FOUR
The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas
Eugenicism’s Opponents
TheAcademicLeft’s Canonizationof LesterWardand RichardT. Ely
Thereis a gaggleof historiansthatincludesJohnA. Garraty,CarlDegler,DianeRa-
vitch,ArthurEkirch,GeorgeMowry,RichardHofstadter,and,onceagain,R. Laurence
Moore.Thisgagglepresumesthattwohistoricallysignificantintellectuals—sociologist
LesterFrankWardandeconomistRichardT. Ely—couldnot havebeeneugenicistsor
socialDarwinists.The gagglepresumesas muchsimplyon accountof Ward’s antipathy
towardHerbertSpencerandEly’s animusagainstSpencer^1 andWilliamGrahamSum-
ner.^2 Subsequentto haranguingSpencerandSumnerfor beingsocialDarwinists,^3 these
authorsproceedto cast Wardand Ely as socialDarwinism’s mostardentfoes.^4 Hofstadter
gushesthatWardwas“a championof the masses.. .”^5 Hofstadter’s protégé EricFoner
parrotsthe sentiment.FromFoner:“the penetratingcriticism” suppliedby “Ward... and
others” contributedto the middle class’s eventualrejectionof the socialDarwinism
preachedby Spencerand Sumner.Thisthankfullyproddedthe population,Fonercontin-
ues,to “adopta morereform-mindedoutlookin the Progressiveera.”^6 Yale’s Daniel
Kevles,Harvard’s AlexanderKeyssar,andMIT’s PaulineMaierandMerrittRoeSmith
shareauthorshipin a bookthat propoundsthat“socialDarwinism... did not go unchal-
lenged.Amongthe mostimportantdissenterswasFrankLesterWard[sic]... he wasthe
mostinfluentialas a criticof socialDarwinistsand as a leaderin the newfieldof sociolo-
gy.”^7
Similarly,NewYorkUniversity’s DianeRavitchpraisesWardas a “remarkablepoly-
math” whodrovebackthat menace,“Spencer’s laissez-fairephilosophy.”^8
She showshowwonderfulWardwasby disclosingthathistorianHenrySteeleCom-
mager(1902–1998)calledhim“the philosopher,the protagonist,eventhe architect,of the
modernwelfarestate.”^9 Onewouldhardlythinkof Wardas a socialDarwinistupon
readingHofstadter’s assertion,“Wardhadfelt all too keenlythe stingof his lower-class
origin,andthe aristocraticinnuendosof socialDarwinismas it foundexpressionin the
1870’sand 1880’soffendedhis democraticsensibilities.” Wardresemblesa socialDarwin-
ist still less whenHofstadterdubshim“the firstand the mostformidableof a numberof
thinkerswhoattackedthe unitaryassumptionsof socialDarwinismandlaissez-faire
individualism.” TheColumbialuminaryexplicatesthatWard“evolveda twofoldcriti-
cismof socialDarwinism,” andexposedsocialDarwinisttextsas nothingmorethan
“upper-classapologiesfor socialoppressionand misery.”^10
81