Talk:Social Darwinism/Archive 2

The successful poor

Has anyone considered that if social darwinism were true, that all the poor should be dying off, eventually leaving a race of rich people? Instead, poor are the most numerous and tend to have more children than the rich. If Darwinism were really applied to our society in this way, one would have to conclude that the poor were the really successful ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilPanda (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You might have a point if "Social Darwinism" was actually Darwinism as explained in The Origin of Species. It is not. It is the contention by various interest groups that certain classes of people -- usually including themselves -- are "better" than others in some Neo-evolutionary sense that has nothing to do with biological evolution and deserve to rule the world. They may be simply followers of some philosophy or religion. Furthermore, it is unpredictable which if any human groups will survive when global population implodes, and only afterward will it be known which genotypes or phenotypes were fittest in the Darwinian sense. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, there's no such thing as "fitness" in any absolute sense; one can only meaningfully talk about fitness for a particular task or fitness in a particular circumstance. Those who are fittest to survive in a technologically advanced, prosperous, industrial society are not necessarily fittest to survive in postapocalyptic anarchy (if that ever comes to pass), nor would they necessarily be fittest to survive in decentralized, subsistence-based agrarian communities, past or present. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm getting from this article is that as the result of our society and social structure, people with undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions survive and breed to pass of these conditions to their offspring. I believe that, in the wild, such people would be highly unlikely to survive such a kill-or-be-killed world. I'm also getting that this effect is progressive and degenerative. Am I getting the wrong impression, or is this destined to become a serious problem?66.41.44.102 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more complex than that, see eugenics for a broader view. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of social darwinism and eugenics is b.s. The biological distance between humans and other animals is so large that the rules that apply to domestic animals and breeding do not apply to humans at all. Anybody who have worked on animal models and tried to apply the findings in animal models to humans know that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2009

While your opposition to unrestrained capitalism is admirable, this page is for improvements to the article and not idle chat. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by progressive and degenerative is that, as the undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions are passed on, there is nothing to hold it back, and that eventually all of humanity will have the conditions. For a example, some people are more likely to develop heart disease than others, in the wild, the ones that developed heart disease would be less likely live long enough to breed, as such only the ones that were resistent to it would live to breed, eliminating heart disease. This is the driving force of evolution, but because of our culture, few die of natural or environmental causes before they breed, as such there is no evolution and diseases run rampant.66.41.44.102 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and that's how groups of people are deemed less worthy and artificially exterminated, rather than naturally. You have to find the balance: Should you feel compassion for your fellow man and help them and let them live? Or should you let them die off to eventually become a race of beings superior to them in every possible way? That's pretty much the argument when it comes to eugenics, which base their ideology on darwinism. (the reason why man-made extermination happens is because humans are pretty much unaffected be the laws of nature, so therefore mass genocide would be necessary to correct the issue artificially in someone's point of view.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.219.202 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

When I found this article under 'fascism', I was expecting an article with lots of original research and little digs against the wretched evolutionists - and thats exactly what I got. Instead of it as an example of western power and economic strategy in the late 19th century, I got what I knew I'd get: character assassination and lots of original research.

Under the 'Criticisms and controversies' section, the article gives up becoming coherent altogether, starting with a beautiful line 'Social Darwinism has many definitions, ... some of the definitions oppose the others' and then begins the pro-creationist propaganda of tying together Darwin, Evolutionists, and Evolution theory, with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't see why Wikipedia should tolerate this garbage - dump the article, and do it again. User:Wrongspots —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart makes a balanced, well-researched and fair argument showing the strong connection. It's not propaganda or garbage it's history. Erasing that aspect of history is revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would contest that. In fact the thinkers with most influence on Hitler's thinking of race and anti-semitism were anti-Darwinians, such as Houston Chamberlain and Arthur de Gobineau. In fact there is a concerted creationist movement in place trying to intentionally link Hitler and Darwin and at the same time diminish the obvious role of christian anti-semitism as the backdrop and necessary precursor of the Holocaust. Richard Weikart has made a career to develop a history that paints Hitler as distinctly anti-christian, when that is blatantly untrue. And Richard Weikart is fellow at the Discovery Institute, which also supports other people who try hard to promote Christianity and find blame for Darwinism. This article is very troubling, mostly because it does not make explicit in the beginning that it is unfair to Darwin to call social darwinism that. Darwin was no social darwinist. But this is routinely used to make false connections between Darwin and all the problems that social darwinism has had through history. Social darwinism itself is conflated too. Sensible theories of market and of change of social behavior are lumped with blatant misuse. I think the article needs an early statement to at least distance Darwin from the concept. 99.121.29.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

