Social Darwinism Today
Name:
Course:
Tutor:
25th March, 2011
Social Darwinism Today
Introduction
As opposed to nature, human beings can only preserve and accumulate but cannot create original varieties nor prevent them from occurring. Charles Darwin; a scientist refers to the Natural preservation of the variations that are favorable and the subsequent destruction of the variations that are injurious as “Natural selection or the survival of the fittest.” However, those that do not provide any use or have the ability to cause injuries are left to come and go in the environment (Darwin, 92) without interference. This idea is known as Darwinism and is related to the evolution theory.
As a result of a number of philosophers’ incorporation of Darwin’s ideas in their writings, a concept recognized as social Darwinism slowly started to emerge.
It was applied in the racial as well as the systems and structures of socialization. Hence the ideas related to the struggle in order to exist and survival for the fittest through natural selection was used as a validation for military invasion to preserve the preferred races. Those who make it according to social Darwinism are not expected to let those who could not make it drag them down (Waal, 3). The social aspect of Darwinism can be better illustrate by the ideologies of tea party in the United States and the coffee dates.
Social Darwinism as Applied in Politics, Media and advertising
Since the introduction of Darwinism, there has existed cultural divide and a conflict with regards to the order involving the natural and the supernatural. Both leaders in the political and industrial sectors have as a result been affected. Subsequently, the notion of natural selection has since been turned into a competitive struggle resulting in only a tiny part of the population being made up of wealthy individuals, a receding number of those in the middle class and an increase in the number of poor people.
This is made worse by the fact that the rich are treated with so much respect and celebrity whereas the poor are discriminated against and left to blame themselves due to the moral value placed by culture. With this attitude, most people have formed a major goal in life; to be winners, the best and the richest under all circumstances. This applies in all the areas of society which include the office setting, media, in court and the sports areas where those who achieve this acquire the feeling that they are the fittest and the best hence deserve it.
In politics Social Darwinism and especially that based on survival for the fittest has become a prescription (New ray, 4-9). Here it is expressed in contrast with what is expected of the leaders. That is the possession of goals and achieving them which include the improvement of civil rights.
In Europe through the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, the political scene was presided over by social Darwinism based on Darwin’s teachings that evolution could only be made possible through war and struggle between isolated clans. It reached its highest levels during the times of Adolf Hitler who coined a saying that “He who would live must fight, he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.” (Barton, 2).This propelled him to prosecute people whom he thought to be inferior. Most of them belonged to races and ethnic communities which include the blacks, Christians, the gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped.
Some of the world leaders who were overcome by evolution include Italy’s Mussolini and Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx who are both among the founders of communism which has a basis in the theme of struggle between classes. Marx found Darwin’s theory of natural selection from Origin of Species very important to support and form his basis on class struggle (Barton, 1-8). It was thus used as a justification for abundant exploits which today can be considered as of a moral value in doubt.
As described by the then presidential candidate for democratic party: Barack Obama over the Bush administration, in (Msnbc, 1), when one leaves every man and woman struggling he exhibits the social Darwinism policy. This is because the leaders make no effort in ensuring that not only a small number people become prosperous but all. It therefore supports the words of Darwin that it was wrong to provide help to the poor as it would hinder the process of evolution. Additionally the idea of being liberalized and the will to compromise are viewed as being weak. This creates the notion that those who are rich and possess power should be considered fittest as they are able to survive in the best way.
The current move by republicans to shrink the government and cut down the budget is a modern form of the social Darwinism practiced in 1929. This is because the previous version has been modified to the central idea where people accept the repercussions of what occurs to them (Reich,1).
This consequently proves his evolution theory where he describes Life’s existence processes through death and struggle commonly referred to as the survival for the fittest. In this theory only the best are preferred to reproduce to get the beneficial traits which push us to higher evolutionary stages. The major objective of the process of evolution therefore is seen as a humanistic gain where war, poverty and diseases are defeated.
