned behaviours from one generation to the next (McGee and Warms, 2004). Spencer explains how societies grow and expand over time, with their structures and functions becoming both differentiated and specialised, which later move on to achieving higher levels of integration. He further went on to elaborate on this mechanism by making reference to an organic analogy whereby society functions as a body with its set of organs that ensured its functioning and maintenance. Therefore, through this he was able to draw from Darwin’s biological evolution and make similar contentions for the mechanisms underlying social evolution, which was – evolutionary progress occurred since life was a struggle for survival and those with superior skills and traits succeeded (Sanderson, 2006).

Morgan and Tylor on the other hand, build upon similar ideas, advancing this argument as evolution comprising phasic stages of cultural development, wherein societies move from simple to complex. While both the theorists are categorised as unilineal evolutionists and shared similar theoretical foundations, they differed in terms of culture, particularly in terms of the aspect of culture they studied. Morgan’s research primarily focused on family and subsistence patterns of Native Americans in particular, and in Ancient Society (1977), he set forth his theory of “ethnical periods’ ‘ of human cultural development. He assorts societies into a sequential manner by judging their level of technological development, whether it be in terms of subsistence patterns (savagery, barbarism, civilization) or family-kinship (consanguine, punaluan, syndyasmian, patriarchal, monogamian). His theory differs from Spencer’s when it comes to the aspect of competition, since Morgan proposed technological advancement or “germs of thought” that sparked the transition from one stage to another (McGee and Warms, 2004).

In comparison, Tylor branched his study out towards “survivals” or cultural remnants that signified cultural development, and argued this by stating that earlier stages of development could be studied through reconstruction (McGee and Warms, 2004). Tylor’s approach was therefore, more diachronic by using myths, religion, and language to reconstruct the past histories. His primary research on religion, where he focuses on the evolution of enlightened monotheism arising from polytheism and animism. However, a common ground between Morgan and Tylor lies in their belief in the “psychic unity of mankind”, which implies that while cultural development took place parallely however at independent stages for different societies. Spencer, Morgan and Tylor therefore, laid down the foundations of social evolutionism or unilineal evolutionism. The century after saw Marx and Engels as two more proponents of social evolutionism with their extensive study on the historical development of capitalism. Both these theorists validated their theories through Morgan’s emphasis on material achievements and technology, since Marx as well as Engels believed conflict to be the driver of social change.

Gathering the arguments for classical social evolutionism or unilinear evolutionism, one can see that cultural diversity as a phenomenon was not of importance to these theorists, but rather it was prioritised more for being an indicator of movement from one stage of evolution to another (Barnard, 2000). The main criticism of classical social evolutionism lay in the fact that most of the theorists merely utilised sufficient primary research to substantiate their claims, and yet constantly attempted to objectify their theories. Further, the ethnocentric worldview practiced by most of these theorists created larger gaps in their research dampening the rigor of the science itself. The practice of this same Arm-Chair Anthropology is what was the major drawback of Anthropology as a discipline, and led to anti-evolutionary theories and movements.

Neo-Evolutionism

Neo-Evolution marked the shift of evolutionary paradigm from a sequence of phasic stages of development to techno-environmental approach, that focused on cultural ecology. The adoption of this theoretical basis emerged out of revival of evolutionary thought with the intention of retaining only certain constructs of the theory. Neo-evolutionary theories follow from large amounts of empirical evidence, which it was able to achieve from archaeology as a foundation for research on material culture. Largely, neo-evolutionism draws the relation between long term cultural changes that are generalised and short term changes that are more ecological and local to the environment (Brick, 2012). Further, they may also address ethnological characteristics of such features with their respective historical trajectory. The major proponents of neo-evolutionism were Leslie White and Julian Steward, who hypothesised two contrasting orientations for the theory.

Leslie White, taking on from Morgan’s unilineal evolution follows in line with a directional sequenced approach to complexity of societies. According to White, the lack of a non-ethnocentric and scientific method of research was the major pitfall of classical social evolutionism. Emphasising the role of technology, White theorised that change in technology marked the stages of evolution, and further, he proposes three analytical levels of culture – technological, sociological and ideological. He drew inspiration from Marx, and therefore his focus on technology and energy is prominent, as seen in Energy and the Evolution of Culture, where he explains the role of technology affecting society’s institutions and value systems. White states, “culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased.” This implies, technological determinism serves as an indicator that measures cultural change to measurable absolute standard (Pepper, 1960). Therefore, the main criticism for White’s theory rested in the fact that it didn’t take any other dynamic factors into consideration such as human personality or unspecific social change which could alter the defined course of evolution. Another proponent belonging to the neo-evolutionary thought is Gordan Childe, who asserted that prehistory and history are relatively the same except for their methodology, and the ages of humankind were defined by technology that would find evidence in archaeological record. His beliefs aligned much with White’s, who as seen earlier, champions the technology and energy as indicators-of-development case. Both of them also belonged to the universal school of evolutionism and therefore draw from Morgan and Spencer.

