88 Chapter 4
‘block-universe’ of Spencer,” Hofstadterproclaims,“the Spencerianvirusremainedin his
blood.”SDATmaintainsthatit wasbecauseWard“admiredSpencer’s versionof univer-
sal evolution” in his youngerdays,thatWard“couldlapse” intothe elitistandclassist
mindsetof such“sociologicalnature-worshippers” as Spencerand Sumner.^60 By implica-
tion,Hofstadterwouldhaveit thatinsofaras Wardespousedeugenicism—in contrastto
Spencer—Ward’s eugenicismmustbe attributedto somelatentinfluenceSpencercontin-
uedto exertoverWard.It is interestingto notethatWardactuallygavea speechat the
November 1882 Delmonico’s banquetthrownfor Spencer.Defyingdecorum,Wardquite
consciouslyassuredhis audienceof Spencer-admirersthathis ownmodelof socialsci-
enceprovedsuperiorto Spencer’s, takingevolutionarytheoryto its logicalconclusionby
expectingan endlesslywisegovernmentto managethe economy.^61 Incidentally,recall
fromBookOnethatWardextolledthe institutionof governmentschoolingon accountof
the schools’ abilityto instillcivicindoctrinationinto impressionableyouths.Furtherrecall
Ward’s proclamation,“Theindividualhas reignedlongenough.” Ward’s compulsory
eugenicismis consistentwiththeseothergovernistsentiments.
Yes,Hofstadterpartiallyacknowledgessomeof the storybehindWard’s ownracialist
theories.But,as ThomasC. Leonardnotes,Hofstadtermostly“dismissesit.”^62 Hofstadter
assuresus thatstrugglesociology“foundbut a smallplacein his work.”^63 Upondigging
up Ward’s corpus,though,Leonardrealizesthatstrugglesociologywasactuallyinstru-
mentalto Ward’s career.Leonardexplicatesthat“in a three-partarticlesurveyingcon-
temporarysociology” fromthe year1902,Ward“wrotethat‘the doctrineof the struggle
of races,’ wasthe mostimportantsubjectin sociology.”^64 In this article,Wardexclaims
thatrace-conflicttheory“formsso largea partof my ownconceptionof sociologythatit
willbe necessaryto dealwithit extensivelyelsewhere.”^65 Wardfocusesa considerable
proportionof his 1903opuson this theory,wherehe statesunequivocallythat“warhas
beenthe chiefandleadingconditionof humanprogress.” Moreover,“whenracesstop
strugglingprogressceases.”^66 Hofstadtersweptthis fervorof Ward’s underthe rug.
Interestingly,Wardresentedbeingcalleda socialist,insteadproclaiminghimselfa
criticof bothsocialismandlaissezfaire.Whenhe toutedhis ownversionof governist
supremacy,he did not call it socialism^67 but “sociocracy”^68... as if that makesfor a major
difference.Wardattemptedto distinguishhis sociocracyfromsocialismby definingsoci-
ocracyas “the scientificcontrolof the socialforcesby the collectivemindof society.”^69
Thatsoundsveryfamiliar.Perhapsit is timefor us to moveon to a governisteugenicist
less embarrassedto placehimselfunderthe bannerof socialism:RichardT. Ely.
Do Not Elidethe TruthaboutEly
Whenyou first considerthatMammonis the NewTestament’s demonicpersonification
for greed,^70 RichardT. Ely’s characterizationof free-marketadvocatesas “mammonwor-
shippers” givesyouan ideaof whathe thinksof thosewhodisagreewithhim.^71 In
deridingcapitalistsas Mammon,Ely alludesto the twogreatestinfluenceson his beliefs
about ethics andpoliticaleconomy—Christianity andsocialism. Ely wasa self-pro-
claimedadherentto a movementcallingitselfChristianSocialism.^72
Thinkbackto BookOne,wherewe quotedEly saying,“It is difficultto definelaissez-
fairecategorically,becauseit is so absurdthatits defenderscan neverbe inducedto say
preciselywhattheymean.” In thatsame 1886 essaywherehe pronouncessuch,Ely at
leastelucidateson whathetrulymeansto be the missionof his AmericanEconomic
Association—“... we holdthatthereare certainfunctionswhichdo not belongto the
individual,certainfunctionswhichthe greatco-operativesociety,calledthe state—must
perform.... We holdthe doctrineoflaissez-faireis unsafein politicsandunsoundin
morals.... In otherwordswe believein the existenceof a systemof socialethics;we do