Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Evolutionary theory charles darwin
Charles darwin theory of natural selection essay
Essays on social darwinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evolutionary theory charles darwin
The theory of Social Darwinism stems from the idea that the human species can progress by following the principal of Charles Darwin’s natural selection, in which he states that plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce, while those that cannot adapt will die. Social Darwinists applied this biological concept to social, political and economic issues, which created the “survival of the fittest” attitude, as well as competition and inequality between social groups. This paper will discuss some of the proponents of this theory, the results of their interpretation and application of the theory, and why this theory no longer holds a prominent position in Anthropological theory. In 1858, …show more content…
William Graham Sumner coined the term ethnocentrism, ‘the idea that our beliefs and behaviors are right and true, whereas those of other peoples are wrong or misguided’ (Robbins, 2013) and used Social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire economics, a system free of government interference. He was opposed to policies that would help the less fortunate in society, such as public education and welfare for the needy, believing that this was detrimental to the human race by allowing the weak to survive. Social Darwinists believed that the ‘white man’, or the Aryan race, was regarded as superior to all other races, causing racism to run …show more content…
Not only were people of African or Asian descent assumed to naturally act differently from white people, but even different white nationalities—Scotch, Swedes, Greeks, or Poles—were described as having different inborn traits (McMillan, 2014). Poor people were said to have inferior intellectual and moral qualities which is why they were at the bottom of the social ladder. By the 20th century, advances in anthropology undermined the tenets of Social Darwinism by demonstrating how human culture set people apart from animals, not biology. In addition, German American anthropologist, Franz Boaz, attacked the idea of ethnocentrism, and taught that all cultures were equal and that there is no superior race. Such ideologies have been discredited not only on scientific grounds, but on ethical and political grounds as well. Cultural Relativism brought attention to the problem of Ethnocentrism, which in turn, led to the formation of
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
Social Darwinism is the central theme that dominated the novel “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair. Upton had demonstrated successfully how social Darwinism is not the way for a functional society to thrive, thus providing a solution like Socialism to the readers. Social Darwinism, putting into the simplest context, is the theory of society where the rich survives and the poor dies; whoever could make the most money and bribe the most power would win the game, while for the people who have to find job and money are the one designated to fail. Jurgis Rudkus was a Lithuanian immigrant that came to America seeking fortune for his family, thinking that he would achieve the “American Dream” if only he retained his diligence with work. Sadly he is not getting any prosperity, “The great corporation which employed you lied to you, and lied to the whole country—from top to bottom it was nothing but one gigantic lie.” (Sinclair 62) He soon found out he would not be able to gain success, but only through corruption and later Socialism.
Social Darwinism is a late 19th century term used to describe the application of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to social and political conditions. Late 19th century sociologist Herbert Spencer tried to capture the essence of social Darwinism with his phrase “survival of the fittest”. This essentially meant that the strong would rise to the top while the weak simply died out. Social Darwinists eschew social responsibility and compassion, instead believing that some people are more fit to survive than others. Many social Darwinists advocated that the government should maintain a laissez-faire, or hands off, approach when it came to regulating economic competition and alleviating social inequalities. Social Darwinism was used to justify the consolidation of the majority of wealth by a minority of Americans. The term allowed people to rationalize capitalism, imperialism, racism, and even eugenics. The wealthy believed in social Darwinism because it allowed them to justify their oppressive business tactics and low wages for their labor force. Politicians believed in it because it allowed them to justify imperialism, or expansion of the nation. Affluent Anglo-Saxons believed in social Darwinism, believing themselves to be the superior race, and used it to justify ...
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
...ce, personality, and genetics that we all share (p. 5). While we try our best to not discriminate or oppress as humans we have unfortunately been taught to categorize. We are born with the ability to quickly gather information and categorize it in a way that makes sense to us. We categorize people by what they say, how they act, how they look and in this situation the language they choose to speak. This way of categorizing often leads to shallow or hurtful stereotypes these thoughts are inevitable. By judging, assuming we created the negative stigma and form ideas about what or who we think we know.
“One needs to cultivate the spirit of sacrificing the little me to achieve the benefits of the big me” (Chinese saying, Page 155). America has gone from sacrificing oneself for the good of others, to sacrificing others for the good of oneself. Charles Darwin had long predicted this phenomenon and coined it as the “survival of the fittest.” By definition, it is “a 19th century concept of human society, inspired by the principle of natural selection, postulating that those who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit” (“Survival of the fittest”, Dictionary.com). The American society, once based on collectivism, has changed drastically and is now based on individualism. The shift can be easily shown through works of literature, art, and in the everyday actions of the ones around us. There was once an atmosphere of humility and love, the atmosphere transformed into a black hole of of arrogance and hate. There is no more assisting those who need more help, but instead throwing them to the nearest lion to get eaten while you move higher up on the totem pole. Are you being cradled? Or are you making your way to the top at any cost? It’s the survival of the fittest, will you be left behind?