Definitions

From my own personal study, I believe there should be a very strict line drawn between Social Darwinism and eugenics. The fourth paragraph in the introduction does not make a good distinction. If no one opposes in the next few days I will take it out completely. Also the section of theories and origins are not correct. Social Darwinism was created on the bases of laissez-faire, that is the people will be left to themselves. Eugenics requires government intervention to speed the process of natural selection. Social Darwinism has it's roots strictly in economic theory, while eugenics is mainly a social and political ideology. You will have to forgive me because I do not know my history well enough to state which came first, or if they both emerged approximately the same time, but I do believe that it would be a major historical error to state that they have the same roots. Please, let me know what you think. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an accurate assessment. It is instructive to think of three concepts as occupying the vertices of a triangle.

Eugenics is based on the notion that some central agent (for example, the government) can engineer a breeding program resulting in some superior genetic profile for the population, supposedly better suited to the environmental conditions. Eugenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and national socialism and other forms of totalitarianism.

Dysgenics says much the same thing - except, instead of selective breeding, the idea is to eliminate, as much as possible, all forces of selection (via the action of some central agent - generally the government). The net result will be "equality", which, according to proponents, is an end unto itself, but dysgenics supposedly also opens up new possibilities for human advancement which are supposedly not possible under the operation of single-generational selection. Dysgenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and democratic socialism, and some other Marxism-influenced political identities.

Social Darwinism is a system where all such central planning is detested - it is indeed a laissez-faire concept, sink or swim. Social Darwinism need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and capitalism (procreation should follow the same model as the free-market, which in turn can be modeled following from evolutionary principles, like natural selection coupled with innovation/modification). 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you find sources that say the same thing, this is nothing but OR, and therefore it shouldn't be in the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept of dysgenics itself is really only at home in a discussion of genotype. Direct anthropomorphic considerations (of the sociopolitical aspect outlined above) are very crude constructions which do not hew to the precise biological use of the term. I think one danger is that, by focusing on the easily politicized extension of the term, we risk conflating an important biological concept with indirect sociological constructions. Next thing you know, biologists innocently researching fruit flies get implicated in fascism, eugenics, and gas chambers. So I agree that we need to make very careful use of these terms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.41.143 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 May 2008

My understanding, and getting good sources for this isn't that easy, is that social Darwinism is a term redefined by Hofstadter in 1944 to mean Spencerian "survival of the fittest" as used by capitalist free market liberalism, applied to social and economic structures. Eugenics had been promoted by many groups in the US with similar ideas, such as the Rockefeller institution, with sterilisation programs introduced to weed out the unfit or poor[1][2] in a similar way to the harsh Malthusian workhouses of the 1830s which were essentially a Whig economic liberal approach in opposition to the previous paternalist Tory idea of poor relief. However, eugenics as conceived by Galton and his half-cousin Darwin was to be voluntary, choosing mates rather than being sterilised, and this approach is nowadays practiced by vulnerable groups, particularly certain Jews.[3] ... dave souza, talk 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements needed

Much of the Wikipedia is vastly improved since I last visited, but this article is rotten. It completely fails to distinguish clearly between biological evolution, socio-economic philosophies of "Social Darwinism", and eugenics. I don't recall Darwin himself making a clear distinction between breeding (which he used extensively for supporting evidence) and evolutionary "fitness," but the distinction is clear to modern evolutionary biologists. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. Fairandbalanced (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, any assistance you can give with improving this article will be greatly appreciated. Darwin's view as expressed here was that "We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art." Don't know if you have a further distinction in mind.

