As social Darwinism gained supporters all across America, some felt that those with money to spare should help individuals who were struggling to survive. William Graham Sumner argued that his theory was the absolute truth of society, and that helping the poor would only interfere with laws of nature and slow down evolutionary progression. He claims that a "poor" or a "weak" person does not truly exist, that those who take up these titles are "dead weight" on society. These people supposedly neutralize and/or destroy the efforts of the "wise and industrious".
At the beginning of the excerpt, Sumner states the basic logic of the time, that the class structure he created are the "facts of life". He claims that those who desire to help the less fortunate are confused, as the set of doctrines America was governed under contained increments of old-fashioned social theory relying on Middle Age status systems. Glorifying the morales of the Gilded Age, Sumner praises the new system of contract relations saying, "Contract is...realistic, cold, and matter-of-fact. A contract relation...endures only so long as the reason for it endures." Emotionally, he attempts to make those who want to help the poor guilty for feeling sympathy for them, arguing that people who belong to the weak class have done nothing and therefore do not deserve property, medical care, or other types of aid from the State. All of these statements support Sumner's character, that he was a man who was ignorant and could not empathize with the plight of the poorer people.
Sumner was a political economy professor at Yale who started social Darwinism in the United States. Drawing on the principles Charles Darwin taught in his book On the Origin of Species (1859), he developed a societal theory that greatly benefitted the lifestyle of the era. In his book, Darwin theorized that all living organisms went through an adaption to the environment called natural selection that determined whether their traits were desirable enough to survive, or if the species would die off. Sumner adapted this idea to America's economic state, concluding that society progressed when relentless competition existed among people and businesses, resulting in the "strongest" (most successful) surviving while the "weak" (poorest) die off. Businessmen of the Gilded Age were attracted to this mindset as it fit with their economic goals, to make the most money and have the most control.
In some respects, I agree with Sumner. He states in the second page of the excerpt that lower class sympathizers "glossed over the faults of the class in question and exaggerated their misfortunes...", and that they "forget all about the rights of the other classes". I believe it is important for all citizens of this country to work hard and do their best to earn their rights of property, medicine, and protection. That being said, those who could not earn a decent living were not people who did "nothing" like Sumner claimed, but instead were caught working long hours and being paid low wages by businessmen who followed social Darwinism.
Monique, you have done a great job in your text analysis!
ReplyDeleteIt definitely helped me understand this better. I think that you explained everything thoroughly and gave good points to explain the author’s argument. First of all I somehow agree with Sumner that people who are poor or weak have done nothing and do not deserve property, medical care, or other types of help. You quoted this in a great way from the analysis. It is very interesting that Sumner actually shows little/no emotion in this excerpt. It is all about using logic. He urges citizens to stop the aid to those who have done nothing, “The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be equal to those who have done their duty more or less well (pg 45). However, he did agree that men can help men to help himself. “The only help which is generally expedient, even within the limits of the private and personal relations of two persons to each other, is that which consists in helping a man to help himself. This I believe is fair instead of helping someone without them doing anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post! Like you, I also agree with Sumner to up to a degree--this excerpt really made me think. It may be blunt, but it is very thought provoking. The words deadweight and burden may be a little too harsh, but really, what do we owe each other? If I interpret Sumner’s work correctly, he is saying the social classes do not owe each other anything. He argues that the structure of society affords everyone chances, which some take advantage of, work hard and become successful, while some choose not to even try. Given this, Sumner is saying that those who have succeeded are not obligated to aid those that did not even try. But, he also stated that for a strong community, those that have made it owe it to themselves to assist the weak, the wronged and those who had tried and failed.
ReplyDeleteGreat Job!
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most interesting about Sumner’s ideas is that they are similar to the same ideas that we still face today regarding welfare, unemployment rates, etc… I think you make an excellent point in regards to emotion, with his use of morals. I feel that Sumner was purposefully trying to dissuade people for caring about other social groups by making them fell foolish for it; and I believe that this was a good tactic to get his point across. While Sumner’s views on emotion were existent what was most blatantly clear was his appeal to logic. Sumner argued that with contract relations last as long as reason does, I interpret this as him wanting to use contracts to keep people who he feels “not worthy” honest and working.
I have to admit that some of Sumner’s ideas seem reasonable, but I can’t agree with him. Simply ignoring different social classes because you feel they are unworthy is just setting our country up for failure.