The "survival of the fittest" and the origins of social Darwinism

Journal of the History of Ideas

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 223-240

  Claeys, Gregory ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040001176     PISSN: 00225037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3654026     Document Type: Article

References (147)

1. Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (3 vols.: London, 1888), I, 83. The passage was picked up by contemporaries, e.g., Benjamin Kidd, Social Evolution (London, 1894), 32 .
2. Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (3 vols.: London, 1888), I, 83. The passage was picked up by contemporaries, e.g., Benjamin Kidd, Social Evolution (London, 1894), 32 .
3. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
4. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
5. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
6. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
7. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
8. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
9. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
10. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
11. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
12. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
13. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
14. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
15. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
16. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
17. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
18. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
19. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
20. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (London, 1859), ch. 3; the phrase "survival of the fittest" Darwin only introduced in the fifth, 1872 edition of the Origin and meant by it only that those who produced the most offspring were likely to pass their characteristics onwards. See Robert Mackintosh, From Comte to Benjamin Kidd: The Appeal to Biology or Evolution for Human Guidance (London, 1899), 63; David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), 1-6. The most concise treatment of the subject is Peter Bowler. "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species,'" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 84 (1941), 71-123; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (London, 1959), John Burrow, Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge, 1966): Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42: Robert Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: the Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 43 (1969): Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus and Selection," Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971), 209-17; Derek Freeman, "The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer," Current Anthropology, 15 (1974), 211-21; Silvan Schweber, "The Origin of the Origin Revisited," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 229-316; Steven Shapin and Barry Barnes, "Darwin and Social Darwinism: Purity and History," in Shapin and Barnes, Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (Los Angeles, 1977), 125-42; Michael Ruse, "Social Darwinism: Two Sources," Albion, 12 (1980), 23-36 ; also Gavin de Beer, "The Origins of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 155, B (1962), 321-38: Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century (New York, 1961), 181-82; Peter Vorzimmer, "Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection," JHI, 30 (1969), 527-42; and Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought (Boston, 1955).
21. Sidney Low and Lloyd Saunders, The History of England During the Reign of Victoria (London, 1911), 455.
22. Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power (London, 1919), 43.
23. "Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain - that is, the fittest would survive." Alfred Russel Wallace, My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions (London, 1908), 190.
24. Wallace, My Life, 232-35, had in fact read Malthus some twenty years earlier, in 1844-5, but only recognised the implications for evolutionary theory later.
25. The standard account of evolutionary theories in this period remains J. W. Burrow, Evolution and Society, which, however, excludes Social Darwinism.
26. The Darwin industry has of course made much of this association, which is also widely recognised by other historians, e.g., Donald Winch, Malthus (Oxford, 1987), 7; D. P. Crook, Darwinism, War and History (Cambridge, 1994), 17-21. On Darwin's "metaphor," see David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Edinburgh, 1987), ch. 2. Some contemporaries also regarded Social Darwinism and Malthusianism as essentially identical. See H. M. Hyndman (The Historical Basis of Socialism in England [London, 1883], 38.): "The attempt made to apply Darwin's theories on the struggle for life among animals to man is quite beside the point. Man is the only animal who deliberately modifies nature on a large scale, and increases the amount of his own food. To my mind, the Malthusian theory in the present condition of population on the planet, and of human civilization among the progressive races, is utterly misleading and foolish."
27. The Darwin industry has of course made much of this association, which is also widely recognised by other historians, e.g., Donald Winch, Malthus (Oxford, 1987), 7; D. P. Crook, Darwinism, War and History (Cambridge, 1994), 17-21. On Darwin's "metaphor," see David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Edinburgh, 1987), ch. 2. Some contemporaries also regarded Social Darwinism and Malthusianism as essentially identical. See H. M. Hyndman (The Historical Basis of Socialism in England [London, 1883], 38.): "The attempt made to apply Darwin's theories on the struggle for life among animals to man is quite beside the point. Man is the only animal who deliberately modifies nature on a large scale, and increases the amount of his own food. To my mind, the Malthusian theory in the present condition of population on the planet, and of human civilization among the progressive races, is utterly misleading and foolish."
