Written in a collection of essays in 1883, Professor William Graham Sumner explains a system: Social Darwinism, involving the poor, the philanthropists and the main focus, the forgotten man. Sumner explains the forgotten man as someone practical, quiet and hard-working but also ignored in society. Sumner views society’s system as philanthropists giving money to the poor, and the forgotten man paying the taxes that come after. At first, Sumner described the poor as people with forced public attention, people who obtain the pity of philanthropists. He sees this as problematic because it prevents the forgotten man from getting a better living (greater capitalism). Then, Sumner introduces the idea that people should remember the forgotten man,
so, the philanthropist should spend his money on the capital (luxuries, personal spending) instead of the poor which allows jobs to increase. This will help the forgotten man as well, so he can make a better living. Sumner also addresses the poor and believes that nature will take care of their needs. In reality, Sumner meant that the poor will eventually die from not being able to work for a living, while others will work and look out for their individual needs. Essentially, his message was perceived as “you get what you deserve.” The limitations as a source are that Sumner didn’t consider the major inevitable reasons for poverty (providing for children, lack of education, disability). However, as 1883 is in the Gilded Age, in which class did the forgotten man stand?
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
...y as “the root of all evil” would be too simplistic; what she suggests, rather, is that the distribution of wealth in mid-nineteenth-century America was uneven, and that those with money did little to effectively aid the workers whose exploitation made them rich in the first place. In her portrayals of Mitchell and the “Christian reformer” whose sermon Hugh hears (24), she even suggests that reformers, often wealthy themselves, have no useful perspective on the social ills they desire to reform. Money, she seems to suggest, provides for the rich a numbing comfort that distances them from the sufferings of laborers like Hugh: like Kirby, they see such laborers as necessary cogs in the economic machinery, rather than as fellow human beings whose human desires for the comfort, beauty, and kindness that money promises may drive them to destroy their own humanity.
Sumner was the follower of Darwin’s ideas and Herbert Spencer’s, Social Darwinism. He is considered to be vigorous and influential social Darwinist in America. He was a professor at Yale College. He developed the concepts of Folkways, diffusion, and ethnocentrism. He is not as big as Spencer but his ideas were bold enough to be recognized. He played three important roles in the development of American thought, he was a great Puritan preacher, an exponent of the Classical pessimism of Ricardo and Malthus, and an assimilator and popularizer of evolution. He was able to build a bridge between the economic ethic set in motion by the Reformation and the thought of the nineteenth century.
Social Darwinism and The Gospel of Wealth were two late 19th century ideas that helped shape America’s views on social, economic, and political issues. The former applied the theory of natural selection to sociology and politics while the latter outlined a way for the country’s newly minted rich to redistribute their surplus wealth to the needy. Both concepts offer insight into the 1877-1900 period in American history known as the Gilded Age.
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
In the 1960’s policymakers began to speak of creating equal opportunity for everyone by educating and rehabilitating the poor so they could compete (on an equal footing) in the market place. The policymakers thought that this would eliminate the artificial barriers imposed by the circumstances of birth. By the late 1960’s a “welfare rights” movement advanced the claim that welfare was not an act of public charity, but instead an entitlement of the poor (Danziger). This claim was the result of the Civil Rights, Women’s Rights and opposition to the Vietnam War movements and the corresponding changes in philosophy and moral outlook that these movements brought about. This “entitlement credo” was op...
“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?
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
In Peter Berger's "Invitation to Sociology", the sociological perspective was introduced. Berger asserts that it is important to examine new or emotionally or morally challenging situations from a sociological perspective in order to gain a clearer understanding of their true meanings. This perspective requires a person to observe a situation through objective eyes. It is important to "look beyond" the stereotypical establishments of a society and focus on their true, hidden meanings. Consideration of all the hidden meanings of social customs, norms, deviations and taboos, allow one to establish an objective image about the truth behind it. This method can also be applied to understanding people. This questioning, Berger says, is the root influence of social change and personal understanding of others. To do this well, it involves much intellectual prowess and ability to reason.
At the end of the nineteenth century, society was divulging in all the new scenes in literature and society: realism, romanticism, naturalism, etc. The people of this time tended to veer towards the newly presented socialism. The idea of Social Darwinism, that humans compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in survival of the fittest, prevailed at this time (Social Darwinism). This idea interested the young mind of Frank Norris, who happened to be a naturalist. Norris was a proclaimed socialist who showed his support for the idea of Social Darwinism through his works. After reading an article one day, he birthed the idea to write a work that intertwined the ideas of Social Darwinism and naturalism. With this intent in mind, he began to write his timeless novel, McTeague, a novel full of Social Darwinist views. Norris’ naturalistic views inspired him to write his novel so he could portray the popular notion of hard to control animalistic instincts, which connects with the survival of the fittest view, as well as incorporate naturalism into his modern day.
People are poor because there’s something lacking in them, and changing them is therefore the only effective remedy. From this he suggests doing away with public solutions such as affirmative action, welfare, and income support systems, including “AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the rest. It would leave the working-aged person with no recourse whatsoever except the job market, family members, friends, and public or private locally funded services.” The result, he believes, would “make it possible to get as far as one can go on one’s merit.” With the 1996 welfare reform act, the United States took a giant step in Murray’s direction by reaffirming its long-standing cultural commitment to individualistic thinking and the mass of confusion around alternatives to
The 19th century was full of revolutionary individuals seeking a higher knowledge and understanding of the way life and society operated. Two such individuals were Charles Darwin and Karl Marx. Each being masters of their own trade, Darwin was a scientist interested in the topics of natural history and the origins of species; while Marx was a philosopher who explored sociology, political history, and economic history. Over time, Darwin eventually became universally recognized as the father of the idea for natural selection and evolution, explaining these theories in a novel entitled The Origin of Species. Marx also became universally recognized for coining the term Marxism, a form of communism that centers on the idea of a utopian society with
Auguste Comte was born in the late eighteenth century. His family was devout Catholic’s, and enforced their religion onto him as a young child. Comte is viewed as a Positivistic- Organic theorist, and is known as the ‘Father of Sociology’. When Comte became older he began to turn his back on Catholicism. He was heavily influenced by Henri Saint- Simon, and Adam Smith. After working with Saint- Simon they had a falling out. Comte was married for a short time and referred to his marriage as a “domestic anchorage” (Coser, 17).