SOCIAL DARWINISM AND ITS INFLUENCE ON
ANTHROPOLOGY
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DARWINISM
Social Darwinism is a socio-political theory that applies Charles Darwin's principles of natural
selection and "survival of the fittest" to human societies. Proponents of this idea argued that
human social hierarchies and disparities were a result of the "natural" competition among
individuals and groups, just like in the animal kingdom. This theory suggested that social,
economic, and racial inequalities were inevitable and even desirable for human progress.
Historical Context
Social Darwinism emerged in the late 19th century, at a time of rapid industrialization and
colonial expansion. It sought to explain and justify these vast social changes, often defending the
power and privilege of dominant groups. The theory gained traction particularly in Western
societies where the ideas of capitalism and imperialism were on the rise.
Key Proponents
1. Herbert Spencer – One of the most influential figures associated with Social Darwinism,
Spencer extended Darwin's biological theories to society. He coined the term "survival of
the fittest" (which was wrongly attributed to Darwin) and believed that competition and
natural selection in human societies led to progress. Spencer argued that any attempts
to reform society through welfare programs or aid to the poor would disrupt this natural
process.
2. William Graham Sumner – An American sociologist and economist, Sumner argued
against government intervention in social and economic matters. He believed that
success and failure in society were natural outcomes of competition, and that efforts to
support the disadvantaged were both unnecessary and counterproductive. He said,
“Before the tribunal of nature a man has no more right to life than a rattlesnake; he has
no more right to liberty than any wild beast; his right to pursuit of happiness is nothing but
a license to maintain the struggle for existence ...”- William Graham Sumner, Earth-
hunger, and other essays, p. 234.
Application and Impact
1. Economic Theory and Capitalism: Social Darwinism was often used to justify laissez-
faire capitalism and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
Industrialists and capitalists argued that their success was a result of their superior
abilities, while the poverty of others was a natural outcome of competition. This thinking
provided moral support for minimal governmental intervention in economic matters,
allowing free-market competition to dictate outcomes.
2. Imperialism and Colonialism: Social Darwinism provided a rationale for European
imperialism. The belief in the inherent superiority of certain races and civilizations was
used to justify the domination and exploitation of non-Western peoples. European
colonizers often saw themselves as bringing progress and civilization to "backward"
societies, believing that their control over these regions was a natural outcome of social
and racial superiority. This conception of colonialism was a dominant theme during the
British rule in India and European colonization of Africa.
3. Eugenics and Racial Policies: Social Darwinism played a significant role in the
development of eugenics - a movement aimed at improving the genetic quality of human
VAJIRAM & RAVI |DO NOT COPY, SHARE OR REPRODUCE|© Kartic Godavarthy | [email protected] Page 1
populations through selective breeding. Eugenicists believed that human progress could
be guided by encouraging the reproduction of individuals deemed "fit" and discouraging
or preventing the reproduction of those considered "unfit." This had devastating
consequences, particularly in the early 20th century.
In extreme cases, such as Nazi Germany, Social Darwinism was used to justify horrific
practices like racial segregation, forced sterilization, and genocide. Adolf Hitler’s racial
ideologies and his concept of Aryan superiority were heavily influenced by distorted
interpretations of Social Darwinist ideas.
4. Class Inequalities: In capitalist societies, Social Darwinism justified stark class
divisions by attributing wealth and status to the inherent superiority of the wealthy elite.
It was argued that the poor were poor because of their lack of fitness in the struggle for
survival. This perspective undermined social welfare programs, labor rights, and other
efforts aimed at reducing economic inequality.
Criticisms of Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism has been heavily criticized for its flawed application of biological principles to
human society and for its moral implications:
1. Misinterpretation of Darwin's Theories: Darwin’s theory of evolution was purely a
biological concept, dealing with the survival and adaptation of species over time. Social
Darwinists misapplied these ideas to justify human inequalities and social hierarchies,
which Darwin himself never endorsed.
2. Ethical Concerns: Social Darwinism’s defense of inequality, oppression, and
imperialism has been widely condemned. Critics argue that human societies are more
complex than biological systems, and that moral considerations such as justice,
fairness, and compassion must guide social policies.
3. Undermining Social Progress: The emphasis on competition and individualism under
Social Darwinism discouraged collective efforts to address social problems. Reforms
like labor rights, healthcare, and education were often opposed as being "unnatural" or
interfering with the competitive process. However, many argue that such reforms have
been essential for creating fairer, more just societies.
By the mid-20th century, the scientific community rejected Social Darwinism, especially as it
became associated with racist and genocidal policies. Today, most anthropologists,
sociologists, and biologists recognize that human societies are shaped by a range of complex
factors, including cooperation, culture, and social institutions, which cannot be reduced to
biological competition alone.
SOCIAL DARWINISM’S INFLUENCE ON ANTHROPOLOGY
Social Darwinism played a significant role in shaping the early history of anthropology,
influencing both the development of the discipline and its theoretical orientations. While Social
Darwinism eventually fell out of favor, its impact can be seen in how anthropologists initially
understood human societies, cultural evolution, and race.
