Divergent Enlightenment: Taking Darwin’s Name in Vain

I originally posted this over a Daily Kos and it died what I consider an all too quick death (hubris, perhaps?). As I introduce myself to this community, I thought that reposting a couple of diaries I am proud of would be a good way to let people here know a little about me.

This is a work in progress. I would be quite interested in hearing what you think. Let me know if I have any glaring errors. This is a historical primer, and not meant to reveal any new strategies or anything.

We on the left often use phrases like Social Darwinism to describe the right and Enlightenment to describe our own positions. The truth is, both left and right philosophies spring from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not all peace, love, and equality. In fact, ideas now commonly called Social Darwinism are actually Enlightenment ideas, reclassified as Darwinism by people trying to dress the ideas in scientific garb. Our own values grew from the Enlightenment into what might best be classified as Modern Humanism.

To trace the divergent paths of Enlightenment philosophies, read across the bump:
The Enlightenment was a time of pre-scientific focus on nature. Enlightenment thinkers looked to nature, rather than the Bible or religion, for ideas on the meaning and nature of life. It is out of the Enlightenment focus on nature that the scientific revolution sprung, but the Enlightenment itself was not scientific and retained many pre-scientific prejudices. Enlightenment thought followed two different paths, one which lead to the left and the optimistic belief in human abilities and equality, and one which lead to the right and a belief in a natural hierarchy within and between human societies.

Contrary to what Social Darwinists think, Darwin and science do not validate the right’s ideas of social structure, but rather elucidate why these ideas are wrong. That is why the right has found such a comfortable synergy with fundamentalist religion: because they both deny science. How ironic that the right has taken ideas that originated as a denial of God, and married them with religion.

Darwin has gotten much credit for things he did not do. Evolution, for instance, was not his idea, but can be traced back to ancient times in one form or another. Darwin only came up with the mechanism of natural selection, which he adapted from the works of social economists. He knew nothing of the patterns of inheritance, which Gregor Mendel first studied, and neither Mendel nor Darwin knew anything about DNA. Likewise, Darwin had nothing to do with the theories supporting bigotry, except that those theories were greatly boosted by the general and scientific acceptance of Darwinian natural selection, which was then misapplied to society.

Social Darwinism isn’t really Darwinism. The idea that the poor were unfit, and the phrase “survival of the fittest” actually predate Darwin’s publication of “On the Origin of Species” (1859). They are ideas from Enlightenment social economists. These economists’ social ideas inspired Darwin’s biological ideas, and not the other way around.

 From the Literary Encyclopedia:

Now who does that sound like? Republicans! 60+ years before Darwin published we have an almost perfect enunciation of the modern Republican philosophy. But the story goes on:

In America, early slaveholders often argued that Africans were not even human. Later slaveholders argued that slavery was the natural place for Africans in our society, where they would be the happiest and contribute the most. Even Enlightenment luminaries like Thomas Jefferson, who promoted the equality of man, thought this way (see my comment below for more on Jefferson’s attitude towards blacks). When they said man, they meant only white men. But, they made these arguments without benefit of a scientific theory on which to hang their hat.

Social economist Herbert Spencer is often credited with coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” He published “Progress: Its Law and Causes” in 1857, just 2 years before Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace, lets not forget the Co-theorist) published “On the Origin of Species”. Spencer was a hugely vocal supporter of Darwin, because Spencer felt Darwinian natural selection could be used to support his own theories. Spencer believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals, and so held that government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. He also felt that classes developed as a result of natural differentiation — that is, biologically superior people were more successful in society. He wrote in “Progress”:

So, while bigotry was not new, nor the argument that social class was a reflection of some natural order, the misapplication of Darwinian natural selection gave this bigotry the weight of science. Thus, the generally accepted term for the pseudo-science supporting bigotry is “Social Darwinism” not because Darwin came up with it or supported it, but because others relied on Darwinian thought to try and give their theories legitimacy.