The subject itself is rather confusing, not least because the term was coined by a communist to refer to the laissez faire capitalism of the early 20th century, and includes ideas of social evolution that predate Darwin. This download usefully suggests that " It has sometimes been suggested that the phrase “social Darwinism”—a phrase that carries a large negative valence—be altered to the more historically correct “social Spencerianism,” as if Darwin himself should be exonerated of any application of evolutionary theory to human beings. This suggestion obviously lacks all merit. Neither Darwin nor Spencer thought the human animal exempt from evolutionary understanding and consequent theoretical construction." It also highlights the differences between Darwin's idea of natural selection and Spencer's "survival of the fittest", though it may be noted that Spencer has a claim to have described the process as applied to humans before Darwin published his theory.[4] Anyway, to avoid WP:SYN we need more sources discussing the roots and meanings of "social Darwinism". . . dave souza, talk

Critique of What?

In the "critique and controversy" section I expected a critique of "social darwinism", but it seems it is rather a critique of the critiques of "social darwinism". The fact that some people wrongfully equate biological Darwinism with political Social Darwinism does not justify the attempt to rewrite history. In fact Darwin was abused by the Nazis and other Racialists and Eugenics. It seems to be a somewhat twisted construction to put the blame on ideas, which originated before Darwin.--80.228.184.147 (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to promote a little more WP:NPOV in the section. I hope it was helpful.--Olaf g (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with functionalism?

Is Social Darwinism related to functionalism in sociology? Indeed, the "niche" system described by functionalism is akin to the more modern and developed theory of evolution. It seems to me that functionalism represents bio diversity (which translates to social and genetic diversity). Does Social Darwinism just refer to the survival of the fittest and a eugenic approach, or does it have elements of interdependence of weak and strong figures in society (i.e. one can't exist without the other)?

I won't make any edits, I just thought that it could be suggested that the two are somewhat related or similar.

I took sociology last year and found this stuff really fascinating, however, I'm not an expert on Herbert Spencer or Thomas Malthus or the origin of the theory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.20.17 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 October 2008

Essentially it's a derogatory term coined by Hofstadter to mean market capitalism, subsequently adapted to mean various things. To avoid original research we'd need a source making the argument you suggest. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Spencer really a Social Darwinist?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Herbert Spencer is typically, though quite wrongly, considered a coarse social Darwinist." Spencer is used quite prominently in this article. If he isn't really a Social Darwinist, a revision is in order. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A rewrite is always in order, the key word in your cite may be "coarse". Richard Hofstadter's book Social Darwinism in American Thought focused on the ways in which Social Darwinism shaped conservative thinking at the end of the nineteenth century, and arguably those who promoted laissez-faire economic policy or other conservative doctrines were negatively stereotyped as Social Darwinists. The doctrine of Social Darwinism was historically interpreted in a variety of different ways, and as such it was used to defend a host of ideological perspectives, which in some cases conflicted with one another.[5] Thus, "Another such view is "Social Darwinism", which holds that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right. The only real connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is the name. The real source of Social Darwinism is Herbert Spencer and the tradition going back to Hobbes via Malthus, not Darwin's own writings, though Darwin gained some inspiration on the effects of population growth from Malthus." and it has the is-ought problem.[6] In 1851 Spencer's first book, Social Statics... presents an account of the development of human freedom and a defense of individual liberties, based on a (Lamarckian-style) evolutionary theory. – supporting laissez faire, but not in a "coarse" way.[7] "from 1837 to 1842 were the years of Darwin's most radical thinking about humanity's place in nature.... in society as well as in natural history, could be explained by God's laws. And the central law is the law of the struggle for existence, and Darwin gets this out of Whig Poor Law ideology, and Reverend Thomas Malthus in particular, an Anglican clergyman.... For Malthus, the gap between population growth and increase of food supply is God-ordained. God has ordained this tremendous fecundity amongst human beings in order to get us to till the land, to give us the incentive to feed ourselves. We're always going to have to struggle to do that. And also the incentive to restrain ourselves sexually. This is a law of nature and it's for our own good.[8] It's worth reading Malthus for his conclusions about how overpopulation is God's way of encouraging the virtues of hard work etc. See also Charles Darwin#Social Darwinism, Spencer was no social Darwinian and The Unfortunate Case of Herbert Spencer: How a libertarian individualist was recast as a social Darwinist for info which I've not had time to integrate into this article. . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In defence of American capitalism?