28. The Darwin industry has of course made much of this association, which is also widely recognised by other historians, e.g., Donald Winch, Malthus (Oxford, 1987), 7; D. P. Crook, Darwinism, War and History (Cambridge, 1994), 17-21. On Darwin's "metaphor," see David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Edinburgh, 1987), ch. 2. Some contemporaries also regarded Social Darwinism and Malthusianism as essentially identical. See H. M. Hyndman (The Historical Basis of Socialism in England [London, 1883], 38.): "The attempt made to apply Darwin's theories on the struggle for life among animals to man is quite beside the point. Man is the only animal who deliberately modifies nature on a large scale, and increases the amount of his own food. To my mind, the Malthusian theory in the present condition of population on the planet, and of human civilization among the progressive races, is utterly misleading and foolish."
29. The Darwin industry has of course made much of this association, which is also widely recognised by other historians, e.g., Donald Winch, Malthus (Oxford, 1987), 7; D. P. Crook, Darwinism, War and History (Cambridge, 1994), 17-21. On Darwin's "metaphor," see David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Edinburgh, 1987), ch. 2. Some contemporaries also regarded Social Darwinism and Malthusianism as essentially identical. See H. M. Hyndman (The Historical Basis of Socialism in England [London, 1883], 38.): "The attempt made to apply Darwin's theories on the struggle for life among animals to man is quite beside the point. Man is the only animal who deliberately modifies nature on a large scale, and increases the amount of his own food. To my mind, the Malthusian theory in the present condition of population on the planet, and of human civilization among the progressive races, is utterly misleading and foolish."
30. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 389-405.
31. See "Agnosticism," in T. H. Huxley, Collected Essays (London, 1894), V, 209-62.
32. See Maine's praise for "the beneficent private war which makes one man strive to climb on the shoulders of another and remain there through the law of the survival of the fittest." Popular Government (London, 1885), 50.
33. J. Holland Rose (The Rise of Democracy [London, 1898], 166), contended that the influence of Darwin's theories had been "both to extend and complicate the issues which were prominent in the previous generation. Then controversy raged mostly on the question of natural rights, especially those of the individual to a share in the government. Now the contest is between those who would strengthen and those who would minimize the authority of the state in its dealings with the individual, especially in regard to private ownership, the claims of companies, and economic or social questions arising therefrom." Yet Dicey gave him relatively little credit for assisting this trend in Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in the Nineteenth Century. A similar stress on the collectivist implications of the theory of natural selection is given by Benjamin Kidd (Principles of Western Civilisation [London, 1902], 51), who however emphasizes the post-Darwinian contribution. Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought (Brighton, 1980), 54-77.
34. J. Holland Rose (The Rise of Democracy [London, 1898], 166), contended that the influence of Darwin's theories had been "both to extend and complicate the issues which were prominent in the previous generation. Then controversy raged mostly on the question of natural rights, especially those of the individual to a share in the government. Now the contest is between those who would strengthen and those who would minimize the authority of the state in its dealings with the individual, especially in regard to private ownership, the claims of companies, and economic or social questions arising therefrom." Yet Dicey gave him relatively little credit for assisting this trend in Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in the Nineteenth Century. A similar stress on the collectivist implications of the theory of natural selection is given by Benjamin Kidd (Principles of Western Civilisation [London, 1902], 51), who however emphasizes the post-Darwinian contribution. Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought (Brighton, 1980), 54-77.
35. J. Holland Rose (The Rise of Democracy [London, 1898], 166), contended that the influence of Darwin's theories had been "both to extend and complicate the issues which were prominent in the previous generation. Then controversy raged mostly on the question of natural rights, especially those of the individual to a share in the government. Now the contest is between those who would strengthen and those who would minimize the authority of the state in its dealings with the individual, especially in regard to private ownership, the claims of companies, and economic or social questions arising therefrom." Yet Dicey gave him relatively little credit for assisting this trend in Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in the Nineteenth Century. A similar stress on the collectivist implications of the theory of natural selection is given by Benjamin Kidd (Principles of Western Civilisation [London, 1902], 51), who however emphasizes the post-Darwinian contribution. Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought (Brighton, 1980), 54-77.
