120 Chapter 5
I am thereforebefuddledwhenSDATdescribesbothRossand progressivesociologist
CharlesHortonCooleyas menwhowouldnot “worshipat the shrineof the fittest” and
who“refusedto lookuponthe pooras unfit.. .”^161 ThisclaimbySDAT, notesThomasC.
Leonard,“was nonsense.Ross,especially,was quitehappyto worshipat the shrineof the
fittest,providedthe fittestwereselectedby stateexperts.”^162 AndRossmostcertainly
dismissed,as “unfit,” the hundredsof pennilessfamiliescomingin fromthe Old World
tryingto attaina betterlife.
Commentmustalsobe castconcerningCharlesCooley,whomArthurEkirchalso
happilyidentifiesas a progressive.Ekirchwritesthat LesterFrankWard’s “socialtheories
weregivengreaterprecisionin workslikeCharlesH. Cooley’sHumanNatureand the
SocialOrder(1902).. .”^163 R. LaurenceMoorejoinsEkirchandAmericanThoughtin the
hagiographictreatmentof Cooley.Subsequentto denouncingSumneras a socialDarwin-
ist and settingSumnerup as progressivism’s foil, Mooremoveson to Cooleythe progres-
sive.MoorepronouncesthatCooley,unlikefree-marketevolutionists,“knewthe differ-
encebetweenhigherand lowerhumaninstinctsas theyemergedin a socialcontext,and
his goalwasa societythatallowedmento live a rationalandmoralexistence.”^164 But
Leonardobservesthat Cooleypromotedgovernisteugenics.^165 Interestingly,despitetheir
disagreementson politics,Cooleyexpressedadmiration for HerbertSpencer.Cooley
commentedthatSpencer’sDescriptiveSociologyvolumes“are muchless knownthanthey
deserveto be.”^166 And,incidentally,a merefourpagessubsequentto proclaimingthat
Rossdid not worshipat the shrineof the fittest,SDATstatesthatthe “biologicaldata” of
pro-eugenicsresearch“wereconvincingto menlike E.A.Ross,whohad thoroughlyrepu-
diatedSpencerianindividualism.”^167
In hisIn Searchof HumanNature, PulitzerPrize-winningCarlDeglersimilarlycontra-
dictshimselfaboutRoss.FirstDeglerlaudshimas a “socialreformer” who“set forth” a
thoroughly “forthright repudiation of socialDarwinism.” Later in that samebook,
though,DeglerruesthatRoss“supportedeugenicsaroundthe timeof the FirstWorld
War.” DeglerthencensuresRossfor “his racism.” SometimeafterwardDeglercontinues,
“As lateas the 1920s,Rosswasstillaccountingfor invidiousdifferencesin behavior
betweenblacksandwhiteson groundsof biologyor heredity.” Rossfurther“lenthis
nameand reputationin supportof certaineugenicpiecesof legislation.”^168 Yet nowhere
in his ownbookdoesDeglerconfessthatRosslearnedaboutthe importanceof eugenics
fromthe exactsameLesterWardwhomDeglerso highlyreveres.Thisis the sameWard
whomDegler’s descriptionsdisguiseas an anti-eugenicist.It is quiteoutlandishthat
SDATand DeglerinitiallyportrayRossas socialDarwinism’s enemy,onlyto deridehim
as a eugenicistin subsequentpages.Thisconsiderationfliesin the faceof Hofstadter’s
statementthat “eugenics... has provedto be the mostenduringaspectof socialDarwin-
ism.”^169 By thatstandardis Rossa socialDarwinistor not?^170 Interestingly,Rosswasone
of the fewacademiciansto use the phrasesocialDarwinistspriorto 1947.In 1903,he
criticizedthe convictionsof free-marketadvocates,and thusspokeof “the mastererrorof
the socialDarwinists.. .” Thatis, this arch-eugenicistreferredto free-marketadvocatesas
socialDarwinistsin orderto criticizethem.^171
By nowit shouldbe evidentthatit is inaccurateto characterizea largenumberof the
ProgressiveEra’s mostvauntedreformersas the friendsor championsof poorpeoplein
general.Mostoften,theybeatthe drumsof reformfor the ostensivegainof poorwhite
Protestants,simultaneouslyexpressingdisdainand distrustfor penuriousnon-Aryans.^172
Noneof this is to implythatthosewhopresentlycall themselvesprogressives,as of
thiswriting,are necessarilyraciston accountof the progressivesof the priorcentury
beingso. Nevertheless,it is a perversedistortionof the historicalrecordthat Spencerand
Sumnerare reviledas racists,whereasthe originalprogressivesare lionizedas the fore-
mostopponentsof socialDarwinismand,by implication,lionizedas opponentsof racism.