Quote: The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthropist in the world (1890-1920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.

These sentences don't quite seem right to me, I'm going to have to check the exact policy, but they don't seem appropriate. Maybe they need citations, maybe they're just NPOV (trying to sugarcoat the implications of the American embrace of social darwinism), I'm not sure, but I think they need to be removed. Any thoughts or opinions? I'm kind of new to editing, but I think I may give it a go. 59.38.32.5 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the sentences sumamrize the work of scholars like Bannister showing that businessmen did NOT believe in or practice the main tenets of social darwinism, contrary to the impression left by Hofstadter. Proof comes in their giving a lot of money to charity, colleges, etc. (for example Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford at the highly visible level; thousands of others at the local level). Bremner makes the point very well so i added him to a footnote. Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Why is this article linked with the racism category? This seems normatively loaded, and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories are a way of finding articles, not a judgement on the subject, and Social Darwinism as a pejorative term has clearly been used in connection with accusations of racism. While Darwin was as far from racist as anyone, it's not uncommon for racists to be called "Social Darwinist", no matter how unfairly. By the way, thanks for removing a paragraph of unsourced opinion which really didn't belong here. . dave souza, talk 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwin was very racist in the Decent of Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone

Could someone please tell the pagenumber of ref. 16 (the Arendt ref)? ABC101090 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I need the pagenumber because I am trying to get the Charles Darwin article on finnish wikipedia as a featured article, and the source is also there. Can someone help? ABC101090 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I desperately need the information, and I couldn`t find the book in any library near me. ABC101090 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the publication actually exist, and does she make the argument described in the article? This looks rather like original research, and it should be checked to see if she actually uses the term social Darwinism. . dave souza, talk 08:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the Arendt book--she's a famous scholar, and does indeed discuss social darwinism in Germany. Her title is The origins of totalitarianism see online pp 178-9 Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. ABC101090 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my earler googling failed, so that's very useful confirmation. dave souza, talk 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually my googling failed also, so I trusted yours. ABC101090 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because we were both looking for the cited source, Arendt, H.: "Elements of Totalitarianism", when we should have been looking for The origins of totalitarianism. The citation is still incorrect, but we need confirmation that the sentence is supported by the source, or revise the sentence, as below. . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

<reduce indent> From the limited preview I've been able to obtain, Arendt mentions Darwinism on page 171 as not having influenced the earlier idea of a law which would explain the death of nations as demonstrated by Gobineau, page 178 as being strengthened by following the path of the old might-right doctrine, and on page 179 says that finally the last disciples of Darwinism in Germany decided to leave the field of scientific research altogether, forget about the missing link between man and ape, and started instead their practical efforts to change man into what the Darwinists thought... So, she doesn't appear to use the term social Darwinism, and instead refers to the application of Darwinism (in its German sense, which had to do with Naturphilosophie and Lamarckism as much as with natural selection or Darwin's other ideas) to pre-existing social ideas. It's also inaccurate to call German Darwinism politically indifferent, as Haeckel was using it in his opposition to clericalism from the outset. So, "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology." seems a bit inaccurate. Suggest "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development in which Darwinism was increasingly turned away from scientific research to supporting existing social ethics and racist ideology." . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Social darwinism as pejorative

