progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

The Telmarc Group
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC
INTELLECTUAL
Social Darwinism was written by Hofstadter as an update to his doctoral thesis.
Hofstadter's style was often journalistic and he relied on secondary sources rather than
the classic archival research methods employed by academic historians. As a result his
writings become readable to a wider audience but open to criticism by the more academic
circles.
His basic premise in Social Darwinism was that the right as exhibited by the Republicans
and their kin were descendents from the 19th century Social Darwinists who were
believers in the theory of survival of the fittest. They were the ultimate Individualists
where to Hofstadter this meant believers in the domination by those on the top of those
on the bottom, a natural consequence of the social Darwinism in action.
Hofstadter then progresses to take various attacks at the writers he sees as the
predominant social Darwinists especially Spencer. He abhors Spencer and everything he
stands for and the attack is virulent. Regrettable Hofstadter fails in the fundamental rule
of the academic to understand what he speaks of.
Darwinism related to species and not individuals. One individual does not a new species
make. Thus it would have been incumbent on Hofstadter to first describe what
Darwinism was to Darwin and at the time of his writing and from that vantage point go
into a discussion of the changes made to it by others in the political and social science
domains. Regrettable he neither did that nor does it appear that he had any clue of what
Darwin even said. He merely used the words to spin the tale he wanted to tell. This is
whole sale intellectual dishonesty.
Let me address Spencer and Hofstadter's view. Hofstadter states 156 :
"Spencer emphasized in the interest of survival itself cooperation in industrial society
must be voluntary not compulsory. State regulation of production and distribution as
proposed by socialists is more akin to the organization of a militant society and would be
fatal to the survival of the industrial community: it would penalize superior citizens and
their offspring in favor of inferior, and a society adopting such practices would be
outstripped by others."
Hofstadter assumes that this statement is a prima facie evidence of his evil Social
Darwinism. In reality is a very truthful statement. Voluntary cooperation is essential to
survival in an industrial society. Look at the Soviet Union, the Government mandated
quotas and the compulsory mandates destroyed the whole system. Mandated rules of
cooperation always lay the groundwork for ways to work around the system. As for state
regulation, that is not socialist it is Progressive. Socialism is state ownership and control
and the elimination of private ownership in toto. Thus this criticism of Spencer is less that
of Spencer but a window to the mind of Hofstadter.
156 See SD p. 43.
Page 146