Skip to main content

What May Be The First-ever Use of the Phrase "social Darwinist"



As readers may be aware, Herbert Spencer has been much on my mind of late. 
As a side effect of this, I became curious about who first used "social" as an adjective in front of "Darwinism," and in what context. 

The answer may well be an otherwise forgotten writer named Joseph Fisher. [In wikipedia, there is a disambiguation page for the name "Joseph Fisher," which lists 13 different men of that name who are notable in various ways. Most of the "Fishers" listed are in blue, indicating that they each have a wikipedia article of his own. The Joseph Fisher I have in mind is the only one listed in red -- indicating no article -- so the only information about him you will find in wikipedia is the one fact used to distinguish him on the disambiguation page, that he "coined the phrase" social Darwinism.] 

In 1877, the TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY ran Fisher's (very lengthy) article on "The History of Landholding in Ireland," a subject of obvious interest in Britain at the time, since the Irish tenants circa 1877 were getting so confrontational with their imperially-determined landlords.

About one-quarter of the way through this article, Fisher takes up a theory then recently expounded by Sir Henry Maine, who had written about how the Irish chieftains had developed into feudal barons. (The chieftains were mobile, but one has to settle down on a particular chunk of land to be a feudal baron.) Maine is a far better remembered fellow than Fisher, and this brings to mind a lot of question into how THAT thesis might have fit into Maine's big picture. 

Nonetheless: Fisher isn't buying it. He regrets that Maine, whom he calls a "usually acute writer" would have bungled this point.  "I can find nothing in the Brehon laws to warrant this theory of social Darwinism" Fisher writes.  He doesn't believe the chieftains transformed gradually into feudal barons. He believes they stayed chieftains until they were conquered by folks from the next island over, who brought feudalism along with them. 

That is peculiar.   So far as I can tell, Maine's theory resembles Darwinism only insofar as Darwin spoke of the development of one species out of another, and Maine thought one social system can develop from another by gradual steps. There is nothing here that suggests, for example, that Maine thought the mechanism of the change was survival of the fittest. The use of the term "social Darwinism" seems to have been a quick "casting of shade" as people in the 21st century say: shade on Maine for associating himself even in the vaguest of ways with this disreputable Darwin fellow. 

I'll think about this some more and I expect my next post will speak further to what, if anything, we can take from Fisher's usage, about Fisher, Maine, Darwin, and the subsequent history of the term. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more