36. According to Benjamin Kidd (The Science of Power, 57, 59), "Nietzsche's teachings represented the interpretation of the popular Darwinism delivered with the fury and intensity of genius."
37. Ibid., 39. A typical stress on efficiency of this kind is given in W. H. Mallock, Aristocracy and Evolution (London, 1898), 92.
38. Ibid., 39. A typical stress on efficiency of this kind is given in W. H. Mallock, Aristocracy and Evolution (London, 1898), 92.
39. According to Leonard Hobhouse (Democracy and Reaction [London, 1904], 85), "those who have applied Darwin's theories to the science of society have not as a rule troubled themselves to understand Darwin any more than the science of society. What has filtered through into the social and political thought of the time has been the belief that the time-honoured doctrine 'Might is Right' has a scientific foundation in the laws of biology." Hobhouse thought Bagehot, who concentrates on "national character" in Physics and Politics, had first applied Darwinian notions to ideas of international rather than intra-national or species-centered struggle.
40. Leonard Hobhouse, Social Evolution and Political Theory (London, 1911), 22.
41. On the "military metaphor" see Paul Crook; and James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge, 1979), 75-100.
42. Cf. Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power, 45: "Within half a century the Origin of Species had become the bible of the doctrine of the omnipotence of force."
43. For previous examples of this line of enquiry, see in particular R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 93 (1969), 109-41; Kenneth Bock, "Darwin and Social Theory," Philosophy of Science, 22 (1955), 123-34; Thomas Cowles, "Malthus, Darwin, and Bagehot: A Study in the Transference of a Concept," Isis, 26 (1936), 341-48; and Barry Gale, "Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: A Study in the Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas," Isis, 63 (1972), 321-44.
44. For previous examples of this line of enquiry, see in particular R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 93 (1969), 109-41; Kenneth Bock, "Darwin and Social Theory," Philosophy of Science, 22 (1955), 123-34; Thomas Cowles, "Malthus, Darwin, and Bagehot: A Study in the Transference of a Concept," Isis, 26 (1936), 341-48; and Barry Gale, "Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: A Study in the Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas," Isis, 63 (1972), 321-44.
45. For previous examples of this line of enquiry, see in particular R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 93 (1969), 109-41; Kenneth Bock, "Darwin and Social Theory," Philosophy of Science, 22 (1955), 123-34; Thomas Cowles, "Malthus, Darwin, and Bagehot: A Study in the Transference of a Concept," Isis, 26 (1936), 341-48; and Barry Gale, "Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: A Study in the Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas," Isis, 63 (1972), 321-44.
46. For previous examples of this line of enquiry, see in particular R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory," Past and Present, 93 (1969), 109-41; Kenneth Bock, "Darwin and Social Theory," Philosophy of Science, 22 (1955), 123-34; Thomas Cowles, "Malthus, Darwin, and Bagehot: A Study in the Transference of a Concept," Isis, 26 (1936), 341-48; and Barry Gale, "Darwin and the Concept of a Struggle for Existence: A Study in the Extrascientific Origins of Scientific Ideas," Isis, 63 (1972), 321-44.
47. Darwin ( The Life and Letters of Charles Danwin [1888], III, 45-46), took up the term in 1866, writing to Wallace that "I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of 'the survival of the fittest.' This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb: and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words, natural selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in 'the survival, ©.,' often in the new edition of the 'Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of which I will of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on Domestic Animals, ©."
48. For Wallace see Raphael Meldola, Evolution: Darwinian and Spencerian (Oxford, 1910), 44, for Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, II, 141.
49. For Wallace see Raphael Meldola, Evolution: Darwinian and Spencerian (Oxford, 1910), 44, for Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, II, 141.
50. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
51. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
52. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
53. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography
54. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
55. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
56. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
57. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
58. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
59. "From the beginning," Spencer wrote, "pressure of population has been the proximate cause of progress." "A Theory of Population Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns 1 (1852), 501. This "progress" derived from improvements of individual character or "type" (by a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics) defined not by a teleologically-induced divine principle, but by movement from "an incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity," or from simplicity to complexity. Herbert Spencer, First Principles (2 vols.; London, 1911), I, 291. Spencer would claim that his own "general doctrine of evolution" from homogeneity to heterogeneity, using Adam Smith's theory of increasing returns and the division of labour as a paradigm for differentiation in general, was fully formed by 1855. Autobiography (London, 1904), I, 462; see generally "Progress: Its Law and Cause," Westminster Review, 67 (1857), 445-85. He would also acknowledge, however, that Darwin had forced him to modify his own views of evolution substantially. Ibid., II, 50. C. U. M. Smith, "Evolution and the Problem of Mind: Herbert Spencer," Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), 55-88; D. R. Olroyd, Darwinian Impacts (New Brunswick, 1980), ch. 15; David Wiltshire, The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer (Oxford, 1978), 192-224 ; and J. D. Y. Peel, Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist (London, 1971), 131-65, which argues that "what was called 'Social Darwinism" was often derived largely from Spencer." Spencer's theory laid more stress on individual efforts than did Darwin's, and was more indebted to Lamarckian conceptions that habits could modify constitutions and in these in turn could be passed to future generations. The Malthusian source of Spencer's evolutionism is evident in his "A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review (1852), which argued that an "inevitable redundancy of numbers . . . involves also a demand for skill, intelligence, and self-control" which resulted in social improvement (266).
60. On the influence of Malthus on Spencer, see R. M. Young, "The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution," Actes du XIe congrès internationale d'histoire des sciences (Warsaw, 1967), II, 273-79.
61. Their popularity was much indebted to the emergence of the social sciences in the late nineteenth century; to the growing distinction between individualist and collectivist political theories; of the popularity of jingoistic imperialism in the last third of the nineteenth century; and of increasing international tension and economic competition in the decades before 1914. which often produced the view that England had "now entered a new stage in the struggle for national life" (Arnold White, Efficiency and Empire [London, 1902], 112).
62. See W. R. Greg. "Non-survival of the Fittest," in Enigmas of Life (London, 1872). Wallace summarizes his own views in "Evolution and Character," in Percy Parker (ed.), Character and Life (London, 1912), 3-50.
63. See W. R. Greg. "Non-survival of the Fittest," in Enigmas of Life (London, 1872). Wallace summarizes his own views in "Evolution and Character," in Percy Parker (ed.), Character and Life (London, 1912), 3-50.
64. David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), vi; The Principles of State Interference (London, 1891), 50.
65. David Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics (London, 1901), vi; The Principles of State Interference (London, 1891), 50.
66. A summary of the socialist case is given in Karl Pearson, "Socialism and Natural Selection," The Fortnightly Review, NS 62 (1894), 1-21.
67. Without of course making the claim that Malthus is a proto-Social Darwinist as such. See Donald Winch, Malthus, 102-3; James Bonar, Malthus and His Work (London, 1924); Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty; An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750-1834 (Cambridge, 1996), pt. 3.
68. Without of course making the claim that Malthus is a proto-Social Darwinist as such. See Donald Winch, Malthus, 102-3; James Bonar, Malthus and His Work (London, 1924); Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty; An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750-1834 (Cambridge, 1996), pt. 3.
69. Without of course making the claim that Malthus is a proto-Social Darwinist as such. See Donald Winch, Malthus, 102-3; James Bonar, Malthus and His Work (London, 1924); Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty; An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750-1834 (Cambridge, 1996), pt. 3.
70. T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (London, 1798), 177.
71. See Winch, Riches and Poverty, 249-405.
72. Quoted in Patricia James, Population Malthus: His Life and Times (London, 1979), 100. Malthus further reiterated that "no essential improvement can take place without the denial of a legal claim." Quoted in Southey, Essays Moral and Political (London, 1832), I, 210. This passage came to represent Malthus's most extreme formulations, and was often thereafter quoted against him, either directly (e.g., in Godwin's Of Population, 19, or Southey, 92), or indirectly, as in George Ensor's assertion that in the Essay "The banquet of nature shrinks into short allowance ministered by a miser," in An Inquiry concerning the Population of Nations (London, 1818), 80.