Julian Steward however, advances his argument through multilineal evolution, whereby he postulates cultural ecology to explain that cultures in similar environments follow the same developmental sequence and then accordingly respond to the environment. These features were generally associated with subsistence patterns and were categorised as cultural cores, and further cultural types could be identified from them in a hierarchy of complexity. Steward’s main contention was that societies did not undergo a universal sequence of development and adapted to the needs and pressures of their own distinct environment (McGee and Warms, 2004). He thus, defines evolution as more specific and relative implying parallels between cultures can develop independently without any link between them, merely as a result of the histories of the respective cultures. Steward also borrows from Kroeber (1915), by adopting a diachronic approach to understand evolution, taking into account the geography and environment. Therefore, the broad basis of Stewards multilineal evolution laid in sociocultural integration (to the environment) which then defined increasing complexity of this particular adaptation.

Neo-evolutionism thus moved beyond the sequential stages of development and broadened its expanse to factoring in other variables that could impede these stages progression. It’s adoption of historical development to explain change, while taking into account the cultural ecology of the society and thereby attribute evolution to beyond one specific factor. While acknowledging these merits, another point to attend to is that cultural relativism is another perspective it employs. Unlike previous evolutionary theories, neo-evolutionism looks at cultures from the standard of their own, rather than comparing them to another standard. Taking into account the criticism of neo-evolutionism, the role of social institutions and unforeseen social change is lost, in the sense that these factors are not considered to impact cultural development. Secondly, their emphasis on the causation of techno-environmental causation somewhere loses the essence of evolutionary thought in the first place.

Comparing Social Evolutionism and Neo-evolutionism

The paradigms that both social evolutionism and neo-evolutionism belong to are although resting on the same foundation, they present two very stark differences in their theoretical approach. While social evolutionism rests it’s belief that societies evolve in levels of complexity, based on economy and subsistence, neo-evolutionism states that societies do not undergo a stage to stage transgression, and rather focuses more on the factors that contribute to development. Therefore, a shift in the paradigm of evolutionary thought is prominent, which indulges itself in an area of speculation rather than proven evidence that says otherwise. Neo-evolutionism was much more widely accepted amongst scholars, as a more tangible school of thought, since it deemed societies at the standard of their own rather than comparing them, while also studying their development patterns through historical development. However, neo-evolutionism failed too, largely because they over-prioritised the factors causing development rather than the development itself. The focus shifted from evolution to what causes evolution and therefore, neo-evolutionism adopted a selectivist view of culture itself.

Classical social evolutionism was refuted and considered problematic because of the lack of scientific validity of it’s claims, and the lack of evidential research to support these claims. The major proponents of the theory did not study cultures in the specifics of the stages that they asserted these societies were situated in, and therefore most of their claims were purely conjecture. Theorists like Tylor however, did actively participate in studying the cultures he was writing about, however another demerit of social evolutionism also lies in its etic ethnocentric view of the world. All of these theorists recognise their own cultures as being superior and as something cultures of lower level have to strive for and therefore, adopt the face of arm-chair anthropology. Neo-evolution on the other hand, improvised upon this shortcoming and operationalised rigorous methodology to support its claims, through ethnographies and material culture records. More importantly, it accounts for historical development since many of its theorists belonged to the Boasian Historical Particularism school of thought, and therefore they don’t view cultures as isolated groups succeeding the scale of progression from one level to another. They adopt a more holistic view entailing the ecology, technological developments, and other such related factors, and specify the roles these play in evolving society. Therefore, Neo-evolutionism is closer to the Darwinian school of thought rather than Classical Social Evolutionism, which is more Social Darwinian.

Conclusion

The two schools of thought – Social Evolutionism and Neo-Evolutionism present stark contrast in the foundations of their very ideas, as has been presented above. Classical evolutionism was accepted for it’s times since it gave anthropologists one of the earliest and most fundamental conceptions of human society – evolution. Arm-chair anthropology however, was the pitfall for the entire discipline itself, and anthropology lost all acclaim until World War II. Post this, the revival of evolutionary thought, which although presented novel ideas and thoughts was also a reawakening of the discipline. Neo-evolutionism was widely accepted by scholars all around the world, since it mitigated the primary downfall of social evolutionism – primary research and evidence. It gave the discipline of Anthropology the scientific rigour it was chasing in order to establish itself as a social science. Both these schools of thought offer a multitude of ideas, that although haven’t necessarily been accepted since, yet they situated the substructure for anthropological theory as a whole.

Theorists like Morgan, Spencer, Steward, Marx amongst many others, proposed ideas way ahead of their times. Even in conjecture, they suggested theories that replicated biological evolutionary models into society and culture in a manner that was acceptable and observable in those times. While both these theories have their own merits and demerits, the strong contentions that they posed and challenged explained a great deal about society and culture to the extent of explaining development, and raising questions for the future of the species.

References

1. Antweiler, C. (1991). Transgenerational Cultural Dynamics: From Neo-Evolutionism To a Truly Evolutionary Theory. Cultural Dynamics, 4(3), 270–289.
2. Barnard, A. (2000). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
3. Brick H. (2012) Neo-Evolutionism Anthropology, the Cold War, and the Beginnings of the World Turn in U.S. Scholarship. In: Solovey M., Cravens H. (eds) Cold War Social Science. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
4. McGee, R. J., & Warms, L. R. (2004) Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
5. Pepper, G. (1960). Leslie A. White’s Theory of Cultural Evolution. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 21(4), 319-330.
6. Sanderson, S. K. (2001). Social Evolution: Overview. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 14279–14286.

