Our recent discussion about the modern ramifications of the “Gospel of Wealth,” by Andrew Carnegie, caused me to think of social darwinism. For those who don’t know, social darwinism is the idea that the present exploitative world is justified by Darwin’s natural selection where the strongest prevail as evidenced by their social standing, and therefore have claim to the rest of the world. This can be taken into many different contexts and connotations such as white-supremacy; white people are justified in their role in society because they are biologically superior. Not because of a climate that led to an advantageous social structure, cohesion, and military power. Easily despicable ideas like racism aside, social darwinism seemed to be applied to philanthropy through the “Gospel of Wealth.” Since rich people are rich, they must have a special trait about them that entitles them to accrue more wealth and power. Luckily for Carnegie, he chooses a moral cause, philanthropy and giving, as a necessary component to the role of a millionaire; however, he then posits that the millionaire must give specifically and without advice because he knows best. He, of course, knows this because he has the superior traits necessary to obtain that position of wealth in the first place. This idea is problematic in many, many ways. Now the question is— are there some redeemable aspects to Carnegie’s philanthropic creed?
According to Queensland University Professor Emeritus, Paul Crook’s “Social Darwinism: Myth and Reality,” Carnegie’s interpretation of social darwinism is an incredibly common and flawed representation of Darwin’s original theories regarding natural selection as it pertains to social standing. According to Darwin himself, the way that natural selection portrays social and primal hierarchies is sorely oversimplified: “‘I shall use the word struggle…as the dependency of one organic being on another…the agency whether organic or inorganic of what may be called chance… and lastly what may be more strictly a struggle, whether voluntarily as in animals or involuntary as in plants.’” Darwin was very much aware of the possibility of cooperation and randomness, therefore creating a much more complex social strata. He also did not want to empower prejudicial schools of thought; he believed that homo-sapiens are one species. Skin color is simply a slight variance. Carnegie doesn’t account for how societies empower certain individuals: the cunning, educated, and connected.
Some claim that it doesn’t matter the intention, people are still getting money. We mentioned this in our discussion of “Why Giving Back Isn’t Enough” by the Ford Foundation's Darren Walker where he quotes Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “‘Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.’” Philanthropists are trying to put themselves out of business by empowering people until they no longer need their services. This cannot be achieved if all actions are only addressing a symptom of the problem: loans for the perpetually impoverished, increased wages for a disenfranchised community, a wall to fend off against those pesky migrant families. Carnegie doesn’t acknowledge a possibility where needy people could understand their situation and scholars could analyse the root causes of inequalities. Of course, this type of social awareness was not always so popular, especially during the Gilded Age. So, now that greater society is largely educated about this, we should account for intention in our philanthropy.
We can apply this to our philanthropy by understanding the community that we are servicing: Broome and the surrounding counties. The needs assessment was definitely one way to get educated, but there is nothing like talking with a native from the area. Considering no one raised their hand when asked if there was a local in the class, we are sorely lacking in personal connection and comprehension. If we could properly learn about the community from a student, we could feel empathy and respect for a peer who can properly encapsulate the value and needs of the community. If we are only giving for giving’s sake, then we are no better than Andrew Carnegie— a literal embodiment of a savior complex. So, I implore the class to talk to a local student to understand. There are more people from Binghamton at Binghamton University than you might think. They are surely competent enough to be socially aware about how policies and our philanthropy can be beneficial.
Michael Tang
Crook, Paul. “Social Darwinism: Myth and Reality.” The Evolution Institute, 1 Sept. 2015, evolution-institute.org/social-darwinism-myth-and-reality/.
DARWIN, CHARLES. ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, 2019.
Walker, Darren. “Why Giving Back Isn't Enough.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/opinion/why-giving-back-isnt-enough.html.
