Text Analysis - What Social Classes Owe Each Other

William Graham Sumner is arguing that social inequality is the right and natural outcome of the struggles of men trying to make their own way in the world. He equates rights to do things to chances, that rights do not guarantee success, only a chance to be successful. Some become successful and some do not. He also argues that “giving alms” to the poor who have never tried to become successful, who have never utilized their chances and who don’t contribute anything to society should not b helped. That these poor should be left alone to fade into the “poor man” class. However some poor men never received a chance, and those are the men that Sumner believes should be helped, to a certain point. They should only be helped enough so that they can help themselves and can begin fighting for a better life.

He is trying to discredit the humanitarians that were arguing that the poor class was really poor and, in his opinion, grossly over exaggerating the state of poverty in which they lived. He argues that “men who have not done their duty in this world never can be equal to those who have done their duty more or less well. Classes will always exist, no other social distinctions can endure. The class distinctions simply result from the different degrees of success with which men have availed themselves of the chances which were presented to them”.

Sumner is arguing (logically) that social classes will always exist, but that some men only need a little help to become a part of a higher class. He argues that “Instead of endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made between the existing classes, our aim should be to increase, multiply, and extend the chances. The greater the chances, the more unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to be, in all justice and right reason”

His emotional quality is substantial. The way he talks about how some poor need help from those “better off” in order for them fight for a better life, while at the same time arguing that those men who contribute nothing to society should not receive benefits from men who do. He also gets a little sarcastic when he’s talking about how the humanitarians wrote in a way that was meant to make the rich feel guilty for all the things they have when the poor have nothing. 

From this article I perceive that Sumner was a good man. He recognizes that society has a responsibility to help out those who need a little help, but he also doesn’t mind saying that not all people deserve help, especially if they would just fritter it away. He believed that all men deserved some sort of chance to make something of themselves. 

The historical significance is that this essay was written at a time when Social Darwinism was all the rage, and men like Carnegie were distorting the views to better fit their own personal needs. To me this essay seems to better encompass the true meaning of social darwinism, that all men get a chance to be great, but it just works out that not everyone will be. 

I do find his argument convincing. I agree whole-heartedly that  people deserve chances to become better versions of themselves, but that not everyone deserves multiple chances. Also I found that his essay was very well structured and really helped to lead me to a point where I would agree with him. The way he went from introducing the topic, to explaining why we have social classes, to explaining why we need social classes was genius. Plus it helps that I was already a fan of social darwinism. 

CDL - Social Darwinism 3/5

Social Darwinism was the emphasis on “survival of the fittest” (coined by Herbert Spencer). It was a philosophy used to help explain why some industrial companies survived and thrived in the tooth-and-claw environment but others failed. Andrew Carnegie was the only American business mogul who championed Social Darwinism and was “well-read” on the subject, however his understanding of the basic principals of Social Darwinism is called into question based on some of his essays. A man named William Graham Sumner, who was a chair in political economy at Yale University, was a purist when it came to laissez-faire and adamantly opposed protective tariffs that inflated prices of foreign goods sold in the US. His remarks and political stance alienated him from the very group he supported, the rich. In practice all business men supported protective tariffs, land grants and the like, except for when it would interfere with them making a profit. Only when they were threatened with higher taxes or regulations would they argue for survival of the fittest for the “natural laws”.

1. How did the economic inequality and cut-throat business environment help to support the idea of Social Darwinism?
2. The way Carnegie described his belief in Social Darwinism is written in terms usually reserved for religious experiences, so could it be said that Social Darwinism was a kind of religion, with it’s own values and belief system?