Across all professions that work with people, prejudices influence conduct and create considerable ethical dilemmas. One ethical issues for a criminologist working with Indigenous Australians is the overrepresentation of First Nations People in the criminal justice system. This can be attributed to over policing, discriminatory use of discernment and social influences (drugs, alcohol, parenting and poverty). However, we can address and minimise these issues by acknowledging our unconscious bias, understanding ideologies such as social Darwinism and how that affects power imbalances, both past and present, an understanding of history and intergenerational trauma, and the ability to distinguish between individual and social problems, all of which are skills taught in courses like SCS130.

A criminologist’s role is to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the justice system, keep laws relevant, assess reasons behind criminal behaviour, crime prevention and reduction, and policing strategies and corrections (Good Universities Guide 2016). They work with individuals and wider communities, focussing on disadvantaged groups. One ethical issues criminologist face is the over representation of Indigenous Australians in the justice system. Between 2000 and 2008, the Indigenous incarceration rate had increased by 34.5% (Australian Institute of Criminology 2009). Indigenous people were 17.2 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous people in 2008, with 1,6523 prisoners for every 100 000 Indigenous adults (Australian Institute of Criminology 2009).

One key contributor to higher Indigenous arrest rates is the issue of discriminatory police discernment, which this can be minimised through acknowledging and resisting unconscious biases. Police discernment is unavoidable (Egger and Findlay 1988) – individuals choose what offences are worth pursuing and organisational choices centre around resource allocation for offences and locations. However, Cuneen (1992) observed this being implemented in a way that negatively impacted Indigenous Australians. The studies of Eggleston (1976) found that Indigenous Australians were mostly charged for street crimes: public drunkenness or disorder, graffiti, vandalism, social incivilities and offensive language (Mazerolle 2015), which are not a significant threat to society. The over offending rate for low level crimes does not suggest that Indigenous people are more inclined towards criminal behaviour but that there is a flaw in our justice system that leads them to be more likely to be arrested and charged than non-Indigenous Australians and for less serious reasons (Clifford 1982). This can be attributed to our unconscious bias, which often goes unnoticed and uncontrolled (Equality Challenge Unit 2013). For example, racism is, in many people, an unconscious bias –discrimination or different treatment of people according to race (Anti-Defamation League 2019). It results in us treating individuals differently without just reason, such as arresting an Indigenous man for a reason the we would not necessarily arrest a ‘white’ man. However, a study by Devine (1989) found that the difference between prejudiced and not prejudiced people is not how many prejudices they held but rather their ability to resist them. Many of the biases individuals hold come from external factors, such as the views of peers or misinformed stereotypes perpetuated by media. Such myths and misconceptions are addressed and corrected in the week two content of SCS130, meaning that student can go into future professions with a more accurate, less prejudiced view of Indigenous Australians. Similarly, they are ingrained into the policies that govern our culture, as explored in the Week 3 content. By completing a course such as SCS130, students can address their unconscious biases and those in the society around us and develop the ability to resist them, which promotes a future where Indigenous people are treated more fairly in the justice system without facing discriminatory discernment.

Avoiding over policing is another ethical issue criminologists must face, however an understanding of social Darwinism and how that affects both past and present social structures and power dynamics can provide some clarity. Over policing is the use of unreasonable intervention relating to criminal issues, reflected in both the extent and nature of police involvement -this may look like increased police presence in Indigenous communities, racial profiling, unnecessary surveillance, and intervention (Williams-Mozley 2015). Palm Island, 2004 made this evident when after the death of an Indigenous man in police custody, excessive police officers were deployed to the island to respond to an ‘uprising’ in the community. The family reported feeling intimidated and harassed by policeman (Watson 2010), during a time of mourning, when sympathy and privacy would be expected from authorities. Since colonisation, European settlers have used a range of excuse to exercise unnecessary control over Indigenous lifestyle and enforce the ‘white’ way of life. Two of the most damaging examples of this are the removal of Indigenous children from their parents and the issue of stolen wages, which are explored in week 5 and 7 of SCS130. It is estimated that around 10% of Aboriginal children were removed from their parents between 1910 and 1970, or around 25000 children (Manne 2001), and that roughly FIND HOW MUCH MONEY IS OWED FROM NOTES. Social Darwinism is the idea that some cultures are superior and more evolved than others (Halliday 1971). It was a dominant ideology in the 19th and 20th centuries and influenced policies that sought to exert control over Indigenous Australians. It accepted that the European way of life was ‘normal’ and anything else was ‘primitive’ and inferior’. This ideology is still relevant today, and can be observed in the over policing of Indigenous Australians – the law can be used as an excuse to micromanage Indigenous communities, and exert control over everyday choices. It’s another enforcer of social Darwinism and promotion of the ‘white’ way of life. SCS130 emphasises teaching both what Social Darwinism is and how it affected policies in the past, such as the removal of Indigenous children and the inability for Indigenous people to receive a fair wage. As a criminologist, it is important to recognise that the law favours ‘white’ ways of life, and using it to justify unnecessary involvement in Indigenous lives is merely an extension of the coloniser attitude of superiority. By understanding and being able to recognise this ideology, taught in classes like SCS 130, we can recognise similar power structures prevalent in the world today and as a criminologist, allocate resources in a way the promotes safety rather than scrutiny.