The concept of social darwinism has always intrigued me, especially just imagining how far people have removed it from Darwin's original theory to justify racist beliefs. I feel that social darwinism isn't just prevalent in racial discrimination (though there is no doubt that this is a major misuse of Darwin's theories), but in justifying class differences as well. The Gospel of Wealth has always struck me as problematic because it assumes that, in simple terms, millionaires know money because they have money. Therefore, regardless of whether a poor person knows best how to improve their community with a large sum of money, they will never be given the opportunity to do so, since it is the wealthy who believe they know best. The phrase "survival of the fittest" comes to mind, first used by polymath and political theorist Herbert Spencer upon reading Darwin's writings. In fact, it is thought that social darwinism as a concept first arose to justify the highly immoral business practices of the late 19th century. Despite everything, the belief that any one person is more qualified than another simply due to something that has little indication of ability, whether that be class or race, is a highly troubling viewpoint, and it's fortunate that more people are realizing the dark underbelly of billionaire philanthropy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe savior complex exhibited by Andrew Carnegie is msot definitely an embodiment of the concept of Social Darwinism, and this is problematic for society. While it may seem that the rich are donating money, and this should not be questioned as giving money is beneficial regardless, they are not addressing the underlying issues that need to be addressed. How could the rich, like Carnegie, decide what is best for the poor if they have no means of connecting to them? A reason why philanthropy is needed is the correct the inequality gap between the rich and the poor, and if the rich believe they have a "special" trait that allows for them to gather more wealth and power, the root of the issue is becoming more problematic. While Social Darwinism seems like a proper justification, the whole premise of the argument is to allow for the wealthy to continue their means of unethical operations by taking advantage of the poor. Before considering that Carnegie may be taking advantage of a savior complex in this argument, I believed that billionaire philanthropy should be encouraged since it is the right of billionaires to donate their money to where they seem fit. However, after considering the means by which the rich attain their weath, this perspective of mine has been questioned, and I believe that this issue must be addressed. Implementing natural selection as a means of arguing that the rich know what is best for the poor is inhumane, and change must be made by society to correct this. In your opinion, what do you think society can do to correct billionaire philanthropy? In modern society, how would we be able to play a role in the way that billionaires donate? Finally, do you think that educating the rich on this troubling argument will help them realize the flaw of the "Gospel of Wealth"?
ReplyDeleteArpeet Patel
I really loved all of your thoughts about Andrew Carnegie and wholeheartedly agree with your point of view. Honestly, I feel infuriated when I read the things he felt and believed because from my perspective he sounds so out of touch. Obviously, there are many wealthy people who have genuinely pure intentions when it comes to their philanthropy and regardless of motive, it can’t be argued that the overall outcome of philanthropy is not ultimately a net positive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that does not mean that philanthropists are these infallible angels who do not deserve criticism. The magnitude of some of this philanthropy means there needs to be accountability, even if it appears to be doing good. No matter how much good someone does, their philanthropic efforts must be critically examined and subsequently improved upon. This can be extremely difficult, not just because it’s difficult to scrutinize charitable efforts, but because often criticism and feedback can be harshly received. When people feel they are being judged, even if it is accompanied with well-meaning advice, it can rapidly put them on the defensive. I think this observation can be made in a lot of areas, including issues of racism and sexism.
For example, when someone gets called out for racial biases they frequently become indignant about how they are not racist and shut down. Being unable to acknowledge your privilege and racial bias will constrain you from being able to grow and change. I, like all white people, possess certain privileges that I have always taken for granted and been blissfully unaware of, and my experiences have ingrained in me at least some racial biases, even subconsciously. That doesn’t mean I am a terrible person or that I am racist, but it does mean I should examine those biases and actively educate myself to correct those biases. Even if you have never been aware of any biases within you, they are still there and ignoring them and feeling attacked when you are questioned about them is much more problematic.
Part 1 - Danielle Stern
In the same vein, wealthy philanthropists must try to become more connected with how their privilege has shaped them. There are some realities that me, being a white person raised in a middle class home certainly can’t understand and people with wealth, especially inherited wealth, cannot even begin to imagine. That is inherently not something we can control, but it has evolved into a very troublesome mindset many philanthropists have. They can put themselves on this high ground and this pedestal and frame themselves to be these heroes saving those in dire need. This condescending attitude infects such a large sector of the wealthy philanthropists in the world and it’s upsetting to consider how this mindset can strip people of their agency.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is harsh, but when looking at millionaire and billionaire philanthropists in terms of what they have and what they give, I don’t feel that appreciative. It only makes me think about how commonly both wealth and poverty are cyclically passed down generation after generation. Without a doubt, this pattern has nothing to do with wealthy white people being biologically superior, but can be entirely be attributed to the severity of systemic racial and economic inequality that has existed for all of history and is still depressingly prevalent in the current day. And even though the mounting external disparities in opportunity would be sufficient to ensure this metaphoric gap couldn't be filled, there are also all the internal disparities that develop based on your background.
When someone grows up learning that they are poor and their whole family is poor and their whole family has always been poor, what hope will they feel to be successful. This is definitely controversial, but I really don’t feel that wealthy people deserve much gratitude at all for their philanthropy. I mainly feel they are providing the bare minimum to right the wrongs of history. As you wrote in your blog post, social darwinism is much more indicative of randomness and luck of the draw, then it is about how success, survivability, and superiority are biologically inherited. Most of the people with the greatest suffering had parents who suffered, grandparents who suffered, and great grandparents who suffered. I believe they are owed restitution and it is the responsibility of those with the most power; those whose ancestors are likely the perpetrators of these injustices, to correct them. Contrary to what some would like to believe, philanthropists are not saviors, they are typically just somewhat decent human beings whose actions need to be heavily assessed due to the vast scale of their influence.
Part 2 - Danielle Stern