To what extent was eugenic thinking informed by social Darwinism?

Anabelle CREAGH

Abstract: This essay examines the degree to which eugenic ideology was shaped by social Darwinism, a theory that applies the principles of natural selection to human societies. Social Darwinism posits that competition naturally distinguishes the „fit” from the „unfit,” influencing perspectives on social hierarchies, race, and progress. These ideas profoundly impacted eugenics, an ideology advocating selective breeding to improve human populations. By exploring the philosophical, historical, and practical intersections between these ideologies, this essay argues that social Darwinism provided a conceptual framework for eugenics, albeit with nuanced differences shaped by nationalism, imperialism, and advances in genetics.

Keywords: eugenics, social Darwinism, Francis Galton, racial hygiene

Eugenic thinking and social Darwinism are two concepts that are deeply intertwined with the history of human society, shaping ideologies and policies with profound consequences. Social Darwinism, a theory that extends the principles of natural selection to human societies, suggests that individuals, groups, and societies undergo a process of competition where the „fittest” succeed and the ”unfit” fail^[1]. This perspective, seemingly rooted in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin, has had far-reaching implications, particularly in discussions surrounding race relations and societal progress. Social Darwinism has played a significant role in shaping debates over eugenics, a belief system founded on the premise that certain human lives hold greater intrinsic value than others^[2]. In this context, eugenicists sought to improve the human species through selective breeding and other measures aimed at controlling human reproduction. This essay delves into the complex relationship between eugenic thinking and social Darwinism, examining the extent to which eugenic ideology was informed by the principles of social Darwinist thought. By exploring historical context, philosophical connections, and practical implications, this essay seeks to shed light on the intricate interplay between these two influential ideologies.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenic thinking emerged amidst a backdrop of scientific exploration and societal changes. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with coining the term ”eugenics” in 1883, following his extensive research on heredity that began in 1865^[3]. Galton’s work highlighted two pivotal assertions: firstly, that human beings are not inherently equal, and secondly, that this inequality is inherited^[4]. These ideas gained traction in the intellectual circles of the time, setting the stage for the development of eugenic ideologies. By the 1920s and 1930s, eugenic policies aimed at restricting the reproduction of the perceived ”unfit” began to gain political approval in various countries, marking a significant shift towards the institutionalization of eugenic principles^[5].

Meanwhile, the rise of social Darwinism exerted a profound influence on various aspects of society during the same period. Social Darwinism can be understood as an appropriation of Darwin’s evolutionary theories by different interest groups, including industrialists, ”imperialists, racists, and militarists”^[6]. Robert C. Bannister characterizes social Darwinism as a framework through which industrialists rationalized their economic practices, using Darwin’s notion of ”survival of the fittest” to justify poverty and exploitation as natural consequences of competition^[7]. Similarly, imperialists and militarists interpreted Darwinism to justify the dominance of certain nations over others, viewing it as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes^[8]. Thus, social Darwinism permeated through multiple spheres of society, providing ideological justification for existing power structures and inequalities.

The connection between social Darwinism and eugenics is deeply rooted in it’s philosophical and ideological alignment. While Darwin himself did not explicitly endorse eugenics or racism, his work, particularly The Descent of Man, provided a textual foundation for eugenicists, regardless of Darwin’s original intent^[9]. Francis Galton, often regarded as the father of eugenics, fused the language of natural selection with ”highly partial and contentious” social judgments on the relative worth of different segments of the population, as Greta Jones argues^[10]. Philosophically, both social Darwinism and eugenic thinking are steeped in the concept of biological determinism, positing that an individual’s traits and abilities are primarily dictated by their genetic makeup^[11]. Social Darwinists, echoing Darwin’s theory of natural selection, argue for the innate superiority of certain races or classes, attributing societal inequalities to inherent biological differences. Similarly, eugenicists categorize individuals into ”fit” and ”unfit” groups based on perceived genetic traits, advocating for policies that restrict the reproduction of the latter group. Both ideologies thus serve to reinforce existing power structures and inequalities by legitimizing social hierarchies as natural outcomes of biological evolution.