Dunnell believed that evolutionary biology is a better method to explain evolution in cultural anthropology and archaeology rather than cultural evolution. The main problem with biological evolution is the dilemma of altruistic behavior in humans, which is the exact opposite of natural selection. Dunnell states that altruistic behavior is “the ultimate of the selfish principles” (Dunnell 1996: 26). The original solution to the issue of altruistic behavior was thought to be to change the scale of which natural selection works from that of the individual to the group. However, Dunnell gives three reasons why this change usually would not work. First, the individual, not the group, is the mean by which the reproductivity occurs. Second, the individual is the mean by which observable characteristics show themselves. Finally, changes in higher levels of ranking in society, such as that of the group, are too slow for ...
Ethnocentrism can be defined as an individual’s belief that the ethnic group or cultural they identify with is superior to all others. “The ethnocentric person judges other groups and other cultures by the standards of his or her own group” (Schaefer 34).
The concept of race is an ancient construction through which a single society models all of mankind around the ideal man. This idealism evolved from prejudice and ignorance of another culture and the inability to view another human as equal. The establishment of race and racism can be seen from as early as the Middle Ages through the present. The social construction of racism and the feeling of superiority to people of other ethnicities, have been distinguishably present in European societies as well as America throughout the last several centuries.
...The most profound conclusion on the concept of race is the argument that the term is not a biologically innate fixture. Despite the discredited nature of the concept of ‘race’, the idea stills “exerts a powerful influence in everyday language and ideology”. (Jary & Jary, 2000: pp503-4) This disputes the assumption that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences.
One concept that has played a significant role in American history involves Social Darwinism, as it has affected topics from helping the immigrants and the poor to mandated sterilization. While one may think Social Darwinism and Evolutionary Darwinism are the same concepts, they are quite different, though Social Darwinism does draw some of its fundamental points from Evolutionary Darwinism. For instance, Social Darwinism adopted the principle of “survival of the fittest”; however, it applied this concept not to the evolution of man, but to racial superiority and inferiority, especially regarding the mentally disabled, criminals, and disadvantaged (Dennis, 1995). It is crucial to note, though, that
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism according to Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it.
What if Donald Trump was black. What if Bill Gates was Chinese? What if Usain Bolt was white? Would that really matter? The truth is that they would still be the talented people that they are, but they would just look different on the outside. Take an M&M. There are a variety of colors on the outside, but on the inside, they look the same and taste the same. Sometimes, people tend to show preferences towards one color than another even though they are exactly the same. That’s our world's current racial ideas in a nutshell. Some people believe that certain races are superior in certain ways. This is depicted in the book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, by Nicholas Wade. He believes that the Chinese tend to be more obedient, while members of African tribal societies are more likely to consume rather than save.
Ethnocentrism is having or based on the idea that your own group or culture is better or more important than others (www.merriam-webster.com). According to Thomas Forr’s article, “Ethnocentrism can lead to excessive nationalism. This nationalism can be used to justify persecution of minorities, prejudice and racism. In Nazi Germany for instance, Adolf Hitler, sought to create a master race, which would be far superior to all other races. This belief of superiority of “Aryans” help justify the repression and murder of millions of people. As you can understand ethnocentrism is not just good, but bad too, you can use the Ying and Yang symbol for Buddhism to explain it; it has good in the bad and some bad in the good. You have to remember that if we did not have any ethnocentrism we would not look at other cultures as interesting” (Ethnocentrism and values). I agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that ethnocentrism is needed, but killing other races for one race to seek superior status can never be the right way to express it. I disagree with this statement due to Hitler’s horrendous need to kill all Jews to gain attention towards his single race. For example, Anne’s family, and all others risked their lives every day in the annex because they were Jews. Was this right? No. But according to
Social darwinism is about how one guy came up with the theory how all humans are the same as plants and animals it’s just that we are more advanced and educated in our lives than plants and animals. Although people as a society have these different images of people that are either black or white and that’s not right. People that are black have had to suffer an extrem amount poverty for example some blacks had to drink out of seperate water fountains which probably contained unhealthy elements also the blacks had to go to different areas if they were black or asian or europeon which were lower in quality as if it was a movie or a game or even a resturante. As for Social Darwinsm it is mainly about for the survival of the fittest so if a father