Herbert Spencer

Survival of The Fittest

One byproduct of industrialization and the subsequent rapid accumulation and consolidation of wealth during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, was the generalized theory that a strong work ethic could generate socioeconomic mobility.  This belief was reinforced by industrialists who subscribed to the teachings and philosophy of Herbert Spencer.  Spencer is best known as one of the top sociologists who took Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and applied it to social theory (Johnson).

Interestingly, it was Spencer who developed the well-known phrase “survival of the fittest,” which he based on a hypothesis that self-preservation was an innate human trait, and consequently equated social evolution with Darwin’s idea of biological natural selection.  Spencer believed societal change was an inevitable evolutionary process in which only the strongest would survive, and that weaker orders of humanity would eventually cease to exist (Johnson).

Materially, Spencer thought an elite class of wealth-holders stood a stronger change of survival by the shear virtue of their capacity for social and economic adaptation.  However, a complication for this form of adaptive strategy, if true, implied that economically inferior people were expendable, and if they were expendable wealth-holders would eventually run out of impoverished people to exploit for economic gain.  Spencer’s philosophy was severely flawed, but his concept did not stop its perpetuation (Johnson).

Young Boy Working in a Glass Factory

Writer Horatio Alger, became immensely popular from his “rags-to-riches” stories which promoted one singularly common theme, that a strong work ethic and self-determination were the prescriptive keys to economic success in a competitive labor market.  Many of Alger’s “central characters...were impoverished young boys who used their natural talents” to achieve material success (MindTap).

Alger’s blueprint for socioeconomic achievement caught on like wildfire as popular culture of the period devoured millions of copies (MindTap).  The concept of survival of the fittest became so ingrained in American culture that it continues to be the first line of moral defense for many wealth-holders, today. 

While Alger’s may have modeled his central characters—ordinary-yet-exceptional individuals who transcend economic obscurity—after famous industrial giants such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan, all who became pinnacles of material success.  However, the only wealthy industrialist of the period who actually rose from oppressive poverty to stratospheric wealth was Irish immigrant Andrew Carnegie (MindTap).  Which begs a question.  Did Horatio Alger offer instructional guides offering economic hope for the poor laborer, or was his body of work institutionalized propaganda that reinforced Social Darwinism during an age of unregulated capitalist industrialism?

Works Cited

"MindTap - Cengage Learning." MindTap - Cengage Learning. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/index.html?nbId=107659&nbNodeId=27378118#!&parentId=27378345>. 15.2 The Rise of Big Business and Industrialization. Social Darwinism

Johnson, Bethany. "Herbert Spencer: Theory & Social Darwinism." Sociology 101: Intro to Sociology. Study.com, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

The Squalor of Industrial Shanty Towns

Living Conditions of Progressive Era Laborers

Some forward-thinking progressives participated in the political system to establish improved conditions for labor, while others mobilized to bring social reform directly where it was needed, the impoverished urban neighborhoods of industrial workers.  One progressive who stood out during this period was Jane Addams.  

Addams was increasingly frustrated with the inaction of Chicago political bosses who chose to ignore the appalling living and working conditions of factory workers.  While she remained persistent with political activism, Addams sought to enlist like-minded private citizens to promote social welfare for the poor through Settlement Houses, which were large buildings where progressive volunteers established settlements in the midst of poor urban neighborhoods to offer aid to economically disadvantaged families.  

Settlement Houses became havens for people who were willing to perform work but were unable to find jobs because of the factory system's manipulation of labor.  The unemployed or poor worker relied on progressive social welfare programs such as the Settlement House to learn adaptive methods of survival in the changing landscape of an industrialized economy that had suffered multiple depressive slumps during the late 19th century.  Addams fervently believed gainful employment was “a great source of moral and physical health” for the individual, and was essential for the well-being of society as a whole.  Through grass-roots efforts Settlement Houses became a social safety net for countless impoverished laborers and their families.  

As with William Graham Sumner's call for social reform a decade earlier, Addams enthusiastically encouraged educated young people and wealthy individuals to “devote themselves to the duties of good citizenship by “arousing the social energies" of the working poor through informative civic education so they could understand and participate in the electoral system.  Like Sumner, Addams believed all citizens had a moral social duty to improve the conditions of disaffected laborers, and thought their work could help raise the disadvantaged out of poverty. 

Hull House, Est. 1889

              Addams founded Chicago's Hull House in 1889, which became a large hub that propelled social reform into action. Soon after Hull House opened the concept of Settlement Houses took hold in other industrialized cities.  Settlement Houses encouraged civic awareness, promoted education and childcare, vocational training and networking, and instilled a glimmer of hope to the masses of impoverished laborers around the country.

Works Cited

Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. 5th ed. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Document 21-1 Jane Addams on Settlement Houses. Pgs. 101-104. Print.