Possibly the most controversial issue of Aboriginal criminality is the higher rates of alcohol and drugs use, disconnected parenting and poverty in Indigenous communities. Dealing with this presents a considerable ethical dilemma for criminologists, however, an understanding of the sociological perspective and intergeneration trauma changes approaches to Aboriginal criminality. Of all clients in drug and alcohol services in 2015, 15% were Indigenous, which is an over representation of the population (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018). Additionally, the Census 2001 found that the average Indigenous household income in Australia is only 62% of the average non-Indigenous household income, with the gap increasing even more in rural areas (Australian Human Rights Commission 2006). In 20015-16, 48% of young people under youth justice supervision were Indigenous, and children were 7 times more likely to have received child protection services than non-Indigenous (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017). Therefore, children are not able to form significant bonds with their parents. Weak parent-child attachment, alcohol and drug abuse and economic stress all correlate positively with crime rates (Weatherburn 2001). Whilst it is easy to assume that the effects of these things on a person may be the result of individual choices or faults, Mills (1959) sociological imagination theory requires us to consider the distinction between and individual problem and larger social problems – the high drug and alcohol use amongst Indigenous communities is not because they lack self-control, or are more prone to any other negative character trait but rather, there is social problem correlating with this. One relating social problem is the role of intergenerational trauma – trauma (an overwhelming response to a disastrous event rendering a person unable to cope) passed down from the original survivors to future generations through parenting styles, behaviours, substance abuse issues and mental health problems (Healing Foundation 2013). For First Nations people, this outlines how issues such as the frontier violence, removal of children, lack of recognition as custodians of the land, displacement and other effects of the colonisation of Australia affect day to day life. The shared history taught in SCS130 as well as the understanding of the sociological perspectives changes the approach of a criminologist to Indigenous people whose offences may be a result of social influences. Rather than condemnation for poor choices, better recognition of traumas and responsibility Australia holds to its first Nations people may be more effective.

The over representation of Indigenous people in the justice system is a significant ethical issue for a criminologist, attributed to over policing, discriminatory use of discernment and the influence of drugs, alcohol, disconnected parenting and poverty. However, an understanding of the Sociological Imagination, Social Darwinism unconscious bias and the shared history of Australia, as taught in courses like SCS130 can change the way we approach these issues. Discriminatory use of discernment can be attributed to our often unrecognised racist bias that is further perpetuated by politics and the media, however recognising this and resisting it leads to better and fairer implementation of policies. Over policing can be recognised as an extension of the power dynamics that stem from Social Darwinism and beliefs of European lifestyle as normality and the over representative use of drugs and alcohol, separation from parents and higher rates of poverty, which increase crime rates are not the result of individual choices but rather a larger social problem, particularly the intergenerational trauma from ongoing effects of colonisation. The curriculum of SCS130 has the potential to lead to a more sympathetic and equality based justice system, that addresses and recognises its own faults rather than condemning individuals.

In the nineteenth century the United States had transformed from a largely rural, agricultural society to an urban, industrial one, this change was driven by the emergence of the corporate business model. Some factors that created and environment that the corporate industry could thrive in was; labor surplus, favorable legal climate, and social Darwinism. These things are what drove the growth of big business in America in the nineteenth century. The constant growth in each of these topics are important to the growth and where we stand today in big businesses, people like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J Pierpont Morgan have been some influences in the transformation.

One of the first factors that I listed that has helped transform the United States was, labor surplus. The definition of labor surplus is, the means of labor performed in excess of the labor necessary to produce, that the people are in the need of more jobs, the “overflow” the means of livelihood of the worker. The ‘surplus’ in this context means the additional labor a worker has to do in his/her job, beyond earning his own keep, this meaning that the people are doing more of what is needed in order to keep the job and from the next/following person in line receiving it. John D. Rockefeller was the co-founder of the standard oil company, this was a creation of more jobs that people were allowed to receive and allowing to have a full staff. The creation of this oil company brought many competitors, and this was allowing for the growth of big business, this allowed the drive for people to crate things similar and this led to the grow of more jobs, meaning that the labor surplus was up; overflow of the amount of people wanting job, “too many”.

Secondary to the effect of the growth in big business world was favorable legal climate, the continued the following about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, “it declared that corporate efforts to monopolize industries and thereby “restrain” competition were illegal” (Tindall & Shi, 634). This mean that it was too maintain a free competition in business and made it a crime to monopolize any part of a trade. Within the growth of big businesses this had the effect of companies coming up with their own ideas and not taking other but also restricting the trade with other companies which was no fair for other in their business growth. The trust was the ability to maintain the company’s money and in the way the act was created in order for shares. Another act that was created was the “Sugar Trust Case” this allowed the United States say that they limited the government’s power to control monopiles.

