[...] In this paper I want to show how one particular difference in defining social Darwinism affects the manner of telling history. Namely, the difference between social Darwinism as a world-view that is clearly independent of Darwin’s theory and social Darwinism as an application of Darwin’s theory in one way or the other. In the next section I explain why I use Hawkins as a representative of the latter version even though he claims to define social Darwinism independently of Darwin. After a short review of Hofstadter’s reasons for classifying Carnegie as a social Darwinist, I will analyze Carnegie’s essays in some depth. As the only historian who does not take Darwin’s theory as the basis for social Darwinism, I will then confront the analysis with Greene’s perspective. Finally I conclude with an answer to the question of historiographical relevance of defining social Darwinism one way or the other.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Social Darwinism According to Hawkins
3 Hofstadter’s Portrayal of Andrew Carnegie
4 Andrew Carnegie – His Concerns
4.1 The Conditions under which the Individual Accumulates Wealth
4.2 The Conditions under which the Nation Accumulates Wealth
4.2.1 Required Principles
4.2.2 The Role of the Community in the Production of Wealth
4.3 The Distribution of Wealth
5 Evaluation of the Analysis of Carnegie’s Essays
5.1 Evaluation with regard to Hofstadter’s Depiction of Carnegie
5.2 Evaluation with regard to Hawkins’ Definition of Social Darwinism
6 Discussion of Greene’s Account of Social Darwinism in the Light of Carnegie’s Analysis
7 Conclusion
Research Objective and Key Themes
This paper examines how differing historiographical definitions of "Social Darwinism" influence historical narratives. By analyzing the writings of Andrew Carnegie through the conceptual lenses of historians like Hofstadter, Hawkins, and Greene, the study explores whether Carnegie can be classified as a Social Darwinist and how such labeling shapes our understanding of 19th-century intellectual history.
- Differing historiographical definitions of Social Darwinism
- The influence of definitions on historical narratives
- Critical analysis of Andrew Carnegie’s essays
- The role of "natural laws" versus economic reasoning in 19th-century thought
- Comparison of scholarly perspectives (Hofstadter, Hawkins, Greene)
Excerpt from the Book
4.1 The Conditions under which the Individual Accumulates Wealth
One of Carnegie’s major concerns is the question under which conditions the individual creates wealth. He aims at showing that the crucial requirement for individuals to become wealthy is poverty. In Wealth and its Uses, Business and The Advantages of Poverty this idea is elaborated. In the latter he claims “[…] that wealth left to young men, as a rule, is disadvantageous; that lives of poverty and struggle are advantageous.” First of all, it should be emphasized that here Carnegie is not discussing the advantage of poverty for the race, but for the individual: If one is born poor, then he will in his later life be more likely to become a rich man. But, what is Carnegie’s explanation for such a counter-intuitive claim? Carnegie gives an answer to that question in Wealth and its Uses: The man, who is poor, has to provide for his own living. In order to earn a salary, he has to ask himself what he could become so that he can offer the community a useful service in exchange for money. Hence, Carnegie’s idea is that poor men are forced to become useful for the community. It is clear now that poor people are forced to compete economically, but what makes them the better competitors is still an open question. In Business, Carnegie describes the key to success as follows: “It is a simple matter of honest work, ability, and concentration.” Carnegie does not explicate the link between those attributes and poverty. However, it seems obvious that people, who depend on the job they have, will take it more seriously than people who could live without it.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the ongoing scholarly debate regarding the definition of Social Darwinism and outlines the paper's aim to analyze how these definitions impact historical interpretation.
2 Social Darwinism According to Hawkins: This section details Mike Hawkins' five-part definition of Social Darwinism and establishes it as a representative model for viewing the concept as an application of evolutionary theory to the social realm.
3 Hofstadter’s Portrayal of Andrew Carnegie: This chapter examines Richard Hofstadter’s thesis that successful businessmen adopted Darwinian thought to justify their success, using Carnegie as a primary example.