"MindTap - Cengage Learning." New Industrial Order 15.9 Study Guide. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/index.html?nbId=107659&nbNodeId=27378118#!&parentId=27378360>.

Time period: The Gilded Age

The disease: Unequal Distribution of Wealth

The symptom: Extreme Class Division

The solution: Progressive Humanitarianism

 

The Gilded Age experienced unprecidented economic growth.  This growth translated into an increasingly elite class of wealth-holders who amassed more wealth than most citizens of the nation, combined.  Labor conditions were unbearable for the poor, and after a series of violent labor uprisings awareness of labor's discontent grew among industrialists.  Something had to be done to quell the violence before it became a legitimate threat to the nation's economy.

Systemic economic inequality eventually received attention from a group of progressive thinkers who argued that social reform was the prescriptive action needed to appease impoverished workers.  In 1883, William Graham Sumner promoted the necessity to acknowledge the dismal conditions of the poor, and conceptualized a social contract, one which established obligations from wealth-holders to help the poor, and established expectations from the poor laborers as well.

Common questions during the period pondered social welfare.  Should spare change be given to a pauper? is one obligated to donate money to charity? should donated money support housing for unwed mothers? and the largest most important question, was the government was obligated to offer assistance to the economically destitute masses?  The deplorable conditions of the poor weighed on the minds of many who became increasingly socially aware.  The anxiety of the wealthy betrayed symptoms of an extremely unbalanced socioeconomic order.

Sumner claimed he could not identify a cogent definition to describe a poor man.  However, he did offer his interpretation of a pauper.  Sumner believed that a pauper is someone who is unable to earn a living, whose power to generate enough income fell well below the level necessary for basic survival.  Sumner’s definition implies there were plenty of poor laborers willing to work, but that inconsistent employment and wage stagnation had eroded their ability to purchase consumable goods and services. 

Looking for a solution to remedy the economic malaise of laborers, Sumner developed a remedy.  He was convinced that a harmonious society required the economic cooperation of industry, and the production capacity from labor, which in turn could benefit the entire country, economically.  For Sumner, the key to overall economic success, was for wealth-holders to help the economically disadvantaged improve their working and living conditions.  If one or both actors did not participate in social reform the country could potentially become unproductive and fall into an economic depression.  Sumner's call to action was illustrated in simple terms.  If you obtain wealth you are obligated assist others, and if you could not obtain wealth, it was the duty of others to help support you. 

Sumner promoted a society of economic reciprocity.  This meant a sense of duty was directed at wealthy individuals to provide for the less fortunate, while in the spirit of mutuality the downtrodden laborers who received assistance were expected to remain productive participants of a consumerist society.  The establishment of a social contract between capital and labor was the only way the country could mend the great economic class divide, and by raising the standard of living for poor workers, it would in turn allow consumption of products that wealthy industrialists produced. 

Works Cited

Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. 5th ed. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Document 18-2 William Graham Sumner on Social Obligations. 45-48. Print.

“God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission” (John Winthrop, 1630)

The above excerpt comes from “A Model of Christian Charity,” which was delivered by John Winthrop as he sailed with fellow colonists on the Arbella in 1630, en route from England to plant their colony in Massachusetts.  

Many see Winthrop’s speech, in its entirety, as a brilliant vision for a utilitarian social order. His reasoning and logic was solid.  The cultural demographic on the ship ranged from lower orders of labor and skill craftsmen, along with political and religious refugees and wealthy merchants; all were in search of a new life and economic opportunity in America.

Presciently, Winthrop established socioeconomic expectations for the group, and with foresight, he knew the success of the colony was interdependent upon the hard work of lower orders of labor, ingenuity of entrepreneurial merchants, and required a charitable elite to balance out social order in the New World.  Each class constituted a piece of the social weal, whose survival depended upon unconditional mutual cooperation.  Without utilitarian order, the colony would fail.  For Winthrop, failure was not an option.

Today, some view Winthrop’s speech as the original blueprint for American socioeconomic class division and a byproduct of English society.  However, the need for socioeconomic division become apparent after the second Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, when capitalists relied on a steady stream of lower orders of labor to fill the factories which resulted with the large concentration of capital as industrialists consolidated their holdings. 

In the spirit of Winthrop’s pragmatism, the lower classes of impoverished settlers relied on the wealthy, and conversely, the wealthy were dependent on the poor.  Initially, the social inter-dependency was symbiotic; however, at some point wealth-holders lost their moral compass as socioeconomic reciprocity evaporated.  The industrialists of the nineteenth century had amassed enormous fortunes acquired from a consumerist market system whose success relied on a perpetually-impoverished class of laborers.  The consumerist market created enormous wealth, but at the expense of stagnant wages for workers who remained in a cycle of poverty.  Paradoxically, this was known as The Gilded Age.