Lastly is the concept of Social Darwinism, this means that all humans have the want and need to clime the basic of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, natural selection, and social class. Within the constraints of climbing into a big business in the need to be at the top and not only being at the top but having something in a business that cannot be recreated by another business. “Social Darwinism implied the need for hands-off, laissez-fair government polices”, this means that they did not want that the government to have a majority of control (Tindall & Shi, 711). Social Darwinism also meant the Survival of the fittest allowing for the people to climb to the top, this allowed the growth of the big business growth. To me the Growth of Social Darwinism is the most important in the growth, because if you don’t have the drive to be at the top or be there best then there is not going to be the competition for a big business world.

In the end we have looked at some major factors that have helped that United States emerge into the growing of a big business, along with some major people that have influenced the way the world is today and how much we have grown. I still believe in the end that all these factors are not the end of the growth of “big businesses”, I believe that no matter what the year is we will continue to grow in the side of big business. There will never be a stop in the world and people being content, there will always be a competition in the business world. Each topic brought forth the real meaning of the growth of the United States of the big business world and where it was heading to end up where we are today. Slowly over time the United States has turned from a largely rural, agricultural society to an urban, industrial one.

Work Cited

1. Shi, David E. Tindall, George Brown. America: a narrative history / David Emory Shi, George Brown Tindall. Tenth edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2016

What is the difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism and there are two concepts that definitely are important in the study of European history and in the story of human history so let’s take a look at the two and see what the difference is all right so let’s tackle Darwinism first who was Charles Darwin well Charles Darwin grew up in Britain and he was sort of a theology student but as a young man he really enjoyed studying geology and biology he was one of these curious amateur science types well in 1831 he sort of got the chance to make his hobby into his life’s work because he got the Commission to go on the HMS Beagle on a British expedition and the British expedition was going to go and study plants and animals and eventually made its way to the Galapagos Islands Islands which have been really pretty much untouched by human involvement and he was able to study plants and animals and compare them with plants and animals on the mainland this got him thinking he started to pull away from the idea which was prevalent at the time and it was still fairly prevalent today of a divinely inspired life form and he started to develop his theory of natural selection and when he got back to Britain he would write a very influential book which would go ahead and explain that theory so

In 1859 Charles Darwin published on the Origin of Species and in this he put forth this idea of organic evolution in other words there are going to be natural changes in plant and animal life as time evolves and it kind of goes all Thomas Malthus on us here there is a growing population of animals and they’re competing for a finite set of resources like food and so therefore there’s a competition and when there’s a competition not everything can survive so his theory kind of goes like this some animals will develop special adaptations which allow them to more easily more efficiently or more aggressively get the food that they need in order to survive that won’t leave enough food for the animals who don’t develop this kind of adaptation who will then die off and the animals who have the adaptation in their genes will then pass those genes on to the next generation who will then continue to have that same adaptation that is actual evolution and over a long period of time this could create different species of animals who look act and have different abilities from the species of animals from which they developed now the implication he said of this is that there was a natural selection process whereby the fittest would survive so that’s where we get the phrase survival of the fittest and it it’s it’s a theory that people began to embrace but at this point he was really only talking about plants and animals

It wasn’t until 1871 that he published the descent of man and this is what really kind of got him into a lot of trouble with a lot of people and makes his name controversial even to up until today because this is where he said that all creatures including man come from some ancient common ancestor in other words he attacks the idea that had been a major part of Christian beliefs since well the very beginning that man was somehow special in the universe that man had a special place given to him by God that man was the center of creation and now portrayed man is just another animal who had evolved from other animals and there were a lot of reasons why people didn’t want to accept this you know whether it be personal belief whether it be arrogance whether it be simply Christian faith

You know there were a lot of reasons and well it was a direct attack on Christianity gradually science came to believe the ideas that Darwin had but some people were going to take it in different directions so now we come to social Darwinism a guy named Herbert Spencer decided to apply Darwin’s ideas of survival of the fittest to human societies and he came up with this theory those societies which were more fit survive would advance farther than societies that did not and for more advanced societies to takeover or attack or whatever societies that were less fit to survive in his eyes was okay because that was the natural way of things this was used by the way for a very long time as sort of the moral justification for the age of imperialism in which European countries went out and colonized those areas of Africa which they had not previously colonized and well parts of Asia as well and they used this justification of social Darwinism to say that the people who lived there were less developed less evolved than the people from Europe

Now of course Herbert Spencer’s ultimate sort of justification for all of this is that in this competition for survival there would ultimately be conflict and the winners of the conflict would in their winning prove themselves to be superior to the people that they that they beat and Europe had amazing success in colonizing and beating these other areas it seemed to all kind of make sense to a lot of people now as a theory this is one thing but put but in practice the idea of natural selection in human societies started to turn into something else and that’s because the societies that were increasingly being conquered by white Europeans were populated by darker skinned non Europeans and if we generalize and that’s what they were doing at the time there there was a natural proclivity to believe that people who had darker skin were less evolved than people who had lighter skin because that’s what they were seeing around the world because that’s what they needed to justify what they were doing because they were searching for answers probably all of those are true so what’s the legacy of these two ideas well let’s start with Darwinism

