Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860-1915

by Richard Hofstadter

Overview

Social Darwinism in American Thought examines the overall influence of Darwin on American social theory and the notable battle waged among thinkers over the implications of evolutionary theory for social thought and political action. Theorists such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner adopted the idea of the struggle for existence as justification for the evils—as well as the benefits—of laissez-faire modern industrial society. Others, such as William James and John Dewey, argued that human planning was needed to direct social development and improve on the natural order.

Hofstadter's classic study of the ramifications of Darwinism is a major analysis of the social philosophies that animated intellectual movements of the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781512812350
Publisher:	University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Publication date:	01/29/1944
Series:	Anniversary Collection
Edition description:	Reprint 2016 ed.
Pages:	208
Product dimensions:	5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 0.50(d)
Age Range:	18 Years

Read an Excerpt

Preface

In this age of science there is a recurrent interest in the implications of the scientific outlook for ethics and social action. This essay deals with a particular phase of that problem. In using the expression "social Darwinism" I do not refer to a concept limited to the technical provinces of sociology. I am interested in the more general adaptation of Darwinism and related biological concepts to social ideologies. I have dealt with ideas familiar to the reading public as well as the work of trained scholars in the social sciences.

I have not tried to be comprehensive. The chronological limits of this study are in a measure arbitrary, but they do embrace the beginnings of social Darwinism, the period of its greatest influence and its most marked decline. Certain features of the influence of Darwinism, such as evolutionism in ethnology, have been barely touched upon because my fundamental interest is in those less technical aspects of social theory which are most likely to have a direct influence on the popular mind, and in turn reflect most faithfully the trend of informed public opinion. For similar reasons I have not tried to give a detailed account of important changes in biological theory which took place in the period under discussion. The major criticisms of Darwin's theory of natural selection have a logical bearing on the validity of social Darwinism; but because of a cultural lag these criticisms had but slight effect on the course of the popular discussion.

I am acutely aware that fiction was one of the most important vehicles by which Darwinism was interpreted to the public; but to study the impact of Darwinism on American fiction is another, equally large enterprise, and I have not attempted it in these pages. It is a pleasant duty to acknowledge the generous counsel I had from friends in the course of this work. I am grateful to professors Merle Curti and Harry J. Carman for their long encouragement of my interest in social and intellectual history and for their many valuable criticisms. To William Miller I am especially indebted for a very careful reading of the manuscript and for his penetrating comments and suggestions. The volume was also read to my great profit by professors Henry Steele Commager, Joseph Dorfman, Ernest Nagel, and Bernhard J. Stern. My principal debt is to my wife, Felice Swados Hofstadter, not only for her perceptive criticism of the manuscript in every stage but also for her constant and joyful interest in ideas.

I am greatly obliged to the Trustees of Columbia Universityfor the William Bayard Cutting Traveling Fellowship, which permitted me to bring the volume to early completion, and to the Beveridge Fund of the American Historical Association for undertaking its publication. For gracious assistance in the use of manuscript material I wish to thank the staffs of the Yale Universityand Brown Universitylibraries.

The chapter on William Graham Sumner appeared in a slightly revised version in the New England Quarterly.