Social Darwinism and Unilinear Cultural Evolution

Social Inequalities ANTH 2301 Social Darwinism and Unilinear Cultural Evolution Social Darwinism had a profound impact on social policy and international relations during the 19th and 20th centuries, contributing to the development of colonialist views. Charles Darwin's idea of evolution, which is expounded upon in his landmark book on biological evolution, was misapplied, giving rise to this ideology. According to Darwin's hypothesis, features that help a species survive and procreate are handed down through the generations through the process of natural selection, which causes progressive modifications and the evolution of species on Earth. Stated differently, animals possessing beneficial features have a higher probability of surviving and procreating, thereby transmitting those qualities to their progeny. These alterations compound throughout time, leading to the emergence of new species. Although Darwin's theory was revolutionary in the realm of biology, social thinkers misapplied its lessons to human civilizations. An influential figure in the era's social science movement, Herbert Spencer, was instrumental in bringing Darwinian concepts into the field of sociology. The term "survival of the fittest," which Spencer used to characterise the process of natural selection, was first published in his book "Principles of Biology" (1864–1867). Spencer blended the theories of French scientist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who thought that traits acquired by an organism throughout its existence may be passed on to its progeny. Spencer maintained that much like biological features, cultural attributes like achievement, ambition, and hard work were inherited. On the other hand, he proposed that certain characteristics, like frailty and sloth, may also be inherited, linking persistent social injustices to purported biological distinctions between people and communities. Thus, with its foundation in Spencer's views, the ideology of Social Darwinism developed into a potent instrument for defending imperialism and social inequality. Using Spencer's survival theory—which is sometimes mistakenly credited to Darwin—social Darwinists of the 19th and 20th centuries contended that resource struggle in human societies was akin to the natural competition seen in the animal kingdom. This perspective held that "stronger" people and organisations were destined to outcompete and subjugate "weaker" ones. This idea was expanded upon to support European countries' colonial endeavours, which aimed to subjugate and exploit other nations and peoples. According to proponents of social Darwinism, the dominance of one group over another is a normal and advantageous process. They maintained that the "inferior" conquered peoples would eventually profit from the "superior" characteristics of conquering nations, such as scientific innovation, military might, and cultural sophistication, through a civilising impact. According to this paternalistic viewpoint, European imperialism was a positive force that gave "backward" cultures growth and enlightenment. This justification gave colonialism's cruel enslavement and exploitative tactics ethical and scientific justification. Anthropologists at the time did not generally accept Social Darwinism, despite the fact that it was highly supported by several social scientists and political figures. Rather of using other theories to explain the history of human cultures, anthropologists turned to the notion of unilinear cultural evolution (UCE). According to UCE, which was made famous by anthropologists like Lewis H. Morgan and E. B. Tylor, society developed from the lowest form of savagery to barbarism and eventually civilization. This theory was predicated on the idea that all civilizations had a similar developmental trajectory and on the comparative study of various cultures. UCE and Social Darwinism both held that human civilizations are hierarchically organised. Both views claimed that some groups were innately more developed or civilised than others, which supported social inequality. As indicators of advancement, social hierarchy and inequality were considered to be the defining characteristics of civilization by UCE. This viewpoint supported the notion that European cultures represented the height of human evolution due to their sophisticated social structures and technical innovations. As a result, these notions were employed by White Europeans to support their assertions of cultural supremacy and their right to do as they pleased with other peoples. These hypotheses have far-reaching repercussions. Numerous discriminatory behaviours and regulations received conceptual backing from Social Darwinism and UCE. During the colonial era, they were employed as justifications for taking over native territories, abusing indigenous people, and enforcing European cultural standards. The idea that European culture was inherently better served as the foundation for attempts to "civilise" and convert colonial peoples, frequently using force. The broad cultural assimilation initiatives that aimed to eradicate indigenous identities and practices were influenced by this paternalistic mindset. Furthermore, internal social policies of European nations and their colonies were impacted by these ideologies. Social Darwinist theories were used to support eugenics policies that attempted to increase the genetic quality of the population by promoting the procreation of those judged "fit" and discouraging or prohibiting the procreation of those judged "unfit." Human rights violations and other forced sterilisations resulted from this frequently. Similarly, UCE influenced educational practices that sought to ingrain European knowledge and ideals in colonised people, frequently at the detriment of regional languages and cultures. In conclusion, the colonialist beliefs and actions of the 19th and 20th centuries were greatly influenced by social Darwinism and unilinear cultural development. These ideologies gave the idea of European supremacy and the right to rule over other peoples a façade of scientific validity. They legitimised the exploitation and oppression that were part and parcel of colonialism and strengthened social hierarchies. As the globe struggles with past injustices and contemporary inequalities based in the colonial era, the influence of these beliefs is being felt today. Addressing these concepts' lingering impacts and advancing the cause of a more inclusive and equitable future require an understanding of these concepts' foundations and influences.