Hofstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1944; rev. ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.
Hofstadter holds that no theory had more impact on American thinking than evolution.
He argues that from the late 19th century to the WWI era, Social Darwinian ideals shifted from a
conservative starting point in which individualism was stressed, to a politically liberal stance that
emphasized the collective, communal spirit of the nation. Beginning with eager acceptance from
scientists, Darwin’s theories were incorporated into the nation’s universities, and quickly gained
widespread popularity, even among mainline Christian churches and religious leaders. As long
as Americans believed in the mythic Horatio Alger individual, the laissez-faire/natural law
aspects of social Darwinism prevailed. Once the middle-class began to challenge the
opportunism and exploitation of such ideals, a collective Darwinism gained precedence.
In order to show the influence of Darwinism on American thought, Hofstadter examines
numerous individuals from the 1870s forward. He starts with Herbert Spencer, the originator of
the “survival of the fittest” adaptation of Darwin’s thought. Spencer held that humanity’s
inherent social adaptations would lead to inevitable human perfection, but that cooperative
“help” in industrial society must be voluntary only. Thus began the conservative, individualistic
starting point to which many gravitated, including early business giants like Andrew Carnegie.
Hofstadter states, “Spencer’s doctrines were imported into the Republic long after individualism
had become a national tradition. Yet in the expansive age of our industrial culture he became the
spokesman of that tradition, and his contribution materially swelled the stream of individualism
if it did not change its course” (50).
He also focuses on William Graham Sumner, who helped assimilate and popularize a
conservative, individualistic Social Darwinism. Sociologist Lester Ward, although a critic of
laissez-faire individualism and a believer in social planning, nonetheless adapted Darwinian
ideals to society as a whole, contending that the origin of organized society comes through the
conquest of one race by another. Other critics of Darwinism, often citing the inadequacy of a
laissez-faire approach in American life, included social gospel adherents, Marxian sociologists,
Progressive reformers, and pragmatists like William James and John Dewey. Hofstadter also
notes the minimal influence of Social Darwinism on economics, and its considerable impact on
sociology and eugenics.
The author surveys how considerably this new worldview shaped racism and imperialism
around the century’s turn, especially through Anglo-Saxonism. Acknowledging the long history
of American racism before the 1870s, Hofstadter notes, “Although Darwinism was not the
primary source of the belligerent ideology and dogmatic racism of the late nineteenth century, it
did become a new instrument in the hands of the theorists of race and struggle” (172). John
Fiske, Teddy Roosevelt, Josiah Strong, and others used Darwinism to justify American racial and
expansion efforts.
Though extremely thought-provoking, the limitations of the Hofstadter thesis include its
narrow focus of what Darwinism was. Belonging to the consensus school of historians, he
believed that the American character, shared values, and institutions were much more limited
than would be thought today. Thus, he limited the Darwinian movement to laissez-faire
economics, militarism, racism, and imperialism. Hofstadter also seems to see Social Darwinists
everywhere, though the issue of such “influence” is often difficult to prove. Nonetheless, this is
a wide-sweeping panorama of American intellectual life that must be read by all serious
historians of the era.