The Tools of Expediency

The Tools of Expediency

1988 12 December 16-17 The Tools of Expediency (550) Many of the ideologies of modern times, like the theory of evolution, owe their popularity less to their being truths than to the fact that they justify the desires of individuals, groups or countries, setting upon them the seal of intellectual approval. For example, capitalist claims of the superiority of the few over the masses were ostensibly upheld by the law of nature. Nature itself had selected them to rule, and, according to this comfortable theory, that was a far cry from their deliberately exploiting others. The doctrine of evolution too was pressed into service to justify the economic and cultural domination of western nations over “their inferiors”. This view did gain popular acceptance despite the fact that when it was first put forward in the nineteenth century, it was not an established scientific fact. Nor is it even now.

We find philosophers like Herbert Spencer and W.G. Sumner exploiting the popularity of this theory to provide capitalists with much-needed philosophical support for their economic and cultural elitism. In his book, The Study of Sociology, W.G. Sumner writes: “I am simply carrying out the views of Mr. Darwin in their applications to the human race... all (members of the race) being subject to the increasing difficulty of getting a living... there is an average advance under the pressure, since only those who do advance under it eventually survive, and... these must be select of their generation.

Putting it even more insidiously, he says, “The millionaires are a product of natural selection... It is because they are thus selected that wealth – both their own and that entrusted to them – aggregates under their hands... They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society for certain works. They get high wages and live in luxury, but the bargain is a good one for society.

W.G. Sumner (1840-1910) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) both being prolific exponents of ‘social’ Darwinism, in that they applied the principle of biological evolution to the social sphere, attempted to whitewash the more rapacious aspects of capitalist behaviour and make them palatable to the public at large. It was Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Applied to the world of nature, it meant the survival – and, therefore, dominance – of the strongest and most aggressive animals, and of the sturdiest and best self-reproducing plants. Applied to the world of humanity, it meant very much the same but also suggested that unregulated competition among men led to social and economic progress with the rise of the most able to positions of power and eminence. With this theory, they tried to reinforce the notion that for progress to continue, unregulated competition must also continue. In their view, those at the foot of the social ladder were there because they were inferior, or unfit in some way to engage in social life. To aid them would retard their extinction, which, in turn, would have a slowing effect on human progress. The inhumanity of such a theory has largely been countered by modern socialism, never lose sight of the fact that acceptance or rejection of ideas and practices are seldom, based on truth or falsehood, but more often on what best serves the interests of those already in power. What counts with them is not truth, but expediency.