The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 87the samecharge—socialDarwinism—directednot onlyagainstlaissezfaire,but also
againstcertaineugenicargumentsandagainstthe viewthatinternationalstruggleand
warfareproducedprogress.Theirony,andthe causeof Ward’s concern,lay in the fact
that he had arguedeachof theselatterpositionshimself.”^49
Startingfromthe late 1890s,Wardbecamea zealousespouserof whatalternatelycame
to be knownasrace-conflicttheory^50 andstrugglesociology.^51 Thistheorywasinitially
propoundedby the AustriansociologistsGustavRatzenhoferand LudwigGumplowicz,
bothof whomI quotedin BookOneabouthowgovernmentis violentby its nature.
Accordingto strugglesociology,the firstsedentarycity-stateemergedas a consequence
of one racialgroupconqueringanotherandthenextractingtributefromthe conquered
tribe.^52 In the eyesof Ratzenhofer,Gumplowicz,and Ward,race-basedtribalwarfarethus
spurreda formof beneficentsocialprogress.Thisis the reasonfor whichHofstadter
endedup partiallyconcedingthatsometimesit appearedthatWardcouldbe counted
amongsocialDarwinists.^53 “Notsurprisingly,” writesRobertC. Bannister,the struggle
sociology’s academicenemies“quicklyfoundin the rhetoricof Darwinisma convenient
weaponfor discreditingthem.”^54 Thither,JacquesNovicowlobbedthesocialDarwinist
epithetat Ward.Novicow,explainsThomasC. Leonard,“regardedrace-conflicttheorya
wrongfuldefenseof war.. .” In response,“Warddeniedthe chargebut did not retreat
fromrace-conflicttheory.”^55 Ironically,one of the earliesttimesin historythat the expres-
sionsocialDarwinismwasused,the epithetwasdirectedagainstWard,not Spencernor
Sumner.Scienceand Mythobservesthat it wasin the year 1905 that Novicow“singledout
Ward,Ratzenhofer,and Gumplowiczas leadingexponentsofle Darwinismesocial.” Here,
Scienceand Mythcontinues,Ward“wasin a quandary.... HowcouldWardmaintainhis
positions... and at the sametimeescapethe socialDarwinistcharge?” It wason account
of controversiessuchas thisone,thatLester“decidedthatthe termsocialDarwinism
mustbe eliminated.”^56
ThusWardconcededthe pointthat I am articulating.In 1907inThe AmericanJournalof
Sociology, Wardgroused,“Withthis vaguenotionin theirminds,” politicalactivistsand
academicians“haveinventedthe phrase‘socialDarwinism’ and haveset it up as a sort of
‘manof straw’ in orderto showtheiragilityin knockingit down.” He wentas far as
acknowledgingthatit is “whollyinappropriateto characterizeas socialDarwinismthe
laissezfairedoctrineof politicaleconomists.” For once,WardandI agree.Interestingly,
whereasI considerthe imaginaryrelationbetweenSpencer’s free-marketeconomicsand
government-mandatedeugenicsto be an insultto Spencer’s philosophy,Wardheldthe
oppositeconclusion.Wardconsideredthe falseequationto be an insultto his own
governisteugenicism.He elaborated,“Thatlaissezfairedoctrineis falseand not sustained
by biologicalprincipleI freelyadmitandhaveabundantlyshown,”^57 andthathe must
protest“in the strongestpossibletermsagainstthe applicationof the termDarwinismto
the racestruggle” that so appealedto Ward.^58
BannisterwiselyquestionsWard’s condescensiontowardSpencer’s economics.“Had
Wardalsocreateda strawman?Didnot allegationsof socialDarwinismmerelystate
explicitlywhathe andothershadbeensayingfor sometime?” Ward’s ownderision
towardSpencerandSumner“stronglysuggestthathe too wasfashioningfromhis own
concernsa portraitof the oppositionthatwasmoreeffectivethanit wasaccurate.”^59
Essentially,Ward’s characterreceiveda convenientrewritefromdistinguishedprofessors
fromHarvard,Yale,MIT,Stanford,Columbia,NYU,and UCLA.
On somelevel,Hofstadtermighthaverecognizedthathis admissionsaboutWard’s
eugenicismcontradictedhis overallportrayalof Wardas the antithesisof socialDarwin-
ism.As an attemptto dodgethisreality,HofstadterblamesWard’s eugenicismon a
particularfree-marketerwhomHofstadterevidentlylovesto hate.“WhileWard’s dual-
ism of the geneticand telicwasin effecta departurefromwhatWilliamJamescalledthe