![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Social Darwinism, William Jennings Bryan, Intelligent Design, and the Cult of Self-Reliance
Okay. That has got to be the best subject header I've ever put on a LJ post. Pity the body isn't going to quite live up to it.
I love William Jennings Bryan. I feel that it's a great pity that he's primarily remembered for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial. (And, to a lesser extent, for the "Cross of Gold" speech, which is a fantastic speech, but somewhat wonky economics (switching to a bimetalic standard would increase inflation, which was certainly good for farmers in the short term, as they regularly had their farms mortgaged up to the hilt, but I'm not convinced it would be good for anyone in the long term).)
In any case, I think that Bryan's role as an anti-evolutionist makes a lot more sense when you look at it in context. Bryan wasn't, really, arguing against Darwinism per se -- what he had a problem with was social Darwinism -- the notion that, because Darwin had demonstrated that the fittest flourish, there was no moral responsibility for the fortunate to help the less fortunate. That, in fact, you had a moral responsibility to let the poor, weak, and unfortunate die, for the good of the species. He ended up arguing against the whole theory of evolution in order to argue against social Darwinism.
Nowadays, of course, we realize that social Darwinism doesn't follow necessarily from evolution. For two good reasons: first, we now realize that evolution doesn't grade individually, but as a group. Helping out the weak, injured, and just plain unlucky is, for the most part, an evolutionarily positive characteristic. But more importantly, science doesn't tell you what's ethical, nor do ethics tell you what's scientifically true. Science simply tells you "what is" -- it doesn't tell you what is right.
But the ideas of "social Darwinism" still exist today. When Hurricane Katrina hit, and we saw the horrific images from New Orleans, most conservatives reacted the same way -- by pulling out their wallets, writing checks to the Red Cross, opening their homes to displaced people, and so forth. But there was a disturbing minority current -- not just among right-wingers, although that's where I mainly saw it -- suggesting that the folks who were harmed brought it upon themselves: choosing to live below sea level, tolerating the corruption in the Louisiana state and local governments, not having the assets to get themselves out of the city.
That's the argument of social Darwinism right there. We now call it "self-reliance".
What I find disturbing and strange is that the Bush administration itself uses the self-reliance rhetoric which is today's version of social Darwinism, while also supporting Intelligent Design -- today's version of Creationism.
"Intelligent Design" isn't simply "Creationism with aluminum siding." It's Creationism with the implicit call for moral and ethical behavior -- which was Creationism's tiny shred of worth -- removed.
I love William Jennings Bryan. I feel that it's a great pity that he's primarily remembered for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial. (And, to a lesser extent, for the "Cross of Gold" speech, which is a fantastic speech, but somewhat wonky economics (switching to a bimetalic standard would increase inflation, which was certainly good for farmers in the short term, as they regularly had their farms mortgaged up to the hilt, but I'm not convinced it would be good for anyone in the long term).)
In any case, I think that Bryan's role as an anti-evolutionist makes a lot more sense when you look at it in context. Bryan wasn't, really, arguing against Darwinism per se -- what he had a problem with was social Darwinism -- the notion that, because Darwin had demonstrated that the fittest flourish, there was no moral responsibility for the fortunate to help the less fortunate. That, in fact, you had a moral responsibility to let the poor, weak, and unfortunate die, for the good of the species. He ended up arguing against the whole theory of evolution in order to argue against social Darwinism.
Nowadays, of course, we realize that social Darwinism doesn't follow necessarily from evolution. For two good reasons: first, we now realize that evolution doesn't grade individually, but as a group. Helping out the weak, injured, and just plain unlucky is, for the most part, an evolutionarily positive characteristic. But more importantly, science doesn't tell you what's ethical, nor do ethics tell you what's scientifically true. Science simply tells you "what is" -- it doesn't tell you what is right.
But the ideas of "social Darwinism" still exist today. When Hurricane Katrina hit, and we saw the horrific images from New Orleans, most conservatives reacted the same way -- by pulling out their wallets, writing checks to the Red Cross, opening their homes to displaced people, and so forth. But there was a disturbing minority current -- not just among right-wingers, although that's where I mainly saw it -- suggesting that the folks who were harmed brought it upon themselves: choosing to live below sea level, tolerating the corruption in the Louisiana state and local governments, not having the assets to get themselves out of the city.
That's the argument of social Darwinism right there. We now call it "self-reliance".
What I find disturbing and strange is that the Bush administration itself uses the self-reliance rhetoric which is today's version of social Darwinism, while also supporting Intelligent Design -- today's version of Creationism.
"Intelligent Design" isn't simply "Creationism with aluminum siding." It's Creationism with the implicit call for moral and ethical behavior -- which was Creationism's tiny shred of worth -- removed.