Just look at the alternate title of “On the Origin of Species”: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin meant “races” in a biological sense, meaning something akin to subspecies or breed, but it didn’t stop people from applying it to human races (which are not even close to being distinct subspecies). Think of a Chihuahua versus a Saint Bernard for an example of what Darwin meant by “races”. They are both the same species, but far more different than a European is from an Asian or African. And this is where we see another irony: the Repubs reject evolution, thereby rejecting natural selection, yet they believe theories like The Bell Curve that purport to rely on Darwinian principals.

As I have stated previously, those theories misapply Darwinian and scientific knowledge. First, there is a huge difference in what Darwin meant by “fitness” and what Social Darwinists mean. For Darwin, the only important element of fitness is having offspring who have offspring who have offspring, thereby propagating an individual’s traits. In Social Darwinism, fitness typically means acquisition and control of resources. Ironically, those who expend their energy acquiring and controlling the most resources typically reproduce the LEAST. In a Darwinian sense, that makes them the least fit.

Early Social Darwinists recognized this conundrum and began promoting the idea that the reproduction of individuals in the lower classes should be regulated/restricted. The poor were thought to be poor because they are biologically inferior, so they should be prevented from reproducing and passing on inferior traits. Thus, eugenics was a major element of Social Darwinism until it became associated with the holocaust. Even people we now consider liberal pioneers supported eugenics. Margaret Sanger is lauded for pushing for legalized birth control, but one of her motivations was to limit the breeding of the inferior lower class. So here is yet another irony: the teaming of the Social Darwinists with the religious right, which is anti birth control.

Beyond the un-Darwinian application of the word “fitness”, Social Darwinists ignore a great deal of what science has revealed about the way nature works. Darwin recognized that there are “complex relations of all animals and plants throughout nature.” In short, we recognize that there is both competition and cooperation in nature. Two animals that work together are often more successful than even a very strong or fast animal of the same species working alone. Whether it is social animals that hunt or forage in packs or herds, or the little birds that pick stuck food from the teeth of hippos, animals rely on each other more than any of the Enlightenment social economists or today’s Social Darwinist theorists were/are willing to recognize or admit. Cooperation is, in fact, ubiquitous.

Humans are social animals. We form social groups out of a basic psychological/biological need/impulse. Because humans possess higher thought processes instead of relying on simple habit or instinct, our societies require organization. Religions are one way of organizing a society. Rule of law is another. In any case, organization means nothing without cooperation (or worse, it means tyranny to force cooperation). Even the free market relies on laws and rules and cooperation, though the right likes to pretend it is all about competition. Without regulation, the free market will become dominated by monopolies and then there is nothing free about it. The question that faces us now is where the balance should lie between competition and cooperation.

As I stated earlier, Enlightenment thought followed two disparate paths as our scientific knowledge grew. Each path has lead to a different answer to this question of cooperation versus competition. Out of the left leaning Enlightenment thought, which emphasized equality and freedom, emerged modern Humanism. The term Humanism has different meanings when applied to different historical periods, but in every case it has to do with celebrating human abilities. Modern Humanists, both secular and religious, see great potential within all individuals, and thus believe that compassion for our fellow humans is both natural and necessary and should be cultivated and encouraged. Humanists believe that all individuals have the same basic set of needs, and believe the best social structure should not only meet the needs of as many of its members as possible, but also enable as many as possible to achieve their potential. Humanists believe that all people belong to a global society beyond their local community, within a single global ecosystem that should be protected. Therefore, humanists believe the answer to the quandary above is that the appropriate balance between cooperation and competition is far more toward the cooperation end of the spectrum.

These basic principals lead to all of the many things we support: equal human rights, equal opportunity, justice and rule of law, full participatory democracy, global citizenship, free and equal public education, social programs, progressive taxation, environmental protection, regulation of industry, workers rights, and any other progressive principal that you can think of.

___

So, think twice before claiming we are the party of the Enlightenment, for the right can make the exact same claim and be just as accurate. In fact, they may be even more accurate in their claim, since they have maintained the Enlightenment’s bigoted ideas in spite of our current scientific knowledge.