Moreover, the notion of ”survival of the fittest” in social Darwinism directly influenced eugenicists’ beliefs in the improvement of the human gene pool through selective breeding and sterilization. By applying Darwinian principles to human populations, eugenicists justified their interventions as a means of promoting the survival and prosperity of the ”fittest” individuals and groups, while curtailing the reproduction of the ”unfit”. Additionally, figures like Edward Bellamy, praised by leading Darwinian Alfred R. Wallace for his eugenic theories, further intertwined Darwin’s evolutionary theories with eugenic concepts. Bellamy explored the notion of ”sexual selection”, extrapolating from Darwin’s ideas to propose mechanisms for ”race purification”^[12]. This intellectual merging of Darwinian evolution with eugenic ideology exemplifies how social Darwinism provided a conceptual framework for eugenicists to advance their beliefs in racial hygiene and genetic improvement.

The influence of social Darwinism on eugenic policies is evident in various historical examples across different countries, shaping governmental interventions and societal attitudes towards reproduction and population management. In Italy, Maria Quine emphasizes the significance of Social Darwinism within Italy’s socialist movement, where it played a pivotal role in the introduction of ”eugenically inspired welfare and population policies”^[13]. These policies aimed to regulate reproduction and promote the propagation of individuals deemed to possess favorable genetic traits, reflecting the influence of social Darwinist ideas on Italian eugenic practices.

Similarly, in Nazi Germany, social Darwinism played a central role in shaping eugenic policies aimed at promoting the concept of a ”Master Race”. Ruth Engs underscores the link between social Darwinism and the Master Race theory, which fueled Nazi eugenic policies targeting ethnic minorities such as Roma and Black people^[14]. Influential figures like Hans F. K. Günther, a prominent anthropologist in Nazi ideology, openly shared social Darwinist views, contributing to the formulation and implementation of eugenic measures^[15]. Additionally, fears of ”racial degeneration” fueled policies aimed at simultaneously encouraging the reproduction of the perceived ”superior” and discouraging that of the ”inferior”, leading to the enactment of anti-abortion legislation and race hygienic sterilisation laws^[16]. In the United States, the influence of social Darwinism on eugenic policies manifested in beliefs about the hereditary transmission of ”fitness” and ”unfitness”. Elaine May highlights how social Darwinist ideas in the US reinforced the belief that ”unfit” parents would produce ”unfit” offspring, particularly among ethnic minorities^[17]. This belief justified coercive measures such as forced sterilization, which targeted individuals deemed ”unfit” based on social and racial criteria.^[18]

Overall, these historical examples illustrate the pervasive influence of social Darwinism on eugenic policies, which sought to regulate human reproduction and promote the propagation of individuals deemed to possess desirable genetic traits. The implementation of eugenic measures in various countries reflects the entanglement of social Darwinist ideology with state-sponsored efforts to engineer and control human populations, often resulting in discriminatory practices and human rights violations.

While the influence of social Darwinism on eugenic thinking is undeniable, it is important to acknowledge counterarguments that suggest this influence may have been overstated in some respects. For instance, critics point out that social Darwinism alone is less effective in explaining the eugenic focus on disability and ”feeble-mindedness”, which were often framed as more individualized problems rather than solely rooted in notions of racial superiority.^[19] This suggests that while social Darwinist ideas may have provided a broad framework for justifying eugenic policies, they did not fully account for the complexities of eugenic ideology.

Alternative factors undoubtedly contributed to the development and propagation of eugenic ideology beyond the influence of social Darwinism. Nationalism and imperialism, for example, played significant roles in shaping eugenic discourse, particularly in the context of colonialism^[20]. The roots of eugenic thinking can be traced back to anthropological theories and colonial-era understandings of race, where scholars such as James Hunt and Alfred Grace perpetuated racist ideas about native populations in colonies like Jamaica and New Zealand, depicting them as ”lesser” and ”savage”^[21]. Additionally, advancements in genetics and the emerging field of anthropology provided fertile ground for eugenicists to justify their beliefs in racial hygiene and genetic improvement.

Furthermore, the spread of eugenic ideas was not uniform across all regions, indicating the influence of race and imperialism. For instance, Hans Pols explains how eugenics did not gain much traction in the Netherlands itself, but Dutch eugenicists’ ideas found fertile ground in the Dutch East Indies, where notions of race and imperialism were paramount^[22]. This highlights the intersectionality of race, imperialism, and eugenics, underscoring the multifaceted nature of the ideological landscape in which eugenic policies emerged and evolved. Thus, while social Darwinism undoubtedly contributed to the development of eugenic thinking, it is essential to consider the broader historical, social, and political contexts that shaped the trajectory of eugenics as an ideology and practice.

