by Naome Dixon
Peter Kropotkin, c. 1900
Darwinism asserts that species arise and develop through the process of natural selection, where stronger traits survive to reproduce and pass on said traits to offspring. “The survival of the fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer and can arguably mirror liberal thought, via the principle of the free market. The political theory of social Darwinism is also associated with the far right, allowing beliefs such as nazism and eugenics to emerge. One can also argue that Darwinism can also influence communist thought, notably Kropktin. Due to the wide ranging political ideologies that can be argued to be in line with evolution, one can argue that the distinction between science and politics should be viewed as more of a mirror, instead of directly influenced.
When Charles Darwin first published “Origin of species” in 1859, his was met with hostility, from theologians. This can seen in the USA's Bible Belt in 1925, with the “Monkey Trails.” In the Tennessee court case, schools had previously banned the teaching of evolution in schools, in favour of the creation story. In the trials, Scope was found guilty of breaking the rules of the state; by 1929, 6 states had banned the teaching of evolution. This showcases conservative backlash against the theory of evolution, as a key tenet of Conservative thought is the maintenance of traditionalism, including theological implications. Even in the modern day, some argue that evolution does not compliment religious thought. For example, a survey of 1898 biology students, showed that 56.5% perceived evolution to be atheistic. However, theistic beliefs can be reconciled with evolutionary beliefs; this can be seen with Alister McGrath, who argued that science and Christianity and should be seen as complementary forces. This can be arguably viewed as a pragmatic step, a key part of conservatism, to stabilise in the traditional religious structure, in light of scientific discovery.
In recent years, one can understand the rise in reactionary conservative politics as a reflection of how humans interact while undergoing natural selection. For example, a main part of Trump’s success was his ability to connect to what he calls the “silent majority” (in spite of losing the popular vote by 3 million in 2016). He did that partially by utilising populist rhetoric that often scapegoated areas of society. This can be seen with Trump’s border wall, which was largely viewed as an extreme means to take control of the American immigration system, empowering American citizens to do the jobs that have been “stolen” from them. One can interpret this as the electorate attempting to scapegoat those who they perceive as the least desirable, to protect their own position. A similar pattern can be seen in UKIP, a British single-issue political party which reached peak success in 2015, with 12.6% of the vote. Alongside euroscepticism which occasionally props up this view, a main attraction to UKIP was their claim that leaving the EU would reduce the amount of immigrants and refugees. In 2016, Nigel Farege released a parody of the infamous “Labour Isn't working poster” centred around a line of refugees. Some of the disillusioned electorate blamed migrant labour for the lack of jobs, scapegoating a perceived undesirable section of society. Ironically, while Lizz Truss was shortly PM, she pledged to loosen immigration rules, as the scapegoating of migrant labour has led to a worker shortage. These two scenarios in the UK and USA can be understood as a reflection of natural selection and the Darwinian urge to survive.
Conversely, one can also relate socialist ideologies to the Darwinian idea of evolution; Marxists would argue that evolution mirrors the reconstruction of society, in hope of reaching an utopian ideal. Arguably, the theory of natural selection is more akin to social democracies, due to the progression by reform, than radical Marxism which argues for a more sudden transformation than occurs with the slow changes within evolution. This can be observed with Annie Besant claiming that “ I a Socialist because I am a believer in Evolution.” Besant , a Feminist socialist, claimed that Darwin helped to free her from her “old bonds” of Christianity, preferring a focus on scientific separation from religious thought. For her, she interpreted the historical struggle to free the individual through evolving into cooperation under socialism. However, Peter Kropoktin (who combined marxist and anarchist thought) entertained the idea that evolution fits in with his own world view. He argued his political aim of “mutual aid” can be seen as the backbone of “preservation of each species and further evolution.” This implies that from Kropoktin’s perspective, he could also reconcile evolution and his ideology.
Moreover, the ideology of Social Darwinism can be argued to be the most clear political equivalent of Darwinian ideas. Often, it is associated with liberalism or facism; the link to liberalism can be seen in Free Market Capitalism which, in theory, allows for the best innovations to accumulate the most profit, sharing parallels with the fittest in the species surviving to procreate. The conservative view of human nature is that humans are imperfectly designed with a natural instinct to “survive”, mirroring the Darwinian perspective that species and diversity have come about due to natural selection. In addition to this, Social Darwinism has been argued to root for eugenics, seen with Alfred Russel Wallace, being one of the first to grapple with the social implications of Evolution. Wallace reasoned that traits such as altruism and rationalism will be favoured, instead of physical qualities, leading to selection focused on moral and mental dispositions. However, he continued this to argue that through selection, the “savage man” would disappear when faced with the Europeans, due to their perceived moral supremacy. Similar founding ideas can be seen within nazism, which wished to carry out eugenics in order to artificially reproduce natural selection, and eradicate what they viewed as undesirable “vermin.” Saying this, many scholars view this as a perversion of Darwin’s theory. Daniel Dennent characterised it as “an odious misapplication of Darwinian thinking”. Leading on from this, one can argue Darwinism should not be attributed to one particular political ideology. This is because the theory is scientific, making it descriptive, instead of normative like a political ideology. Thus Darwin’s theory is based on making claims of truth about the world, instead of how humans ought to act within this.
In conclusion, Darwinism has inspired a variety of political ideas and can be used to understand many ideologies. Saying this, due to this variety of ideologies, one can argue that one particular ideology cannot claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution directly upholds it.
Sources
https://escholarship.org/content/qt305255k0/qt305255k0_noSplash_4c3d6357ce5c2692561040be3f14fced.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/27/silent-majority-trump-nixon-polling-election/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9b4srd/revision/2
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-prince-of-evolution-peter-kropotkin/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/darwin-in-america-2/
https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/36443.pd
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.