From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Date sent: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 19:29:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Obstacles to identity formation
Copies to: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
Priority: normal
I think the basic distinction is this:
For classical Social Darwinists, who follow the lead of Darwin's
cousin, Herbert Spencer (who borrowed select elements of
Darwin's theory), the world is ordered hierarchically. Those
who posess the most fittest traits are the ones who have greatest
chance of survival. The weakest will eventually die out, hence the
term: survival of the fittest (which was actually coined by Spencer
himself -- not Darwin). The Struggle for survival, according to
Spencer, is the nature of human existence. It is inherently violent,
particularly in more militant socieities. Yet, as societies progress --
that is, become more industrialized -- violence will become less
important. Cooperation (a la functionalism) increasingly becomes
the norm.
Some offshoots of Social Darwinism, such as evolutionary biology
and psychology, explain sexual inequalities through "re-creating"
hypothetical past events -- e.g., men became the hunters, women
the gatherers and carers; and that this is eventually encoded in our
genetic make-up...or to that effect. You can always pinpoint a
evolutionist of this type when you hear or read stuff to the effect of:
**It is probable that...*** Or "It is likely that" i.e., they qualify most
of their arguments since they base them all on speculation. The
more contemporary social darwnists include people like : David
Barash, R. Wright, E. O Wilson, etc.
Charles Darwin ,on the other hand, did not ascribe to the notion of
hierarchy. He believed that human traits, and for that matter human
beings, could not be ordered. He also believed the evolution was a
long term process. But, most importantly, he argued that evolution
was an alleatory process -- i.e., chance played into whether a
particular trait would be useful to the human species and then
passed on to its offspring.He viewed the struggle for existence as
not necessarily violent -- it was just as likely to proceed peacefully.
Of course, you will find inconsistencies and contradictions in both
Spencer and Darwin's writings. But, essentially this is the
distinction between the two.
David
Date sent: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 12:46:55 EST
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Obstacles to identity formation
To: [log in to unmask]
> <I am a Darwinist. But not a Social Darwinist,>
>
> I don't understand what the difference is, can you explain please?
>
> Liz Fetes
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|