Is Social Evolution racist?

[charles brough]

There are two very different ways of applying evolution to societies. Before Darwin's work was published, Herbert Spencer wrote in Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena (see Wikipedia). In other words, natural selection between human individuals shapes societies, not the other way around. Darwin did developed the concept of genetic or biological evolution but in Descent of Man, he wrote "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” In other words, he equated “society” with race.

Is it any wonder their words were all taken up as the standard bearers of the European world Empire, that the rule of the West was considered “the White Mans Burden” instead of simply a more efficient means of gaining economic growth from using other people and their lands? As Wikipedia describes it, the key argument of the Social Darwinists was “that nature works through survival of the fittest and so does human society. That is, that those who have survived or flourished did so by natural processes; those who died, are dying, or have failed economically likewise did so by natural processes; it is therefore unnatural and inefficient to try and change that through philanthropy or other non-market mechanisms (charity, government, etc.). Success or failure is usually dependent on natural traits, such as physical strength or guile.” This was developed into a whole belief system by Adolph Hitler. The subsequent defeat of Nazism ended Social Darwinism's eugenic theory of social evolution as a viable theory.

Later, it resurfaced as “Sociobiology” but in such a convoluted way that it was hard for anyone to recognize the Social Darwinism in it. Its author, E. O. Wilson brought in a whole new glossary of terms which were mostly only definable with each other. That made the work was so difficult to understand that the connection to Darwinism could almost be overlooked. Also, all reference to “race” was eliminated and most examples of genetic change were and are still promoted as altruism. In this way, the theory became so benign as to be accepted as another viable viewpoint. Because there has been no real explanation of what social evolution is and how it functions, anything at all was accepted was being better then nothing at all.

Indeed, in desperation, scholars have even been emphasizing subtle genetic changes occurring in the human race---as if they somehow helped to explain the growth of human numbers and that of the total human cultural heritage. They imply that genetic changes explain scientific/cultural “progress” even while denying the existence of “progress!'' Finally, in order to avoid the label of Social Darwinists, the term social evolution gave way to cultural evolution.

All that has effectively prevented social evolution from being regarded simply as the natural selection that occurs between religion bonded societies. Evidently, the thought of religions serving an evolutionary function is too offensive to the faithful to even be proposed. In that way, social theorists turned social science from a science into just another one of our society's many secular doctrines.

[Buffy]

Religion and race are becoming more and more insignificant as mechanisms that would cause geographically driven speciation to occur.

As we've discussed in numerous other threads around here (and actually if you read more E.O. Wilson, you'll find he's quite eloquent on the topic) "Social Darwinism" is missing many elements of Natural Selection, including among many other things, the fact that there really are no "individuals" who have "genes" who "reproduce." There are lots of interesting aspects of society that *can* be discussed using evolutionary parallels for enlightenment on a variety of topics, but Social Darwinism was built around the notion--necessary really if you're going to talk about evolution--that homogeneous racial/social/religious groups would forever remain separate, evolving into fundamentally different--and again, as a requirement for "speciation" in the evolutionary sense--unable to reproduce via intermixing of different groups.

Unfortunately it simply looks like you're trying to start a fight by claiming that saying "Social Darwinism is Racist" is hypocritical and cannot be defended.

Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended,
Buffy

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Social Darwinism was built around the notion that homogeneous racial/social/religious groups would forever remain separate, evolving into fundamentally different and unable to reproduce via intermixing of different groups.

Unfortunately it simply looks like you're trying to start a fight by claiming that saying "Social Darwinism is Racist" is hypocritical and cannot be defended.
Buffy

In the second paragraph you say I am hypocrital for saying just what you said above in the first paragraph. Or are you just quibbling? I'm not trying to start a fight, but perhaps you are by claiming I am being hypocritical and saying what cannot be defended. How do you know? Do you know everything that cannot be defended?

It seems to me absurd to lump race, social (what is a social?) and religious all together and use it to try to say anything; but social theorists commonly do it. In the first place, religion and race are clearly two different things and society---or "social"?---is something that the social theorists have given no commonly used, single meaning. A scientific word that has a lot of meaning has no real meaning at all. It is just a convenient tool for rationalizing with.

Buffy, I would be interested in knowing how you explain social (or even "cultural")evolution.

[Qfwfq]

Note Charles that it is always difficult to distinguish between what you are and what you aren't saying, so you really can't complain. I don't know about this case but it often has to do with your Humpty Dumpty stance.

Originally Posted by charles brough

Buffy, I would be interested in knowing how you explain social (or even "cultural")evolution.

There's nothing wrong about the notion of memes, but Social Darwinism is really a hash that is based on some arbitrary assumptions which are evident in what you quote as the key argument of the Social Darwinists: supposing certain things to depend on a person's inherited physical nature when instead they may be changed in the course of the same person's lifetime. Genetic evolution isn't strictly necessary for social or cultural evolution. Genes in the human race have been changing a bit, according to necessity, but ideas have changed a lot more and it's easier to change them than the genes.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Note Charles that it is always difficult to distinguish between what you are and what you aren't saying, so you really can't complain. I don't know about this case but it often has to do with your Humpty Dumpty stance.

There's nothing wrong about the notion of memes, but Social Darwinism is really a hash that is based on some arbitrary assumptions which are evident in what you quote as the key argument of the Social Darwinists: supposing certain things to depend on a person's inherited physical nature when instead they may be changed in the course of the same person's lifetime. Genetic evolution isn't strictly necessary for social or cultural evolution. Genes in the human race have been changing a bit, according to necessity, but ideas have changed a lot more and it's easier to change them than the genes.

I am mystified as to what I may have written that is not clear. Pick out one sentence, please.

If nothing is wrong with the "meme" theory, perhaps you use it to explain history and where we are going from here. . .

In March 2007, Cochran/Hawks in World Science reported that the main genetic changes have merely been a slight shrinking of body and brain size and changes in metabolism! So, I conclude that biological evolution ceased, as you stated more or less. What has changed is that over the last hundred thousand years or so, the religious heritage of mankind has improved. That has shaped or bonded people into technologically better societies and civilizations which support the growth of human numbers. Natural Selection has occured not biologically but between these many religious-bonded societies and caused this improvement.

That's all I am saying.