4 Andrew Carnegie – His Concerns: This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of Carnegie's essays, focusing on his views regarding individual wealth, national accumulation of wealth, and the distribution of wealth.
4.1 The Conditions under which the Individual Accumulates Wealth: This section investigates Carnegie’s belief that poverty acts as a catalyst for individual success and economic utility.
4.2 The Conditions under which the Nation Accumulates Wealth: This section explores Carnegie's endorsement of Classical Liberalism and his views on progress and necessity within a national economy.
4.2.1 Required Principles: This subsection analyzes Carnegie's core values for societal wealth creation, including individualism and the law of competition.
4.2.2 The Role of the Community in the Production of Wealth: This subsection examines how Carnegie views population growth as a driver of wealth, contrasting this with Darwinian notions of competitive struggle.
4.3 The Distribution of Wealth: This section covers Carnegie’s ideas on the responsibility of the wealthy to manage their fortunes as trust-funds for the betterment of the community.
5 Evaluation of the Analysis of Carnegie’s Essays: This chapter synthesizes the findings to evaluate Carnegie's ideological position in relation to scholarly frameworks.
5.1 Evaluation with regard to Hofstadter’s Depiction of Carnegie: This section concludes that Hofstadter’s characterization of Carnegie as a biological determinist is unsupported by a deeper reading of his texts.
5.2 Evaluation with regard to Hawkins’ Definition of Social Darwinism: This section determines that according to Hawkins’ criteria, Carnegie does not qualify as a Social Darwinist.
6 Discussion of Greene’s Account of Social Darwinism in the Light of Carnegie’s Analysis: This chapter argues that Carnegie fits the broader definition proposed by John C. Greene, highlighting the difference between intellectual history and history of science.
7 Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes how the choice of definition fundamentally alters the historical narrative surrounding science, society, and individual responsibility in the 19th century.
Keywords
Social Darwinism, Andrew Carnegie, Historiography, Richard Hofstadter, Mike Hawkins, John C. Greene, Evolutionary Theory, Economic Liberalism, Intellectual History, Wealth Distribution, Natural Selection, Progress, Determinism, Historical Narrative, 19th Century.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates how different historical definitions of "Social Darwinism" affect the way historians categorize thinkers and construct narratives about the 19th century.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The themes include the historiography of Social Darwinism, the specific application of economic theories in Andrew Carnegie’s writings, and the intersection between biological determinism and individual choice.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to determine if Andrew Carnegie can be classified as a Social Darwinist and to analyze how the use of different scholarly definitions (by authors like Hawkins and Greene) changes the resulting historical interpretation.
Which scientific or historical methods are employed?
The author employs a comparative textual analysis of primary sources (Carnegie's essays) against secondary literature (historians' definitions and frameworks) to test the validity of common historiographical labels.
What content is addressed in the main part of the paper?
The main body breaks down Carnegie’s thoughts on individual and national wealth, contrasts his views with Darwinian concepts, and evaluates these findings against the specific frameworks established by Hofstadter, Hawkins, and Greene.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Social Darwinism, Historiography, Andrew Carnegie, Intellectual History, Evolutionary Theory, and Economic Liberalism.
How does the author’s interpretation of Carnegie differ from Richard Hofstadter’s?
The author argues that Hofstadter provides a "quick presentation" that relies on superficial evidence, whereas a more in-depth analysis shows that Carnegie’s arguments are primarily economic rather than biologically deterministic.
Why does the author conclude that Carnegie is not a "Social Darwinist" according to Hawkins?
The author concludes this because Carnegie lacks discussion on the inheritance of traits, treats "laws of evolution" as broad historical concepts rather than specific biological laws, and views population growth as a benefit rather than a cause for competitive struggle.
- Quote paper
- Wiebke Schröder (Author), 2011, Meanings of Social Darwinism, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/211423