Contrary to politics, the social media is a direct opposite to social Darwinism whose characteristics are against creativity and production on a long term basis. This is because it acts as the voice of all people thereby facilitating cooperation which requires good listening. To achieve this, those involved have to exercise empathy which is different from greed and abuse (New ray, 4- 9). It therefore resembles communication on a street with two ways where the customer also has a say and hence requires great deal of nurturing. Furthermore social media advocates for knowledge in addition to information democracy resulting in a change of people from being content consumers to producers. Social media can therefore be described as the new version of social Darwinism where evolution can be justified for the sake of social equality and a modern way on how to achieve it.
Traditional media has become less popular as less people watch television. For this reason, it becomes less effective and therefore lacks the need to survive. In the same way that a species cannot survive in a new environment despite the fights and struggle, those businesses that do not embrace social media by opting to hold onto traditional media will lose out or eventually die (Tanner, 1-5).
Currently, due to evolution, the media kit which include reports of supposed conducts of criminals has given those in a position to be reported on, the ability to be more in control of money. This prevents those considered to be of an “inferior gene” from getting various ideas on children and culture
Technology is changing fast in the current society hence the need to be smart and catch up. Business on the other hand can be directly compared with the survival for the fittest theory in the sense that if it does not adapt to the surroundings, then it will die. With social media being part of the environment and the advent of internet and mobile phones, it will become more effective and a very important requirement for survival. An example is the case of America’s economy where the big and established businesses are eradicating the smaller businesses that are more personalized.
In advertising just as is the case of all other areas all and sundry are scrambling so as to survive. Those who are successful are in turn already involved in future competition. This therefore creates the distinction between bloggers and journalists who from definition are those who have incorporated the social media. Consequently in the near future, those journalists who will still be based on traditional ways will become extinct (WebPronews, 3).
In conclusion, what Darwin actually meant for evolution which is the real Darwinism has been completely masked by social Darwinism hence attaining a bad reputation. For instance, people no longer care for others especially the unfortunate and those affected as a result of calamities for example natural disaster. This is in contrast with nature which has in itself prepared a program to enable us pay attention and take care of others. However, due to its application in various areas where people take part in and the increase in competition globally, it becomes an important model with only those ready to adopt new changes surviving. This makes social media a extremely powerful medium that cannot be controlled but connected with.
Works Cited
Barton, B. “A Clash of World views culture war? What culture war?” Monarch Creation
Ministry.<http://www.nwcreation.net/monarch/worldviews.htm>. Accessed 25 March 2011.p.1-5.
Darwin, C. On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: The preservation of
favored races in the struggle for life. New York: John Murray. 1869. P. 92
Msnbc. “Obama accuses Bush of ‘Social Darwinism’.” 28 March 2007. Barack Obama News.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17818562/ns/politics-decision_08/>. Accessed 25 March 2011.par.1
New ray. “Social media and social Darwinism.” Social media interaction.
<http://newraycom.com/2010/09/social-media-and-social-darwinism/>. Accessed 25 March 2011.par. 4-9.
Reich, R. “Do Republicans Want to Bring Back Social Darwinism?” News and Politics 27
September 2010: 1.
Tanner, M. “Survival of the fittest: social media, social Darwinism and media.” 2010. Where is
your life heading. <http://lifedestiny.net/survival-of-the-fittest-social-media-social-darwinism-and-business>. Accessed 25 March 2011.par. 1-5.
Waal, F. “Give them the social Darwin award.” 6 October 2007. Huffton news.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/give-them-the-social-darw_b_67408.html>. Accessed 25 March 2011. Par.3
WebPronews. “Traditional vs. Citizen media: Social Darwinism.” 11 December 2006. Breaking
ebusiness and search news. <http://www.webpronews.com/traditional-vs-citizen-media-social-darwinism-2006-12>. Accessed 25 March 2011 P. 3.