Here's what I put in the lede:

Social Darwinism" was a pejorative term in Hofstadter's book, and remains so. There were never any people or groups who referred to themselves as "Social Darwinists." Furthermore, Herbert Spencer, who many claim invented or popularized the "ideology," explicitly disagreed with most of its alleged tenets such as eugenics and letting the poor suffer. Quite the contrary, Spencer's ethic emphasized "positive beneficence," arguing that voluntary help for the poor was more advanced and evolved. The notion of "social Darwinism" could be considered a strawman created by those who want to impose state intervention onto voluntary society.

This is basically an elaboration of the last phrase in the first paragraph, which said Social Darwinism "has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent." I think that is way too vague. It is important to know that there were no historical Social Darwinists. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

delete this article

As it stands, it's a mess. Almost every positive statement is qualified to death. To me it looks like an article that has been repeatedly vandalized and then "fixed". I would suggest starting over, and with Hofstadter (sp?), explaining that he applied the term to a group of theories and ideas originating in the popularization of Darwin's ideas in the late nineteenth century. This accomplishes two things. It identifies the origin of the term, first, in academic discourse (like the term "courtly love," for example, which was invented in the mid-nineteenth century), and second, in the thing itself, that is, the popularizations of Darwin that were widespread during the late nineteenth century. A good place to start would be Greta Jones, Social Dawinism and English Thought: The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory.

Theonemacduff (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Natural Selection VS Survival of the Fittest

This article needs to be rewritten. It does some damaging things in confounding the meanings of natural selection and survival of the fittest, as well as misunderstanding the meaning of natural selection as a whole. Natural selection is not about competition for limited resources among species. Its rather about random genetic mutation that makes a given species more capable of taking advantage of the available resources purely as a product of those mutations. It's not a matter of competition its stated here. The whole notion of evolution and Darwinism was then distorted on various fronts into the social theories that are talked about here in order to justify unethical practices and treatment of others. Eugenics being only one grave distortion. This article needs to be deleted and started over with some good information that takes into account not only the basic tenets of the theory itself but how it was them used horribly to marginalize certain groups. So, the basics need to be elaborated upon so that a more accurate and full picture can be developed. As it stands its inaccurate and creates some unfortunate room for misunderstanding. Social Darwinism is a somewhat difficult concept to wrestle with and a dangerous one if its taken and interpreted broadly and poorly.

VWdrivin (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but something to bear in mind is that Darwinism in the 19th century was a catch-all for various evolutionary ideas, and more credence was given to Lamarckian progressive ideas than to natural selection which was largely played down as lacking credibility and teleological direction. Bowler, Peter J. (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.), University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-23693-9 pp. 298–302 makes a number of good points, starting with the issue that from the outset the term was pejorative; "To call someone a social Darwinist was to insult them by implying that they had abandoned all moral standards to make success the only criterion for what is good." It had more to do with "struggle for existence" than natural selection, and it is associated with the period of the eclipse of Darwinism during which the struggle and "survival of the fittest" was part of Lamarckism rather than following Darwin's theories. It also covers a range of mutually contradictory ideas. Of course the term was largely retrospective, being popularised by Hofstadter in 1944. So, there's a lot to put right. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Social Newtonism?

Hi all. Sorry this is more a question than a comment, but I guess you'll see my point.
You know that Newton invented a Law stating that in space little things are attracted by big bodies and if the little cannot escape that attraction or manage to become a satellite (subjetion) of the big, the little crashes on the big and is destroyed and absorbed. I find this theory looks close to modern economics, in particular to mergers and acquisitions of companies, if not to Chicago School as a whole.
So I am wondering if there is some sort of "Social Newtonism" theory?
(which would sounds quite close to "Social Darwinisn", wouldn't it?)
Thanks in advance for your replies, cheers. -- Silwilhith (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• What goes up, must come down.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition in lead

