Unlike such ideas as Capitalism, Marxism, or Catholicism (which needs to be understood as essentially not the same as a scientific theoryâ€“there should be another title to differentiate them), there is not one text or decided corpus that may be pointed to as determining social Darwinism. Richard Hofstadterâ€™s solution ended up being to stress Herbert Spencer and also the American Episcopalian minister William Graham Sumner as his prime good examples after which to reference other social Darwinists, in some way, towards the influence from all of these primary figures. However, while students globally acknowledge Spencer as central to the meaning of social Darwinism and also have filled multiple volumes of critical analysis according to his sights, every word Sumner ever authored about them was reported in Hofstadterâ€™s book, and the single chapter on him is under 16 pages.
When considered an entire, as Robert Bannister did within the journal :
Sumner wasn't responsible for honoring a â€śstruggle for existence, â€ť nor did he think that Darwinism justified your dog-eat-dog practices he observed about him. Nor did he really, as some experts have billed, associate might and right, reducing everything finally to social energy. . . Like many caricatures born in polemic, the resulting
portrait makes poor history.
In addition, Hallidayâ€™s argument for â€śmaking Social Darwinism and eugenics synonymousâ€ť (see Part I) is becoming problematic for multiple authors, even individuals who argue for that utility from the term. Why would eugenics be an essential component of laissez-faire social Darwinism when Progressive Era reformers were just like prone to endorse it? This really is further compounded considering that numerous socialists likewise recommended eugenics, for example Karl Pearson, George Bernard Shaw, and Edward Aveling.
There have been also religious arguments for eugenics, then known as â€śhuman stirpiculture, â€ť which were recommended as soon as 1833 and were according to key passages within the Bible. Based on Christine Rosen in her own book, throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries â€śthe Bible grew to become typically the most popular cultural reference pointâ€ť for marketing eugenics.
By 1899, Reverend A.O. Wright, secretary from the Wisconsin Condition Board of Non profit organizations, was warning of â€śknots of defective classesâ€ť of people that had created â€śa whole population of crooks, paupers, idiots and lunatics.â€ť Later, because the leader from the National Conference of Non profit organizations and Correction, he offered an image from the new philanthropy that will dispatch individuals â€śdefective classesâ€ť to condition-backed colonies, where they'd no more risk fouling the hereditary pool. â€śUnless we're ready for drastic measures of wholesale dying or equally wholesale castration, â€ť he stated, â€śwe must stop defective genetics through the more costly but more humane approach to wholesale jail time.â€ť