42 Chapter 2
pedimentto authenticsocialprogress,when,throughthe force of violence,the State
“abstractsfromsomemenpartof the advantagestheyhaveearned,and awardsto other
menadvantagestheyhavenot earned.”^136
On the otherhand,the movementfor government-controlledeugenicistsarguedfor
the destructionof free enterpriseon the basisthat nobodypossessedvolitionanyway,and
thereforeno one possessedindividualresponsibility.^137 Whereaswe are toldthatlaissez-
fairesocialDarwinistsare arch-advocatesof individualismandselfishness,FrancisGal-
ton preachedpoliticalcollectivismand personalsacrifice.Sir Francisapprovinglyjudges
that in the courseof naturalselection,“the life of the individualis treatedas of absolutely
no importance,whilethe raceis treatedas everything,Naturebeingwhollycarelessof the
formerexceptas a contributorto the maintenanceand evolutionof the latter.... We must,
therefore,try to renderour individualaimssubordinateto thosewhichleadto the im-
provementof the race.” Sucha centrallyplanned,government-directedimprovementof
the genomeoughtto “be lookeduponas one of the chiefreligiousobligations.... It may
cometo be avowedas a paramountduty,to anticipate... naturalselection,by endeavor-
ing to breedout... ignobleinstincts,and to breedin thosewhichare...social.” Giventhat
FrancisGaltondisbelievedin the importanceof personalvolition,it shouldnot be too
startlingthathe coinedthatmuch-overratedexpressionI contestedin BookTwo—nature
versusnurture.^138 As I wrotein BookTwo,personswhoproclaimthatone’s personal
characteris decidedby eitherbiologyor environmentalstimulichooseto elidethe consid-
erationthat theremaybe anotherfactorat work.Thatfactortheypresumeto be meaning-
less is indeedindividualvolition,exactlywhatthe free-marketindividualistesteemsas
importantand whatthe deterministcollectivistdenies.Yes,the Nazistookit for granted
thatbiologicalfactorshad justifiedthe oppressionof nonwhiteraces.And,yes, thatidea
waspropoundedby somenineteenth-centuryEuropeaneugenicimperialistswhopre-
cededthem.
Grantingthis,it wouldnot be difficultfor one to drawa particularconclusion.The
conclusionis thatif SpencerandSumnerco-foundedthe governisteugenicsmovement,
thenit wouldnot be inconceivablethattheymighthaveairedsympathieswiththe trans-
atlanticslavetrade.JohnM. Hobson,for instance,decriesSpencerandhis fellowsocial
Darwinistsfor “legitimisingto Westernersthe superiorityof the whiterace.The importa-
tion of Darwinisminto socialsciencetheorywas especiallyimportant.. .” It gavementhe
opportunityto passoff theircruderacistbeliefsas scientificfacts.SocialDarwinism
“foundits placealongsidethe emergingexplicit(scientific)racisttreatises.. .”^139
Similarly,takeColinTudge—an award-winningBritishsciencejournalistand scholar
at the Centerfor Philosophyat the LondonSchoolof Economics.Tudgehurlsthis dubi-
ous asseveration:“Some,like HerbertSpencer,soughtto extrapolatehis ideasfrombiolo-
gy intomoralphilosophyand politics.Thusemerged‘socialDarwinism’—apparentlythe
notionthatsocietyoughtto be as ‘red in toothandclaw’ as Alfred,LordTennyson,
supposednatureto be, andthe weakestshouldgo to the wall.Thegentleandliberal
Darwin,whorailedagainstslaveryin an age whenit was still consideredbothproperand
necessary... couldhardlyhaveapproved”^140 (emphasisTudge’s). The assumptionbur-
ied in Tudge’s proseis thatSpencerapparentlydidapproveof slavery“whenit wasstill
consideredbothproperand necessary.” In truthSpencerand Sumnerbothabhorredthis
institution.An actualreadingof Spencer’s corpusevincesthathe wasan abolitionist.As
OhioStateUniversitydemographerWilliamPetersencorrectlynotes,Spencer’s youthat
The Nonconformistmagazinewasspentcampaigningagainstthe slavetrade.^141 Further-
more,SpencerunequivocallydenouncedchattelslaveryinSocialStatics, the samebook
that his enemieshavecitedas proofof his beinga socialDarwinist.Staticsremarkedupon
various“schemesdevisedwithoutconsultingethicalprinciples... .” Theseare schemes
wherein“benefithas beensoughtby goingin palpableoppositionto thoseprinciples—