Okay the idea of evolution natural selection and the survival of the fittest is something which is a generally accepted scientific principle today that that there is evolution that if we look at things like fruit flies that you know have really short lifespans and you can watch like generations go by in a couple hours makes it really convenient you can see it happening and I can’t give you the complete scientific description of all of this for that you’re gonna have to search for someone who’s you know knows more stuff about science but for here what it means is that as people begin to believe more in the ideas of evolution they tend to move away from a traditional and literal interpretation of the Bible thus weakening the power of the church and religion in everyday life and the legacy of Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism well that’s something that’s really a bit scarier a lot scarier because it’s sort of the basis for a racial ideology that still kind of haunts Western societies if not the entire world today by implying that people who are non-european are less evolved than Europeans it allowed Europeans to do lots of things to those people that they might not otherwise have done but it is important to understand that these two ideologies radically changed the lives of people and the history of the entire world so that’s the basic difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism one is a scientific theory which is still accepted by scientists today and one is a discredited generally considered racist ideology that caused a lot of death and suffering.

Summary

Social life had degenerated into a stark, competitive struggle for existence and civil society had descended into the law of the social jungle. The author starts the article with a refer to the jungle. He addressed the sense of alienation, confrontation and defiance. The so called neoliberal policies pursued by many governments of low taxes, reduced government spending, privatization, de-regulation and the replacement of government programs by private-sector, market-driven services rapidly changed societies. The neoliberalism has a stronghold in the modern world. Social worlds are determined by the policies of privatization and deregulation. Erosion of the public sector and the steady expansion of industries dominated by a small group of corporations in the private sector. Citizens has been eclipsed by consumers. The major arbiter of people is nowadays the market or economy. Our present society could be labelled as ‘social Darwinism’. The author refers to the law of social jungle. Does it dominate our ideas and world? The author argued that the essence of social Darwinism was the ideology created by Herbert Spencer. Common formula of “competition and selection” is what drives people and also entertains people through television. The author specifically mentions reality television which naturalizes questions the social Darwinism of competitive capitalism and neoliberalism. Besides these factors reality tv also contributes to narcissism, self-promotion and instant celebrity status. The author argued if social Darwinism has returned?

First the author addressed Herbert Spencer and the Rise of Social Evolutionism. Herbert Spencer (Victorian era) was a sociologist with major contradictions in his theory. In developing his evolutionary theory of society, Spencer combined intellectual traditions that were often radically at odds with each other and fundamentally irreconcilable. Other socialist thinkers like Comte, synthesize order and progress in society whereas, Spencer’s work is in paradoxes.

In his evolutionary theory Spencer combined organicism; the mutual interdependence of all parts biological or social, the so called function. He had a more individualistic view in contrary to Comte and Durkheim. And positivism; Spencer and Comte agreed that the task of sociology was to discover general laws of society in the way that Newton and Darwin discovered their laws. Although Spencer remained an radical individualist. The last key word: evolutionism; all forms of matter were subject to the general laws of evolution. He distinguished it between the levels of material reality, nonmaterial and human society. Societal foundations of evolution consisted out of social structure and social dynamics. This process was from simple to complex organization. Evolution was necessary for survival argued Spencer. Spencer understood societal evolution primarily in “materialist” terms. He saw the evolution of human societies as going to different stages of material culture such as technology and humanity.

Utilitarianism principle stated; “The greatest good for the largest number is obtained through the unregulated pursuit of individual self-interest. Also referred as rational egoism. The society and economy worked most efficiently when indivduals were left to pursue their own self-interest. Nowadays known as the “market principle”. Spencer argued that societies were fully reducible to the sum of their individual parts. Although he had a strong radical utilitarian principle which became the trademark of intellectual culture in Britain.

Author mentioned that Spencer’s principles of sociology and classification of human societies presents with apparent similarities and differences between his idea and those of Comte. Spencer embraced a positivist theory of knowledge (not of social engineering). And also social statics and social dynamics. Society could be analysed in terms of different systems: the sustaining system, the regulating system and the distributing system. Furthermore, Spencer developed a general classification of all known human societies based on the evolutionary levels of society. The simple societies, compound societies, double-compound societies and treble-compound societies. The most known classification was his categorical distinction between militant and industrial societies. Spencer is well- known for his general ideas for existence and his “survival of the fittest”. The ideology of social Darwinism could be explained in four basic assumptions: the biological laws, all species grow exert to the available food supply, highly adaptive traits (competitive) and effects of natural selection and elimination of species.

The conclusions drawn from the ideology of social Darwinism can be drawn as following: survival of the fittest, a combination of shifting and changing intellectuals. Social Darwinism would be seen as a conservative ideology although some facts were more progressive. Furthermore, many different interpretations of the ideology could be made.

Furthermore, theories like Spencer’s view evolved and changed in his writings. The lesson the author provides in this article is that people can learn from Spencer. He stated that an important value to uphold is freedom and all utopian schemes for social transformation are circumscribed by global resources and humanity.

Evaluation and conclusion

What I would consider a positive point is that the author (Simmons) constructs his articles in a clear introduction, then chapters more in depth, a simple conclusion, criticism on the mentioned theories and finally a lesson which can be learnt. This makes it interesting and great to read. Furthermore, focussed on this article: the main point of critic is that Spencer has conflicting theories or ideas; for example the social Darwinism and his individualism. The author summarized this multiple times. I would argue that this makes it easier for students to learn from the text. Furthermore, the author has an objective view and considers more ‘sides’ of the theory.

