The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Thoughts Modified Politics

“It is as if man had suddenly been appointed coping with director of the most important enterprise of all, the commercial enterprise of evolution.” Appearing in a 1957 essay by means of the biologist Julian Huxley on “trans-humanism” (a time period that Huxley coined), this is a announcement that might be made by using any number of Darwinian ideologues nowadays. Evolution has in no way been just a clinical idea. Ever since it was first nicely formulated through Darwin, the concept has been used to advance a lot of political tasks. It is not handiest “social Darwinist” supporters of laissez-faire capitalism who have claimed that their political beliefs had been grounded in evolutionary theory. So have Nazis, communists, anarchists and Fabian social engineers. Today, Darwinism is invoked as part of a campaign towards religion by way of individuals who declare to be liberals. Behind the rival political programmes to which Darwinism has been yoked lies Huxley’s belief that humankind is now in a role to direct its destiny evolution.

The foremost achievement of Darwin’s account of evolution is that it dispenses with the concept of cause or layout. Evolution is a directionless technique, producing noticeably complex styles of lifestyles best to wipe them out. There is not any development in nature, but in ethics and politics the idea of evolution is continually joined with the desire of development. Generations of revolutionary thinkers have invoked Darwinism to prop up their visions of a greater superior society. But the content material of these visions has shifted through the years, and one of the virtues of The Political Gene is to expose how frequently Darwinism has been used to promote beliefs of human development that are intolerant, authoritarian or racist.

Drawing an implicit parallel with The Black Book of Communism, posted in France within the overdue Nineties, which unique communist atrocities ignored by bien-pensant opinion, Dennis Sewell writes that “the Black Book of Darwinism consists of a few real horrors”. A massive a part of The Political Gene focuses on how main Darwinists have campaigned for eugenics. Francis Galton (1822-1911), one of the founders of modern-day psychology, used Darwin’s concept to promote his field as “an upbeat mission supplying an positive desire of Utopia”, even writing an unpublished novel, Kantsaywhere, approximately a republic dominated through a Eugenic College, whose fellows set and administer “anthropometric checks” measuring the “health” of the population. Galton’s repulsive utopia may additionally appear remote from any twentieth-century political truth but, as Sewell shows, eugenic thoughts of the type Galton seasoned­pagated had been taken significantly, no longer least inside the United States, wherein 33 states handed sterilisation laws and as a minimum 60,000 people had been sterilised as “unfit”.

In Germany, the chief propagandist for Darwinism was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who, like Galton, promoted the concept of a racial hier­archy. Holding that “the decrease races . . . are psychologically nearer to the mammals – apes and dogs – than civilised Europeans”, Haeckel became pivotal in giving medical respectability to the categorisation of race. The quantity to which his ideas had been utilized by the Nazis is disputed, but there may be no doubt that his especially influential writings helped open the door to racist pseudo-science in Europe.

Certainly, variations of Darwin’s idea had been recruited in assist of some thoroughly unsightly causes and, while linked with racist theories, they created a weather in which genocide can be represented as a scientifically defensible policy. It is at this point that 21st-century defenders of Darwinism will be up in arms, indignantly protesting that those had been abuses in no way entailed through the concept of natural choice.

They have a point. Darwin did write of “civilised man” replacing the “savage races”, however he never superior any theory of innate racial inequality. While eugenic actions have constantly been at risk of racism, eugenic theories need now not – as a matter of good judgment, at any rate – take delivery of race as a systematic category. More generally, one can not keep a principle responsible for the uses which can be made of it, if best because judgements of price do now not flow mechanically from explanatory claims.

This last factor is confirmed by using the variety of contending moves that have claimed a pedigree in Darwinian thinking. Nazi exponents of “medical racism”, communists who believed in a collectivist destiny for humanity, anarchists who followed Peter Kropotkin in wondering evolutionary concept vindicated the significance of mutual resource, advocates of laissez-faire consisting of Herbert Spencer (who invented the expression “survival of the fittest”) and excessive monks of social engineering inclusive of Lord Beveridge – a long-standing endorse of eugenics, as Sewell demonstrates – can’t all be right. It may seem affordable to conclude that they have been all wrong, and say that no moral or political role can be derived from Darwinism.

Yet subjects aren’t pretty that easy. Contemporary evangelists for Darwinism hold to assert that it supports a particular political programme – in this case, a militant version of secularism – and aim to transform humanity to what they see as a systematic global-view. The logic of their position has in no way been defined. A phenomenon that is almost as commonplace as faith is probably to have some evolutionary position and, even supposing religions are illusions, the upshot of Darwinian science may be that the human animal can not do without them. In that case, Darwinism could endorse evangelical atheism is a needless, certainly absurd, interest.

What really happened was that evolution became promoted as a religion. Galton hoped that eugenics could in the future have the authority of the church. Haeckel set up his “Monist League” explicitly to be able to determined an “evolutionary faith”. And, for Huxley, transhumanism changed into pretty glaringly a religion-replacement.

Sewell tells us that this is not mainly a ebook about religion. Rather, it addresses the intersection of evolutionary principle and politics. But his selection to restrict himself on this manner is unfortunate. He misses out the widespread tracts of social science wherein the concept of evolution has had a central position. Think of the innumerable tomes stacked at the cabinets of university libraries (almost all, thankfully, lengthy unread) that incorporate “social evolution” inside the identify. The notion that societies “evolve” through the years, with a few becoming greater “evolved” than others, has been floating around for generations. Yet it’s far little more than a misleading metaphor. There is nothing in society analogous to herbal selection, or – in spite of silly communicate of memes – some thing corresponding to genes. Like the more brazenly political makes use of of Darwinism that Sewell examines, theories of social evolution are strategies for giving prevailing values the authority of technological know-how. Nearly always, theorists postulate a destiny filled with improved versions of themselves – the onward march of development, as they like to think about it.

In truth, evolution has not anything to do with development, but progress is understood. But the confusion of the 2 might be incurable. It expresses a crucial illusion of modern instances – the parable that medical understanding can allow the human species to seize manipulate of its future. The lesson of Darwinism is that species haven’t any collective reason. It is not “humanity” that makes use of the effects of clinical inquiry. Instead, a few humans use technology to manipulate others. Happily, no organization is in all likelihood ever to govern humankind as an entire. Huxley’s vision will continue to be no greater than an ugly dream. Yet the attraction of this fable is not likely to wane, as it satisfies the need for religion at the same time as supplying the alluring prospect of strength.

The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics Dennis SewellPicador, 320pp, £sixteen.99

John Gray is the New Statesman’s lead e book reviewer. His most latest e book is “Gray’s Anatomy: Selected Writings” (Allen Lane, £20)

Follow the New Statesman crew on Twitter

This article first appeared within the 21 December 2009 problem of the New Statesman, Christmas Special