What Social Classes Owe to Each Other
William Graham Sumner developed the theory of social Darwinism in theory of “survival of the fittest”.
The term survival of the fittest made its significance in the book, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other which was released in 1883. Sumner insisted that “millionaires are the product of natural selection.” The survival of fittest really boils down to wealth and power amounting to some kind of physical fitness and those who are unfit would die off to make room for the rest. If the rich tried to help the poor then there were messing with the laws of nature and was said to slow down evolution.
Additionally the fourteenth Amendment declares no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process or law." It seems what is really owed to one another not necessarily by class is the ability to live life how you choose to where and how. Wealth and class should not matter and respect should be given regardless.
Additionally the fourteenth Amendment declares no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process or law." It seems what is really owed to one another not necessarily by class is the ability to live life how you choose to where and how. Wealth and class should not matter and respect should be given regardless.
I agree that wealth and class should not matter, but unfortunately, they do. In "What Social Classes Owe Each Other," Sumner has formed an apology (in the Greek sense, that is a defense) for the wealthy and powerful. He believes that the rich do not owe the poor anything but opportunities to succeed, which, in his opinion, they will squander because they are unfit for leading positions in society. Their position serves as evidence for their inability to succeed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a common theme that the wealthy and powerful still use to this day. They believe that, given absolute equal opprtunity, they would always "rise to the top" because they are destined to succeed. This notion that poor people are poor because they are lazy or deficient has fueled greed and entitlement in the wealthy for centuries. This self-deception and self-glorification is abominable.
It is the duty of our government to provide people with liberty. It is the duty of our people to ensure that the government fulfills its obligation to the people. People living in abject poverty do not enjoy the benefits of liberty, therefore, the government of the United States and the American People have failed them!
Handing out money or alternative economic systems may not be the answer to the issue of poverty, but people cannot simply divest themselves of their social obligations simply because they think they deserve more than others or that they are genetically superior to them. This is unjust, and should not be representative of the "American Way."
I agree that wealth and class shouldn't matter. And that everyone is equal no matter if your rich or poor. I also think that it is messed up that if the rich tried to help the poor it is messing up the laws of nature. Sumner wrote that one man, in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give help to another... He also goes on and talks about how everyone of a free state owes it to himself, to the community, and those who are weak, to go to their assistance and help redress their wrongs. I think he was saying that everyone should help one another to succeed or give them that equal chance. I also like how he says that we owe each other rights, but rights that do not pertain results, only chances. I believe he was saying that everyone can help another be equal, but cannot be equal as another by results of rights, but be given the chance to be equal as another. That we owe each other a chance to earn, to learn, and to own property without interference that would prevent your rights. Sumner also goes one and talks about how there is no guarantee that everyone will be equal as chances expand to man and the greater the chances, the more unequal will become of the two classes due to some neglecting the chance as others profit.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you used fourteenth amendment as an example to support your analysis. I agree on the point that rich classes do not owe anything to the poor classes.The only thing we owe to each other is the basic fundamental rights. According to William Graham Sumner, society consists of layers and layers of hidden and roiling conflicts and fights, that can only be resolved by state intervention and not by the advances of rich people.Only those men who haven't made any efforts to rise above the poverty feels that they are dependent on the rich class. But the hard-working men holds a different view and are able to survive in this environment,without any favors of the rich. Sumner presents a contrary model of society, one that highlights the capacity for group cooperation.It is not conflict that forms the basis of society, but goodwill, private property,liberty- all rooted in the radical idea of individualism.
ReplyDeleteWhile Sumner states that millionaires are the product of survival if the fittest, he also mentions how disreputable it would be to not work for the things you have. This includes the wealthy and the poor but he does tell readers that they owe it to themselves to help the weak in the community. I like the way he clarifies that people shouldn't give handouts to the poor but rather help them by providing opportunities for the individual to succeed. This is very relevant to the way our society is today. We, as a country could learn from this and examine the programs that are in place that give handouts to the poor rather than providing them with opportunities to become a successful part of the community. This will in turn, like Sumner explains, result in an increase in the communities wealth.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most striking thing in this article is Sumner's judgement of the poor, clearly suggesting that socioeconomic class is completely up to one's ambitions, rather than fortunate positions which often lead people to end up on top. He says that those who are below are there because they have not "done their duty" and cannot be equal to those who have. Much like the racism we focused on in earlier chapters, there is a sense of divine superiority that the rich feel over the lowly poor and they must justify that feeling by preaching ideas like social Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteI like how you put this reading into the context of social Darwinism. William Graham Sumner is definitely a proponent of the proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." He certainly is no fan of philanthropists and their cohorts. The tone of his writing is almost angry and disgusted when he writes about them. Sumner does not believe in the weak or poor man. To Sumner, if all men are given equal rights, and therefore equal chances, the fate of a man is determined by his ability to grab the chances life presents to him. If a man does not have wealth, then he failed to make full use of his opportunities. Sumner believes that classes will always exist and the fairest way for everyone is the concept of every man for himself.
ReplyDeleteThis article by Sumner has an angry tone to it and when he states “A man who is present as a consumer, yet who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden,” he is making a statement that anyone can achieve wealth if they just stop being lazy. Sumner does not seem to have any sympathy for those who are in unfortunate positions in life and may need a boost of help to get them on the right track, he believes that it is possible for each man to earn his own way and if he is not then he is taking from the man who does have money. Sumner states “The man who has done nothing to raise himself above poverty finds that the social doctor’s flock about him, bringing the capital which they have collected from the other had to work for.” This statement says sums up Sumner’s view on the poor and weak of society.
ReplyDeleteOur society has a duty to those who are unfortunate for whatever reason to care for those who cannot care for themselves and to assist those who need it to a position that they can become self sufficient not stick those who are poor all in one category and call them lazy money grabbers.