The Aboriginal people for me, were barely spoken about over my years of learning history. What use to be a large population of Australia became a very small percentage over time and I wanted to know why. After studying the topic of Eugenics and observing how it affected this now dying race by separating their mixed race children or “half-casts” from there Aboriginal parents in order to make sure that Australia would become an all white continent, just because they were seen as inferior due to their different distinct physical characteristics (Social Darwinism). This motivated me to find out more about this specific topic.

There were many different ideas about race which was then placed into two main categories or two different theories; Scientific Racism and Social Darwinism are the two main theories developed. People who studied human behavior, known as social scientists(who developed social Racism) were convinced that the way Natural Scientists categorize animals and plants depending on their specific characteristics was the same way people/humans should be categorized. They then started measure people as well as categorize them according to physical features such as skin tones and the sizes of their skulls. They reached to a conclusion, after creating the different types of races, about each race’s common characteristic that they had established. From what they found, each race has their own distinct characteristic compared to the other races. The other theory, Social Darwinism is all about evolution. To Social Darwinists it showed on Earth by how all types/species of animals are always evolving, some are more advanced than others. This theory was created by Charles Darwin(British scientist). Herbert Spencer (English social scientist) described the theory of Evolution as “survival of the fittest”, this entails that some human beings were at early levels of evolution. This particular theory produced ideas of racial hierarchy, where races , such as Whites, believed they were the superior race compared to the different races like Africans. This allowed them to gain control over who they claim were the inferior races. In Australia, the Aboriginal people were the indigenous people. They were around living on the the land way before the Europeans came. These people would move around as they were hunter-gatherers living on what nature provided for them, they were constantly on the search for clean water, fresh food and favorable climate. Once the British came about, they started chopping down trees and building housing for settlers. Due to settlers cutting down the trees that provided the Aborigines with food, they started to depend on the British settlers(who were unaware the Aboriginal people’s rights and they refused to give them the land back. The British made them on their farms as domestic workers and paid them a very little wage, this led to the Aborigines becoming broke and were easily victims to diseases(such as smallpox). The European people, according to the Pseudo-scientific theory Darwinism, they massively believed such things in the 19th century. The Aborigines were at the “early” stages which could not compete with the Europeans who were “advanced”. The Aboriginal people were not allowed to vote or own dogs and guns. What’s more, intermarriage between a white person and on Aboriginal people had to be specially permitted. However, Aborigines were moved by force to reserves. Now in the 1960s, all the Australian government wanted to do was uniformed, white Australia. The way in which attempted this had very horrific effects on the indigenous community.

At the start of the 20th century, the aborigines were close to being extinct. Although, the half-cast (mixed race of aborigine and white) population started increasing and the government realized that the so called “Aboriginal problem” was not going to end so easily. After the Aborigines were forced into the reserves ,they were aiming for the race to die out whilst the half-cast children were forced to enter a white community and were pair to a white person once they were old enough so that the aboriginal genes would vanish and the white genes are the only remaining genes generation after generation.

Social Darwinism is a sociological theory that assumes natural selection and fighting for survival. Despite the fact the approach applied to nature, it spread to human relationships as well. The idea is that only wealthy, educated, clever people deserve to exist within the society. Poor, illiterate people, beggars, and panhandlers were excluded from the range of worthy and decent personalities. However, there is a difference between panhandlers and poor people. It is vital to examine how panhandling may be seen in society and whether it should be outlawed for a better life.

First of all, it is essential to understand the differentiation between poor humans and panhandlers. Humans can be poor temporarily for multiple reasons; for example, it can be a job loss, personal tragedy, and many other reasons that make the person stay without money. However, in most cases, poor people try to find a new job, preserve capital, deny themselves simple human pleasures. Beggars and panhandlers might be fired or had never worked; they usually stay in the streets and ask people for some money. Moreover, these people may not try to find a job, as their activity is to beg money from others. Indeed, when a person gives money to a beggar, he encourages panhandling; thus, this activity should become illegal. However, it might be an excellent solution to allow work to both types of these people. It can be a motivation for them to change their lives.

The thing which differentiates the poor from the panhandler might be a desire to live better. If a poor person strives to find a job (even a low-paying), the beggar may remain in the street to ask for financial help. It is impossible to judge the value of panhandlers’ life; however, panhandling should be outlawed to give people an opportunity to live a decent life.

I am an excited learner when it comes to the effects of racism and the great minds who could state the very foundations of the ideals we now hold or question. I find it truly fascinating to see how our forebears managed to give an account of the way they viewed their ever-changing world and how future generations would come to rely on their wisdom when trying to enhance current points of view. However, we can only come to stress the effects of social theories such as New Darwinism when we look back on past events in our history which tend to highlight the beliefs of the author who in this case, is Charles Darwin.

While I progressed in my reading of the text “The New Darwinism”, I find myself becoming a time traveler, drifting into the era of World War II Europe. This was the time when Hitler and his purification of the German scheme involved the genocide of millions of Jews. All of his heinous acts at the time was meant to highlight the weakness of a particular race of people, in this case, the Jews, and how allowing them to continue to lay claim to German history allowed Hitler to raise an issue about how their continued existence would ruin the future capabilities and social structure of Germany.

