The Conflationof LaissezFairewithRegulation-ImposedEugenics 29SDAT.” Incidentally,of the 4,236articlesand reviewsthatcitesocialDarwinismfrom 1944
to 2004,a bit morethanone-thirdof them—thatis 1,416academicessays—alsomention
Spencer,Sumner,or bothof them.As Leonardsumsup the situation,“BeforeHofstadter,
SpencerandSumnerwererarely,if ever,knownas socialDarwinists.AfterHofstadter,
the two menweretransformedintoarch-socialDarwinists.” Sufficeit to say,“Hofstadter
inSDATsucceededbrilliantlyin affixingthe epithet‘socialDarwinism’ to free-market
economics.... In the popularand scholarlymind,Spencerand SumneraresocialDarwin-
ism”^17 (emphasisLeonard’s).
Afterdecadesof this misconceptionrunningrampant,a smallportionof the academic
communityis wisingup. The proudlygovernistColumbiaUniversityhistorianEric Foner
(b. 1943),whoearnedhis Ph.D.underHofstadter,admitsthatpriortoSDAT’s publica-
tion,“the termsocialDarwinism...wasusedonlyon rareoccasions...”^18 Likewise,pro-
gressivejournalistSusanJacobyshockinglyadmitsin her bookThe Age of AmericanUnrea-
son, “I use the term‘socialDarwinism’ eventhoughno one employedit in nineteenth
centuryAmericaor England.The phrasewas... not in commonusagein America,even
amongacademics,untilthe publicationin 1944of RichardHofstadter’sSocialDarwinism
in AmericanThought.”^19
AlfredKellylearnsthatthe expressionsocialDarwinismwasbarelyusedin German
literatureuntil 1906 and “the term” did not enter“the historians’ vocabulary” untilSDAT
arrivedon the scene.^20 Yet, in spiteof her ownadmission,Jacobydisplaysno reservations
aboutgoingon to employthe epithetto denouncenineteenth-centuryAmericanand
Englishintellectualswhoneverdescribedthemselveswiththis locution.Theemotional
impactof the epithetis apparentlyso strongthatgovernistscannotresistexploitingit to
hurtthe reputationsof theirfree-marketadversaries.Indeed,observesSogangUniversity
historianDonaldC. Bellomy,the deploymentof the socialDarwinismtag has always
been“heavilypolemical,reservedfor ideaswithwhicha writerdisagreed.”^21
Therewereindeedtheoristsin the nineteenthcenturywho,underthe imprimaturof
scientificrespectability,citedbiologyto rationalizeracialprejudices.Theanthropologist
DanielShutedeclaredthat“the Caucasianstandsat the headof the racialscaleandthe
Negroat the bottom.” JosephLe Conte,whoservedas the presidentof the American
Associationfor the Advancementof Science(AAAS)muchagreed.^22 Yet thesescientific
racistsdid not identifythemselvesas socialDarwinistsor capitalists,nor did theycite the
convictionsof Spenceror Sumneras the sourceof theirideas.
Remember someoneI argued againstin BookTwo—psychology professorBarry
Schwartz,who,alongsideBannister,has taughtat SwarthmoreCollege.Imitatingevery-
one else,SchwartzinvokesSDATto stigmatizeSumneras a socialDarwinist.^23 Mean-
while,historianArthurAlphonseEkirch,Jr. (1915–2000),of the StateUniversityof New
Yorkat Albany,referstoSDATin orderto paintbothSpencerand Sumnerwiththat same
unflatteringstroke.^24 AndNewRepublicsenioreditorRobertC. Wright,whobearsno ill
willtowardSpencerhimself,^25 still listsHofstadteras his sourceas he demonizesfree-
marketeconomistsas socialDarwinists.^26 Worse,the mostly-pro-capitalistLarrySchwei-
kartand MichaelAllenalso do this in theirPatriot’s Historyof the UnitedStates, a bookthat
otherwisecontainsmanygoodpoints.^27
HofstadterintroducessocialDarwinismas an umbrellaterm.Shovedbeneaththis
umbrellaare twoverydifferentpoliticalmovementsthatHofstadterdeplored,bothof
whichinvokednaturalselectionin theirarguments:(1) free-marketeconomicsand(2)
government-imposedeugenics.A few academiciansof a politicalbentsimilarto Hofstad-
ter’s had beenexercisingthe sametacticas HofstadterdecadespriortoAmericanThought,
possiblyas earlyas 1905.^28 Nonetheless,it wasHofstadterwhomostfamouslytoutedthe
largelyillusoryconnectionbetweenlaissez-faireevolutionismandgovernisteugenics
that currentlyhauntsthe psycheof social-studiesacademicians.