In examining the intricate relationship between eugenic thinking and social Darwinism, it becomes evident that these ideologies, while distinct, were deeply intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Social Darwinism provided a conceptual framework that justified eugenic practices, emphasizing notions of biological determinism, hierarchy, and the supposed superiority of certain groups over others. Eugenicists, in turn, drew upon social Darwinist ideas to justify their beliefs in improving the human gene pool through selective breeding, sterilization, and other coercive measures. However, it is essential to recognize that the influence of social Darwinism on eugenic thinking may have been overstated in some respects. While social Darwinist ideas provided a broad framework for justifying eugenic policies, other factors, such as nationalism, imperialism, and advancements in genetics, also played significant roles in shaping eugenic discourse and practice. In conclusion, while the extent of the influence of social Darwinism on eugenic thinking may vary, it is clear that these ideologies shared philosophical and ideological similarities that shaped their intertwined histories.

Bibliography

BANNISTER, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1979.

Bashford, Allison and Philippa Levine. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, edited. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

BOCK, Gisela. “Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, Compulsory Sterilization, and the State.” Signs 8, no. 3 (Spring 1983): 400–421. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173945.

ENGS, Ruth C. The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2005.

JONES, Greta. Social Darwinism and English Thought: The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory. Brighton: The Harvester Press Limited, 1980.

MAY, Elaine Tyler. “The Politics of Reproduction.” Irish Journal of American Studies 6 (1997): 1–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30003141.

PEEL,  Robert A. Essays in the History of Eugenics, edited. London: The Galton Institute, 1998.

​​WEIKART, Richard. “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought.” German Studies Review 36, no. 3 (October 2013): 537–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43555141.

^[1] Ruth C. Engs, The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia, Greenwood Press, Westport, 2005, p. 206.

^[2] Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought, Temple University, Philadelphia, 1979, p. 9.

Phillipa Levine and Alison Bashford, ”Introduction: Eugenics and the Modern World” in The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, ed. Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 3-4.

^[3] Geoffrey R. Seale, ”Eugenics: The Early Years” in Essays in the History of Eugenics, ed. Robert A. Peel The Galton Institute, London, 1998, p. 20.

Greta Jones, ”Theory Foundations of Eugenics” History of Eugenics, p. 1.

^[4] Ibidem.

^[5] Phillipa Levine, ”Anthropology, Colonialism, and Eugenics”, in History of Eugenics, p. 43.

^[6] Robert C. Bannister, Op. cit., pp. 3-4.

^[7] Ibidem.

^[8] Ibidem, pp. 226-228.

^[9] Ibidem, p. 31, p. 33.

^[10] Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought: The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory, The Harvester Press Limited, Brighton, 1980, pp. 99-101.

^[11] Marius Turda, ”Race, Science, and Eugenics in the Twentieth Century”, History of Eugenics, p. 63.

^[12] Robert C. Bannister, Op. cit., pp. 32-33, p. 90, pp. 171-172.

^[13] Maria Quine, ”The First-Wave Eugenic Revolution in Southern Europe: Science Sans Frontières”, History of Eugenics, pp. 381-382.

^[14] Ruth C. Engs, Op. cit., p. 145; Gisela Bock, “​Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, Compulsory Sterilization, and the State” Signs 8 no. 3 (Spring 1983), p. 416.

^[15] Richard Weikart, “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought.” German Studies Review 36, no. 3 (October 2013), pp. 544-545.

^[16] Gisela Bock, Op, cit, p. 406, p. 408.

^[17] Elaine May, ”The Politics of Reproduction”, Irish Journal of American Studies 6 (1997), p. 6.

^[18] Ibidem, p. 6, pp. 10-11.

^[19] Matthew Thomson, ”Disability, Psychiatry, and Eugenics”, History of Eugenics, pp. 116-119.

^[20] Phillipa Levine and Alison Bashford, Op. cit., pp. 44-47.

^[21] Ibidem, 47.

^[22] Hans Pols, ”Eugenics in the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies”, History of Eugenics, P. 347, pp. 353-537.