73. Quoted in Patricia James, Population Malthus: His Life and Times (London, 1979), 100. Malthus further reiterated that "no essential improvement can take place without the denial of a legal claim." Quoted in Southey, Essays Moral and Political (London, 1832), I, 210. This passage came to represent Malthus's most extreme formulations, and was often thereafter quoted against him, either directly (e.g., in Godwin's Of Population, 19, or Southey, 92), or indirectly, as in George Ensor's assertion that in the Essay "The banquet of nature shrinks into short allowance ministered by a miser," in An Inquiry concerning the Population of Nations (London, 1818), 80.
74. Quoted in Patricia James, Population Malthus: His Life and Times (London, 1979), 100. Malthus further reiterated that "no essential improvement can take place without the denial of a legal claim." Quoted in Southey, Essays Moral and Political (London, 1832), I, 210. This passage came to represent Malthus's most extreme formulations, and was often thereafter quoted against him, either directly (e.g., in Godwin's Of Population, 19, or Southey, 92), or indirectly, as in George Ensor's assertion that in the Essay "The banquet of nature shrinks into short allowance ministered by a miser," in An Inquiry concerning the Population of Nations (London, 1818), 80.
75. Quoted in Patricia James, Population Malthus: His Life and Times (London, 1979), 100. Malthus further reiterated that "no essential improvement can take place without the denial of a legal claim." Quoted in Southey, Essays Moral and Political (London, 1832), I, 210. This passage came to represent Malthus's most extreme formulations, and was often thereafter quoted against him, either directly (e.g., in Godwin's Of Population, 19, or Southey, 92), or indirectly, as in George Ensor's assertion that in the Essay "The banquet of nature shrinks into short allowance ministered by a miser," in An Inquiry concerning the Population of Nations (London, 1818), 80.
76. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus" Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
77. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
78. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
79. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
80. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
81. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
82. Essay on Population (London, 1798), 363. Malthus's theodicy was that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Ibid., 217. See generally D. L. LeMahieu, "Malthus and the Theology of Scarcity," JHI, 40 (1979), 467-74; J. M. Pullen, "Malthus' Theological Ideas and their Influence on his Principle of Population," History of Political Economy, 13 (1981), 38-54; Edmund Santuri, "Theodicy and Social Policy in Malthus' Thought," JHI, 43 (1982), 315-50; M. B. Harvey-Phillips, "Malthus' Theodicy; the Intellectual Background of His Contribution to Political Economy," History of Political Economy, 16 (1984), 591-608. The development of Christian economics in this period is analyzed in Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988).
83. For an early critique which derides Malthus's treatment of the laboring class as "not only inhuman to the last degree, but unjust and iniquitous, see Charles Hall, Observations on the Principal Conclusions in Mr. Malthus's Essay on Population (London, 1805), 338-40. On the development of the Malthusian controversy generally, see Kenneth Smith, The Malthusian Controversy (London, 1951); James Alfred Field, "The Malthusian Controversy in England," in Essays on Population (Chicago, 1931), 1-86.
84. For an early critique which derides Malthus's treatment of the laboring class as "not only inhuman to the last degree, but unjust and iniquitous, see Charles Hall, Observations on the Principal Conclusions in Mr. Malthus's Essay on Population (London, 1805), 338-40. On the development of the Malthusian controversy generally, see Kenneth Smith, The Malthusian Controversy (London, 1951); James Alfred Field, "The Malthusian Controversy in England," in Essays on Population (Chicago, 1931), 1-86.
85. For an early critique which derides Malthus's treatment of the laboring class as "not only inhuman to the last degree, but unjust and iniquitous, see Charles Hall, Observations on the Principal Conclusions in Mr. Malthus's Essay on Population (London, 1805), 338-40. On the development of the Malthusian controversy generally, see Kenneth Smith, The Malthusian Controversy (London, 1951); James Alfred Field, "The Malthusian Controversy in England," in Essays on Population (Chicago, 1931), 1-86.