Though some changes had confused the opening a little, the lead was essentially well referenced, reflecting current scholarship. This edit substituted a less accurate and more rigid definition in the form of a quotation, sourced only to "Abercrombie|Hill|Turner|2000" pp. 321, 322. That's only one definition, and omits the context and usage of the phrase. It may be possible to incorporate it in addition to the fuller accounts, what exactly was the source? In the interim I've restored an earlier version of the lead. . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This version stands up well to scrutiny and substituting something with weaker sources makes no sense. Presumably the intended citation was to ISBN 0141013753. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If so, then it's to an earlier edition of The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology which does not seem to me to be a stronger source than Bannister, the OED or Hodgson's detailed study in the Journal of Historical Sociology. A quotation from a dictionary is hardly the usual standard for this encyclopaedia, and the source is specifically related to sociology when its common use was introduced by the historian Richard Hofstadter. Bowler, as cited in #Natural Selection VS Survival of the Fittest above, confirms that the term was pejorative from the outset, and also describes disagreement among historians. I'd hope we can expand rather than contract this article, showing more about these various uses and summarising rather than quoting this additional source. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read the brief (one paragraph) superficial article in the Penguin Dictionary (which is based on an old textbook) and believe it is not a RS when we have much better sources.Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the edit in question was added as a supplement, rather than a substitute. The edit content is reliable and recent and serves to introduce some NPOV balance to the existing paragraph which defines social darwinism as a "perjorative term used to attack ideologies...". Note that I did not remove said POV paragraph though I don't agree that it stands up well to scrutiny, as a definition it is weak and one-sided. Further efforts are invited to arrive at an appropriately-sourced and balanced definition of the term. In the interim, I have restored both sourced items, and will update with further sourced content shortly. X-factor (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You've still not provided a proper citation or shown your claimed source, and as the more modern sources make clear the term is a post-1940 phrase for a rag-bag of earlier supposed social theories. Not an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

X-factor's endeavour has now been reverted as uncited. WP:LEADCITE allows some latitude here, but of course the points do need to have sources when they appear lower down the page. His/her version read very well as an introduction and wider summary of what's to follow, which is just what's needed. Trouble is, not all the points introduced are in the article yet! The current opening sentence is too stark (and yes, I know I liked the stark version last month—sorry).--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave souza, in reviewing the Geoffrey Hodgson source for your edit, I am unable to locate the content cited as the lead definition for social darwinism on the pages you noted in your citation, 428 and 429. The Hodgson article is an historical meta-analysis of the syntax history of the usage of the term and curiously concludes that the term should not exist and should be sanitized from further usage. I think from that we can conclude that the author believes it to be a perjorative term but we can not conclude an objective definition of the term. So I will recommend that we state an objective definition of the term and then we are free to include other perspectives - both positive and negative - under a criticism banner. Thanks, by the way, for the opportunity to read the Hodgson article. Would not have run across this historical journal without your citation and it made for interesting reading! X-factor (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hodgson's view is shared by others, as described by Bowler, a knowledgeable historian of Darwinism. If we're defining it in relation to social theories, we have to be clear that the term wasn't used to any significant extent at the time of these theories, was pejorative from the outset, and was only popularised in the 1940s. In a spirit of compromise I've paraphrased Bowler's opening description, while including this quoted definition from sociology and being explicit about its context. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative epithet

Numerous scholars have made the point that the term is a pejorative epithet, used by the enemies of the movement to discredit it. Eric Foner says "In fact, Bannister concluded, social Darwinism existed mainly as an "epithet," a label devised by advocates of a reforming state to stigmatize laissez-faire conservatism." Foner introduction to Social Darwinism in American thought by Richard Hofstadter p xix. Professor David M. Buss, in The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2005) p. 169 says: "To ask how the epithet social Darwinism functioned, on the other hand, is to turn the conventional account rather literally on its head. Not only was there no school (or schools) of social Darwinists: the term was a label one pinned upon anyone with whom one especially disagreed." Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)