60 Chapter 3
equality:SocialDarwinismandracism.Imperialistshadlongbeentroubledby the com-
monandoftenviolentrefusalof nativepeoplesto acknowledgethe superiorityof Euro-
peancultureand religionor adoptthemwillingly.The newdoctrinesof the strugglefor
existenceandsurvivalof the fittestprovideda cornucopiaof explanationsandjustifica-
tions.” Consonantwiththe academiccliché, Keeleyconsidersa certainBritishideologue
to be culpablefor this:“The spreadof Westerncivilizationand Europeansat the expense
of otherculturesandracesbecamea splendidillustrationofSpencer’ssurvivalof the
fittest” (emphasisadded).As the procedurenormallycommences,Keeleydevotesnot a
wordto acknowledgingthatSpencerpubliclydenouncedimperialismwholesale.Keeley
thenprattleson thatfromSpencer’s ideology,“imperialiststhusdiscovereda moralduty
anda biologicalrightto wrestdominionof the earthfromsuchless-favoredpeoples.”
Finallyin the endnotessectionwe are treatedto the requisitestrawmanagainstthe
politicalpartisansof laissezfaire.“NonracistSocialDarwinismuniversallyremainsa
themein conservativepoliticalthinking.. .”^42
Keeley’s disparagementof Spenceris ironicin considerationof the verythesisof
Keeley’s bookWarBeforeCivilization. The pointof this book,as wellas of StevenPinker’s
The BetterAngelsof OurNature, is thatpreindustrialhunter-gatherersweremuchmore
violence-pronegenerallythanare membersof twenty-firstcenturyWesternCivilization.
We consideredthe evidencefor this claimin BookTwo.Yet the notionso heavilyargued
in Pinker’sBetterAngelsandKeeley’sWar—thathumanbeingsbeganas violence-prone
hunter-gatherersandare graduallyevolvingtowarda moreconsistentlypeacefulsoci-
ety—hadlongbeenarguedby Spencer.Preindustrialviolentcommunitieswerewhat
Spencercalled“militantsocieties,” whereasthe much-more-peaceful,liberalizedsocieties
of the Westare whathe dubbed“industrialsocieties.” Thisis GeorgeH. Smith’s para-
phrasing of Spencer’s viewpoint—”In a primitive society where warlike qualities
(strength,cunning,etc.)are necessaryfor survival,feelingsof pleasureaccompanythe
exerciseof warlikefaculties.As societyevolves,as voluntarycooperationbecomesthe
dominantmodeof interaction,newemotionssuitedto the newenvironmentevolveas
well.Brutalitygeneratesabhorrence,andpleasureis derivedfrompeacefulactivities.”^43
KeeleydisparagesSpencerfor cruditywhenSpenceractuallyargueda variantof Keeley’s
thesisbeforeKeeleydid.
I can identifythissortof inconsistencyin the qualityof scholarshipin the workof
futuristAlvinToffleras well.His book,The ThirdWave, waspublishedin 1981,andit is
impressivein variousrespects.I laudits accuracyin predictingthe informationtechnolo-
gy thatwouldproliferatea wholeseventeenyearssubsequentto the book’s inaugural
publication.Despitethat,Toffler’s accountof the historyof imperialismexposesitselfas
misinformedin its attributionof the imperialists’ ideologyto be rationalizedsomehowby
the theoriesof evolutionandmarketeconomics.“Darwinwaschieflyconcernedwith
biologicalevolution,but his ideashaddistinctsocialandpoliticalovertonesthatothers
werequickto recognize.Thusthe SocialDarwinistsarguedthatthe principleof natural
selectionworkedwithinsocietyas well,and thatthe wealthiestand mostpowerfulwere,
by virtueof that fact,the fittestand the mostdeserving.It was onlya shortleapto the idea
that wholesocietiesevolveaccordingto the samelawsof selection.Followingthis reason-
ing,industrialismwasa higherstageof evolutionthanthe non-industrialculturesthat
surroundedit.... Justas SocialDarwinismrationalizedcapitalism,thisculturalarro-
gancerationalizedimperialism.”^44
Worse,thereis a stillmorefearsomerepercussionof Hofstadter’s smear.Thereis a
smallgroupof intellectualswhoare familiarenoughwithSpencer’s writingto admitthat
he wasnevera full-blownsocialDarwinist.Yet the majorityof thesesameintellectuals
havestill beenbamboozledintobelievingthat governisteugenicsis a logicalextensionof
night-watchman-stateeconomics.