86. Mountifort Longfield, Four Lectures on the Poor Laws (London, 1834), 57.
87. R. A. Soloway, Prelates and People: Ecclesiastical Social Thought in England 1783-1832 (London, 1969), 162.
88. See generally J. R. Poynter, Society and Pauperism: English Ideas on Poor Relief, 1795-1834 (London, 1969).
89. Malthus, Essay on Population (London, 1798), 205.
90. Indeed the language of "fitness" is already present in the assertion (in 1798) that the perils of existence enable some, at least, to attain "such high qualities and powers, as seem to indicate their fitness for some superior state" (Malthus, Essay on Population, 352). See Ritchie, Studies in Political and Social Ethics (London, 1902), 5.
91. Indeed the language of "fitness" is already present in the assertion (in 1798) that the perils of existence enable some, at least, to attain "such high qualities and powers, as seem to indicate their fitness for some superior state" (Malthus, Essay on Population, 352). See Ritchie, Studies in Political and Social Ethics (London, 1902), 5.
92. Notably in his well-known poem, The Temple of Nature; or, the Origin of Society (London, 1803).
93. Chambers, Vestiges, 377.
94. 9), 392; Roger Cooter, The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organisation of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge, 1984). Phrenology was an important element in Wallace's thinking. Mesmerism is a further influence which needs to be integrated into a fuller account of this subject.
95. 9), 392; Roger Cooter, The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organisation of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge, 1984). Phrenology was an important element in Wallace's thinking. Mesmerism is a further influence which needs to be integrated into a fuller account of this subject.
96. Lyle was even more influential on Wallace than on Darwin. See R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists," 129-33. On Darwin's use of the term, "struggle," see especially Peter Bowler, "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50.
97. Lyle was even more influential on Wallace than on Darwin. See R. M. Young, "Malthus and the Evolutionists," 129-33. On Darwin's use of the term, "struggle," see especially Peter Bowler, "Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle," JHI, 37 (1976), 631-50.
98. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
99. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
100. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
101. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
102. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
103. The general connection between laissez-faire economics and Social Darwinism, particularly in the United States, has of course long been recognised. See R. J. Halliday, "Social Darwinism: A Definition," Victorian Studies, 14 (1971), 396-97. Socialists tended to emphasize the connection most vehemently; see G. Bernard Shaw (ed.), Fabian Essays in Socialism (London, 1889), 28. There is however little discussion of Malthus, and much less of political economy, in many of the standard works on Darwin and Darwinism, e.g., William Irvine, Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (New York, 1959), 179, which devotes a paragraph to "laissez-faire" as a "master idea of the nineteenth century." Similarly Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (New York, 1961), disposes of Malthus in a few sentences, while acknowledging him as "the source of most of nineteenth-century England's thinking on the struggle for existence" (182) and says nothing of political economy. On Darwinism and American political economy see Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 143-56. An important exception is Silvan Schweber, "Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character," Journal of the History of Biology, 13 (1980), 195-289. which focuses on Darwin's use of ideas of the division of labor.
104. The best general account of these variations is Winch, Riches and Poverty.
105. As Mill put it in 1844, "In proportion to the amount of the productive labour and consumption of a country, the country . . . is enriched: in proportion to the amount of unproductive labour and consumption, the country is impoverished." John Stuart Mill, Works (Toronto, 1975), IV, 283-84.
106. 3), 347.
107. Spencer, Social Statics (London, 1850), 323.
108. E.g., John Gray, A Letter on Human Happiness (London, 1825).
109. E.g., William Hearn, Plutology, or the Theory of the Efforts to Satisfy Human Wants (London, 1864), 345-46. Amongst the first political economists to cite Darwin, Hearn particularly noted the value of his "stern yet salutary law" of natural selection to society (347), and to link this theory to Malthus (392-93).
110. See Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880 (London, 1969): The success of the "entrepreneurial ideal" has of course been challenged, notably by Martin Wiener, in English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit (Cambridge, 1985).