The theories that Darwin presented in 1859 by Darwin’s Origin Of The Species allowed certain sectors the then your society to dwell on an issue of concern which led to them to express their concerns about the possible intermixing of races and ethnicity within the young American society. New Darwinism supporters force us to examine the very foundation of racism in our country’s history. How could a great country such as ours be able to express the sentiment of being a new world offering a new chance at life to anybody willing to take it alongside the claim that the very people whom we are to rely on to help us create a progressive society, would also come to embody the fear that interracial relationships may bring?

In my opinion, the followers of Social Darwinism created their ghosts because they chose to believe that the Origin Of The Species theory pointed towards the demise of a race due to blood intermixing instead. How silly of them to believe that social mixing would bring about the mongrelization and biological defeat of the White Man! In opting to support the belief that racial superiority depends solely on social classes, with those on top being more superior to those at the bottom ( the inferior race), racial discrimination was finally born with the force of natural law seeming to back it up.

Reading such outrageous statements led me to sit back and contemplate on the issue of race superiority. Hitler believed that the Aryan race was superior to any other race in Europe and that only by controlling the mix of the bloodline will the ultimate superior race be created. Leading me to ask the question “who has the right to determine the capabilities of any race or ethnic group simply based upon the theory of hereditary determinism”? Who are we to play god? What man-made power trip allowed the Social Darwinists and Nativists to determine the effects of immigration from the northern and western European areas on the founding race of America? It was at this particular point that I came to remember something that my now deceased grandfather used to tell me all the time, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. I fear that is exactly what these early social theorists did, they took what little they understood of a complex scientific theory and shaped it to work with their demons.

How lucky are we that Mother Time and social experience managed to eradicate the very basis of racial discrimination in our modern times? The biggest fear of our forebears was that the dilution of the bloodline would result in what has become the common stereotype for some races and ethnic groups like African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Latinos? The Jews, those long-persecuted people, are the biggest victims of all in terms of stereotyping.

Human biology and the intermixing of the bloodlines successfully disproved the Social Darwinist’s beliefs. The fact that our society is now 80 percent composed of mixed races proves that society will continue to evolve for the better as the best capabilities of each race are highlighted, and their mixed weaknesses just do not matter. Any weakness that the mixing of the races may have had can never outshine the fact that the mixing of the races was a good deal, to begin with.

After completely reading and comprehending the section of the book that we had as required reading for this course, I concluded that the Social Darwinist movement of the 19th century must have been composed of some of the most simple-minded people on the planet at the time. Thinking that culture is something that can be inherited made me snicker upon reading it. Such kind of thinking could only have come out of the mouths of simpletons!

I believe that I have come out of this reading as a much more well-rounded individual whose understanding of the basis of racial and ethnic discrimination now has a solid foundation thanks to the Social Darwinist society of the 19th century. I already knew that social and racial discrimination was wrong before reading the article. Now, I know where all of the confusion, illogical beliefs and unfounded fears that have been passed on from generation to generation comes from. It is not a pretty place and I do not intend on passing on these misguided beliefs and misinformation to my next generation.

The Battle Royal is a non-fictional work of Ralph Ellison and talks of the black people fighting for their freedom in the Whites’ society. The main theme of the story is social Darwinism. It implies that one must work hard to ensure he or she gains respect in society. The words that Ralph use creates imaginary pictures for the readers. For instance, he says, “It was a large room with a high ceiling. Chairs were arranged in neat rows around three sides of a portable boxing ring” (Ellison 1555).

The author also uses both metaphors and similes to help readers understand his story. He talks of the boys, who blindfolded boys, moving “like blind, cautious crabs…testing the air like the knobbed feelers of hypersensitive snails” (Ellison 1559). He also uses the first single voice in work, making it more captivating and interesting. The diction used is unpretentious, clear, and straightforward. In addition, there is the use of a modest, sincere, and humble tone in the story.

The tone helps pass information to the audience and reveals the author’s past life, failures, and success. Furthermore, Ralph’s diction is average in a way that any average person can easily understand. However, Ralph uses irony as a narration style. The reader can identify the irony where, in the story, the author thinks that he had a painful learning experience of innate things.

Hard work is the main social behavior presented in the story. It is common in modern society because human beings work hard to ensure that they succeed in their day-to-day endeavors (Goloboy 537). However, competition is an aspect of human life, and winning is the only means to get respect and good life (Brown and Goetzmann 679). Furthermore, a good life is also embedded in hard work and determines the amount of respect in society.

Works Cited

Brown, Stephen J. and Goetzmann William N. “Performance Persistence.” The Journal of Finance 50.2 (1995): 679- 698. Print.

Ellison, Ralph. “Battle Royal.” The Norton Anthology of African American Literature, 2^nd Edition. Ed. Gates, Henry L, and Nellie Y. McKay. 1555- 1563. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.

Goloboy, Jennifer L. “The Early American Middle Class.” Journal of the Early Republic 25.4 (2005): 537- 545. Print.