1. Influence on Cultural Evolutionary Theories
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anthropologists were heavily influenced by evolutionary
thought, including Social Darwinism. Many early anthropologists believed that human societies
progressed through a series of evolutionary stages, from "primitive" to "civilized." This idea was
rooted in a linear model of social evolution that paralleled biological evolution and reflected
Social Darwinist thinking.
VAJIRAM & RAVI |DO NOT COPY, SHARE OR REPRODUCE|© Kartic Godavarthy | [email protected] Page 2
Lewis Henry Morgan, an American anthropologist, proposed that societies evolve through three
stages—savagery, barbarism, and civilization. His work, particularly in Ancient Society (1877),
suggested that societies could be ranked according to their levels of technological and social
development, with "Western civilization" at the pinnacle.
Similarly, Edward Burnett Tylor, in his work Primitive Culture (1871), argued that all human
societies shared a universal evolutionary trajectory, progressing from animism to polytheism,
and ultimately monotheism. Tylor believed that cultural differences were a matter of different
societies being at different stages of this evolution.
The influence of Social Darwinism on these theories was evident in the idea that "civilized"
societies (typically European) were superior and more advanced than "primitive" ones (often
non-Western). This created a hierarchy that placed Western culture at the top, while non-
Western cultures were viewed as remnants of earlier, less-developed stages of human progress.
2. Impact on Race Theory and Scientific Racism
Social Darwinism also influenced the development of race theory in anthropology. Many early
anthropologists applied Darwinian ideas to race, arguing that different races were at different
stages of evolutionary development. This approach fostered a belief in the superiority of certain
races (particularly white Europeans) over others (non-European peoples), justifying colonialism,
slavery, and racial segregation.
Anthropologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often focused on "racial types,"
measuring skulls, brain sizes, and other physical traits in an attempt to establish biological
differences among human groups. This contributed to the pseudo-scientific racism that
permeated anthropology during this period, with Social Darwinism providing the justification for
the belief that certain races were more evolved or "fit" than others.
3. Colonial Anthropology and the Justification of Empire
Social Darwinism played a significant role in colonial anthropology, where it was used to
legitimize European imperialism and colonial domination. Early anthropologists often worked in
colonial contexts, studying the societies that European powers were colonizing. Social Darwinist
ideas about the inherent superiority of Western civilization provided a convenient justification for
colonial rule, portraying it as part of the natural evolutionary process by which "superior" cultures
would dominate "inferior" ones.
Colonial administrators often relied on anthropologists to study indigenous peoples, their
cultures, and their customs, using this knowledge to better control and govern colonized
territories. Anthropological knowledge was seen as a tool for managing "primitive" peoples,
whose cultures were thought to be in need of "civilization" through European influence.
In British India, anthropologists like Herbert Risley promoted racial classification systems that
divided Indian society into distinct racial types. These classifications were used to reinforce the
colonial policy of "divide and rule," emphasizing divisions among India's diverse populations and
racial origins of caste.
Rejection of Social Darwinism in Anthropology
As anthropology developed in the 20th century, scholars began to critique and move away from
Social Darwinism and its harmful implications. Several key developments contributed to this
shift:
1. Boasian Anthropology: Franz Boas was instrumental in rejecting the racial hierarchies and
evolutionary models associated with Social Darwinism. Boas argued for cultural relativism,
the idea that each culture should be understood on its own terms rather than judged against
VAJIRAM & RAVI |DO NOT COPY, SHARE OR REPRODUCE|© Kartic Godavarthy | [email protected] Page 3
a single standard of "civilization." He emphasized the importance of environment and history
in shaping human societies, rather than biological determinism. Boas and his students,
including Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, advocated for a holistic approach to
understanding human societies. They argued that cultural differences were not linked to
inherent biological superiority or inferiority.
2. Functionalism and Structuralism: In the early-to-mid-20th century, anthropological
theories like functionalism (associated with Bronislaw Malinowski and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown)
and structuralism (Claude Lévi-Strauss) further distanced anthropology from the
evolutionary framework of Social Darwinism. These approaches focused on understanding
the internal logic and functions of social institutions within societies, rather than ranking
societies along an evolutionary scale.
Conclusion
Although Social Darwinism has been widely discredited within anthropology, its legacy can still
be felt in the discipline's history. The early focus on evolutionary hierarchies and race laid the
foundation for the critical examination of power, inequality, and colonialism in contemporary
anthropology. Many anthropologists today focus on decolonizing the discipline, challenging its
past complicity in imperialist projects, and promoting a more inclusive understanding of human
diversity.
Contemporary anthropology emphasizes the complexity of human societies and cultures,
recognizing that there is no single path of development or "civilization." Human cultures are now
understood to be shaped by a multitude of factors, including environment, history, politics, and
social interaction, rather than biological or racial determinism.
VAJIRAM & RAVI |DO NOT COPY, SHARE OR REPRODUCE|© Kartic Godavarthy | [email protected] Page 4