111. See Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880 (London, 1969): The success of the "entrepreneurial ideal" has of course been challenged, notably by Martin Wiener, in English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit (Cambridge, 1985).
112. Wallace, Social Environment and Moral Progress (London, 1913), 4.
113. E.g., Kidd, The Science of Power, 265.
114. Thus Huxley believed that Spencer's phrase, "the survival of the fittest," was a poor choice on Darwin's part, "in consequence of the ambiguity of the 'fittest,' which many take to mean 'best' or 'highest' - whereas natural selection may work towards degradation" (quoted in James Allen Rodgers, "Darwinism and Social Darwinism," 278).
115. See Wallace, "The Origin of the Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of Natural Selection," Anthropological Review, 2, (1864), clxiv.
116. Macmillan's Magazine, 18 (June and August 1865), 166, 321. The trend was continued in Galton's "Gregariousness in Cattle and Men," Macmillan's Magazine, 23 (1870-71), 353-57.
117. On the making of Darwin as a Social Darwinist, see John Greene, "Darwin as a Social Evolutionist," Journal of the History of Biology, 10 (1977), 1-27 .
118. Fraser's Magazine, September 1868. See further W. R. Greg, Enigmas of Life (London, 1873), 92-132.
119. Spencer, "A Theory of Population, Deduced From the General Law of Animal Fertility," Westminster Review, ns. 1 (1852), 496.
120. "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was the 1859 subtitle.
121. 3], 23).
122. Yet Darwin also supported the Galtonian, radical conclusion that "There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring" (Descent of Man, 618), and similarly opposed primogeniture, writing in 1864 on the British aristocracy that "what a shame is primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection!" Frances Darwin and A. Seward (eds.), More Letters of Charles Darwin (2 vols.; London, 1903), II, 34. On the background to the Descent, see Jones, "The Social History of Darwin's Descent of Man," Economy and Society, 1 (1978), 1-23.
123. Yet Darwin also supported the Galtonian, radical conclusion that "There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring" (Descent of Man, 618), and similarly opposed primogeniture, writing in 1864 on the British aristocracy that "what a shame is primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection!" Frances Darwin and A. Seward (eds.), More Letters of Charles Darwin (2 vols.; London, 1903), II, 34. On the background to the Descent, see Jones, "The Social History of Darwin's Descent of Man," Economy and Society, 1 (1978), 1-23.
124. Henry Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor (4 vols.; 1861), I, 2.
125. What is not new, thus, is a "new scientific vocabulary of struggle and survival." Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science; Great Britain 1800-1960 (New York, 1982), 49. On the evolution of systems of racial classification see also generally Louis L. Snyder, The Idea of Racialism (New York, 1962); J. S. Haller, Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900 (1971); and Jones, Social Darwinism, 140-59.
126. What is not new, thus, is a "new scientific vocabulary of struggle and survival." Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science; Great Britain 1800-1960 (New York, 1982), 49. On the evolution of systems of racial classification see also generally Louis L. Snyder, The Idea of Racialism (New York, 1962); J. S. Haller, Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900 (1971); and Jones, Social Darwinism, 140-59.
127. What is not new, thus, is a "new scientific vocabulary of struggle and survival." Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science; Great Britain 1800-1960 (New York, 1982), 49. On the evolution of systems of racial classification see also generally Louis L. Snyder, The Idea of Racialism (New York, 1962); J. S. Haller, Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900 (1971); and Jones, Social Darwinism, 140-59.
128. What is not new, thus, is a "new scientific vocabulary of struggle and survival." Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science; Great Britain 1800-1960 (New York, 1982), 49. On the evolution of systems of racial classification see also generally Louis L. Snyder, The Idea of Racialism (New York, 1962); J. S. Haller, Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900 (1971); and Jones, Social Darwinism, 140-59.
129. The best general account of such views in Britain in this period is Christine Bolt, Victorian Attitudes to Race (London, 1971).
130. On this development see generally Stepan. The Idea of Race in Science, Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (London, 1968), ch. 4, "The Rise of Racial Determinism"; Haller, Outcasts from Evolution; Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 184-215.
