The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 83Deglerthenproceeds,“Invidiouscomparisonsamongsocialgroups,for example—the
verystock-in-tradeof eugenics—couldnot helpbut challenge,if not threaten,the socially
democratic andreformist valuesof sociologists andanthropologists. Thenationally
prominentLesterFrankWard,for instance,as earlyas 1907pointedout that therewasno
reasonto considerthe lowerclassesas anylessworthy geneticallythanthe upper
classes.”
Notethe followingpoints.Degler’s paragraphinsiststhatWardrepudiatedwhatwas
“the verystock-in-tradeof eugenics.” Deglercontinuesthat Ward“pointedout that there
wasno reasonto considerthe lowerclassesas any less worthygeneticallythanthe upper
classes.. .” Fromthesepoints,one wouldinferthat Wardheldnot a whitof sympathyfor
eugenics.In Degler’s words,Wardwarnedthateugenicswasa “truedangerto human
progressbecauseit tinkeredwithnature’s ownforcesfor good.”^17
Thenlet us moveon to a bookby HenrySteeleCommagerthat waspublishedby Yale
UniversityPressand accordedpublicaccoladesby ArthurSchlesinger,Jr, inThe Nation. In
thisbook,Commagersingshymnsto Wardfor spotting“the errorof the Spencerian
system.”^18 In Commager’s phrasing,this erroris that “Spencerlost sightof the firstlaw of
evolution.” As for Spencer’s Americanprotégé, “Sumner’s logicwasdubiousandhis
historytendentious.. .” In the longrun “logicrevealed” the intellectual“bankruptcyof
Sumner.” In short,“Thestubbornlaissezfaireof Sumnerwasdiscredited.. .”^19 Com-
magermincesno words:“LesterWardwas the first majorscholarto attackthe inadequate
science,the dubiouslogic,and the speciousrhetoricof the Spencer-Sumnerschool,and he
remainsthe ablest.To the studyof sociologyhe broughtimmenseresourcesof scientific
and philosophiclearningand a firmgraspof the meaningof evolutionto socialdevelop-
ment.”^20
Why,“... Wardwasthe firsttrulyevolutionarysociologist.” Ward’s nobilityderives
fromhis having“protestedequallythe inconsistencyandinsincerityof the doctrineof
laissezfaireas appliedin America.... He knewthatlaissezfairewasa rationalization
ratherthana first principle... Laissezfairewas ratherthe validationthanthe inspiration”
of the rapacious“economicconductof the age of big business.” As withthe heroicEly,
Ward“sawhowarchaicnotionsof property,contract,and due processof law had taken
on the characterof Lawsof Nature,andhowthe term‘liberty’ hadbeenpervertedto
assureimmunityfromgovernmentinterferenceto the practicesof corporations.” Indeed,
Wardconsistently“sawwhat... Sumnerfailedto see.. .” Thanksto this botanist,the
“old distrustof the State,deeplyrootedin Americanexperience,gavewaybeforethe
inescapablerealizationthatonlythe Statewaspreparedto act effectivelyin manyof the
crisesof nationalaffairs.. .” CommagersummarizesthatWard“wasbotha pathfinder
anda prophet.” As if therewerenot centuries’ worthof propagandaagainstthe night
watchmanstate,CommagerhyperbolicallyproclaimsWardthe “firstmajorscholarto
challengethe doctrineof laissezfaireon scientificgroundsandto articulatesocialwith
naturalevolution.. .” Ward“wasthe first,too, to acceptthe full implicationsof pragma-
tismand to givesociologya philosophicfoundation.... He inspireda wholegeneration
of scholarsand reformersto believethatit waspossibleto remakesocietyalonghappier
lines,and a newgenerationthat did not knowhim workedwithhis toolsand foughtwith
his weapons.He wasthe prophet” of WoodrowWilson’s “NewFreedomandthe New
Deal,of all thosemovementslookingto the reconstructionof societyandeconomy
throughgovernmentinterventionwhichis the moststrikingdevelopmentin the political
historyof the last half-centuryof America.... In the ruggedvigorof his mind,the
richnessof his learning,and the originalityof his insights,the breadthof his conceptions,
he takesplacealongsideWilliamJames,JohnDewey,and OliverWendellHolmesas one
of the creativespiritsof twentiethcenturyAmerica.” CommagerappreciatesthatWard
wrotein a letterto EdwardA. Ross,“I wouldprobablygo furthertowardpopulismthan