18 Chapter 1
Galbraith,and Hofstadteravoiddelvinginto an in-depthexaminationof thosequotations
in theiractualnuancedmeaning.In the sectionofSocialStaticsthatthesecriticscite,
Spencerwasnot referringto the financiallydowntrodden;he wasspecificallydiscussing
personssufferingfromdebilitatingheritablediseasesand of whatcan be doneabouttheir
plight.He saidthatit is the law of naturethatpeoplemoregeneticallyproneto healthi-
nesssurvivelongenoughto passon theirgenes,whereasthosegeneticallyproneto
unhealthinessare lesslikelyto do so. Whenhe saidthatit was“best” thatthose“not
completeto live... shoulddie,” he wasputtingintohis ownwordsthe cold,detached
mannerthatone maytakewhenstudyingthe matterfromafar.Spencerthengoeson to
confesshis ownpersonalfeelingsaboutit, andhis evaluationsbearlittleresemblanceto
the hideousstrawmanthatJacoby,Black,Waal,and Hofstadterset up beforetheirread-
ers. On secondthought,theynot onlypatchtogethera strawmanof Spencer;theyburnit
in effigy.
Jacoby,Black,Waal,andHofstadteromittedany mentionof somethingimportant.I
recommendthatone peerat the paragraphfollowingthe one aboutpersons“incomplete
to live.” Thisis the exactsameparagraphwhereinSpencercautionsagainst“the multipli-
cation” of peopleafflictedwith“the worst” heritablediseases.In this paragraph,Spencer
exhortsthe readerto providesomeprivatecharity.He opinesthatinsofaras the com-
binedhorrorof bothdebilitatingdiseaseand extremepenury“is mitigatedby the sponta-
neoussympathyof menfor eachother,it is properthat it shouldbe mitigated:albeitthere
is unquestionablyharmdonewhensympathyis shown,withoutany regardto ultimate
results.But the drawbackshencearisingare nothinglike commensuratewiththe benefits
otherwiseconferred.”^81
Incidentally,watchout for somethingin this exactbookof Spencer’s—the sameone
fromwhichJacoby,Chase,Black,Galbraith,Waal,and Hofstadterquotein orderto inti-
matethatSpenceris a socialDarwinist.In its twenty-fifthchapter,Staticsexplainsquite
clearlythatSpencerlikesthe ideaof voluntaryphilanthropyand wishesthereweremore
of it: “... charityis in its natureessentiallycivilizing.The emotionaccompanyingevery
generousact addsan atomto the fabricof the idealman.As no cruelthingcan be done
withoutcharacterbeingthrusta degreebacktowardsbarbarism,so no kindthingcan be
donewithoutcharacterbeingmoveda degreeforwardtowardsperfection.” Spencer’s
detractorsmayretortthat,in thatverysamechapter25, Spencereruptsintoa tirade
againstthe poor.It soundsas thoughSpenceris lamentingthatthe indigentpossess
comparativelylittlemoralfiber.ThenSpencergoeson to sharehis concernsaboutthose
whoclaimto helpthe poor.He worriesthatbothprivatephilanthropistsand supporters
of government-imposedwelfare“advocatean interferencewhichnot onlystopsthe pur-
ifyingprocess,but evenincreasesthe vitiation,” i.e., bad behavior,“absolutelyencourages
the multiplicationof the recklessandincompetentby offeringtheman unfailingprovi-
sion.... Andthus,in theireagernessto preventthe reallysalutarysufferingsthatsur-
roundus, thesesigh-wiseandgroan-foolishpeoplebequeathto posteritya continually
increasingcurse.” But,two paragraphslater,Spencerreaffirmsonceagainhis supportfor
consensualalmsgiving.
At firstsighttheseconsiderationsseemconclusiveagainstallreliefto the poor—volun-
taryas wellas [governmentally]compulsory;andit is no doubttruethattheyimplya
condemnationof whateverprivatecharityenablesthe recipientsto eludethe necessities
of our socialexistence.Withthis condemnation,however,no rationalmanwillquarrel.
Thatcarelesssquanderingof pence[money]whichhas fosteredintoperfectiona system
of organizedbegging—whichhas madeskilfulmendicancy[i.e.,panhandling]moreprof-
itablethanordinarymanuallabour... cannotbut be disapprovedby everyone.Nowit is
onlyagainstthisinjudiciouscharitythatthe foregoingargumenttells.To thatcharity
whichmaybe describedas helpingmento helpthemselves,it makesno objection—