131. On this development see generally Stepan. The Idea of Race in Science, Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (London, 1968), ch. 4, "The Rise of Racial Determinism"; Haller, Outcasts from Evolution; Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 184-215.
132. On this development see generally Stepan. The Idea of Race in Science, Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (London, 1968), ch. 4, "The Rise of Racial Determinism"; Haller, Outcasts from Evolution; Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 184-215.
133. On this development see generally Stepan. The Idea of Race in Science, Marvin Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (London, 1968), ch. 4, "The Rise of Racial Determinism"; Haller, Outcasts from Evolution; Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 184-215.
134. On the origins of this process see in particular Reginald Horsman, "The Origins of Racial Anglo-Saxonism in Great Britain before 1850," JHI, 37 (1976), 387-410. On the emergence of racial determinism between 1830-50, which lays particulary stress on the role played by phrenology, see Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science, 20-46.
135. On the origins of this process see in particular Reginald Horsman, "The Origins of Racial Anglo-Saxonism in Great Britain before 1850," JHI, 37 (1976), 387-410. On the emergence of racial determinism between 1830-50, which lays particulary stress on the role played by phrenology, see Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science, 20-46.
136. Robert Knox, The Races of Man (London, 1850), 411. See Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science, 43, for an analysis of the displacement of earlier, more environmentalist notions of race in this period.
137. Robert Knox, The Races of Man (London, 1850), 411. See Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science, 43, for an analysis of the displacement of earlier, more environmentalist notions of race in this period.
138. Edward Freeman, Comparative Politics (London, 1873), iv. Even A. R. Wallace was led to concluded that differences in racial character were seemingly primordial. See "Evolution and Character," in Percy Parker (ed.), Character and Life (London, 1912), 38-40. But he was equally certain that human "ethical and moral nature has not advanced in any perceptible degree" throughout the process of evolution (43), and that savages were thus not inferior mentally to more civilized peoples. See generally John Burrow. Evolution and Society.
139. Edward Freeman, Comparative Politics (London, 1873), iv. Even A. R. Wallace was led to concluded that differences in racial character were seemingly primordial. See "Evolution and Character," in Percy Parker (ed.), Character and Life (London, 1912), 38-40. But he was equally certain that human "ethical and moral nature has not advanced in any perceptible degree" throughout the process of evolution (43), and that savages were thus not inferior mentally to more civilized peoples. See generally John Burrow. Evolution and Society.
140. Edward Freeman, Comparative Politics (London, 1873), iv. Even A. R. Wallace was led to concluded that differences in racial character were seemingly primordial. See "Evolution and Character," in Percy Parker (ed.), Character and Life (London, 1912), 38-40. But he was equally certain that human "ethical and moral nature has not advanced in any perceptible degree" throughout the process of evolution (43), and that savages were thus not inferior mentally to more civilized peoples. See generally John Burrow. Evolution and Society.
141. Hoftstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 171-72.
142. Particularly in relation to Africa, for in the Descent of Man Darwin, among others, asserted that both Indians and Europeans were derived from the same Aryan stock, an ideal originating largely in late eighteenth-century philology. On the Indian context, see more broadly G. D. Bearce, British Attitudes towards India, 1784-1858 (Oxford, 1961). Even liberals like Bagehot were affected. See the comments on race mixtures in Physics and Politics (London, 1884), 70-71.
143. Particularly in relation to Africa, for in the Descent of Man Darwin, among others, asserted that both Indians and Europeans were derived from the same Aryan stock, an ideal originating largely in late eighteenth-century philology. On the Indian context, see more broadly G. D. Bearce, British Attitudes towards India, 1784-1858 (Oxford, 1961). Even liberals like Bagehot were affected. See the comments on race mixtures in Physics and Politics (London, 1884), 70-71.
144. Charles Dilke, Greater Britain (London, 1868), 267.
145. Life and Letters, I, 316.
146. H. G. Wells, Anticipations (London, 1902), 317.
147. See generally Daniel Pick, Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, c. 1848-c. 1918 (Cambridge, 1989).