# 0521 Economists on Darwin’s theory of social evolution and human behaviour by Alain Marciano The Papers on Economics and Evolution are edited by the Max Planck Institute of Economics Evolutionary Economics Group, MPI Jena. For editorial correspondence, Evolutionary Economics Group please contact: [email protected] Kahlaische Str. 10 07745 Jena, Germany ISSN 1430-4716 Fax: ++49-3641-686868 © by the author #0521 Economists on Darwin’s theory of social evolution and human behaviour1 Alain Marciano Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne (OMI-EDJ) and Central National de la Recherche Scientifique (GREQAM—Marseille) Postal address: Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne Faculté des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion, 57 b, rue Pierre Taittinger, F – 51096 Reims Cedex – e- mail: [email protected]; fax: 33 3 26 91 38 69. Abstract The purpose of this article is to analyse the way economists interested in social and economic evolution cite, mention or refer to Darwin. We focus on the attitude of economists towards Darwin’s theory of social evolution – an issue he considered as central to his theory. We show that economists refer to and mention Darwin as a biologist and neglect or ignore his theory of social and cultural evolution. Three types of reference are identified: first, economists view and quote Darwin as having borrowed concepts from classical political economists, Malthus and Smith. Darwin is then mentioned to emphasize the existence of economic theories of social evolution. Second, economists refer to and cite Darwin from the perspective of the use of biological concepts in social sciences. Darwin's biological theories are then equated with those of Spencer. From these two perspectives, Darwin's theory of social evolution is ignored and Darwin considered as a biologist exclusively. Third, economists acknowledge the existence of Darwin's general (biological and social) theory of evolution. Darwin is then considered and quoted as a biologist and a social evolutionist. Key-words: Darwin, social evolution, evolutionary economics, bioeconomics JEL classification: A 11, B 52. 1 Earlier versions of this text were presented at a History of Social Sciences Seminar (Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan), at the 2004 HES meetings in Toronto (University of Toronto), at the Amsterdam-Cachan Workshop (University of Amsterdam) and at a research seminar at the Max Plank Institute. I am grateful to all those who cooperated in the research for this paper. For the discussions, I thank Armen Alchian, Harold Demsetz, Michael T. Ghiselin, Jack Hirshleifer, and Gordon Tullock. For further comments on earlier drafts, I thank Bruce Caldwell, Loïc Charles, Philippe Fontaine, Elias Khalil, Roger Koppl, Michael T. Ghiselin, Sophie Harnay, Jack Hirhsleifer, Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Robert J. Leonard, Maud Pélissier, Jack Vromen and Ulrich Witt. 1 #0521 Economists on Darwin’s theory of social evolution and human behaviour 1 Introduction References to past authors, especially when these references imply crossing over disciplinary boundaries, are complex matters. In this paper, we focus on Charles Darwin and economists refer to him and to his different writings: how do economists quote Darwin? Which of his works are mentioned, when they are, and from which perspective are they referred to? More specifically, we analyse the attitude of economists towards Darwin’s theory of social evolution – that is the theory he exposes in a book he publishes in 1871, the Descent of Man – in comparison with his theory of biological evolution as developed in the 1859 Origin of Species. These are indeed two of the major books Darwin wrote and published2. These two books correspond to two related but nonetheless different aspects of Darwin’s works. In the Origin of Species, Darwin presents his well known theory of biological evolution. Inspired by Thomas Malthus, as Darwin himself acknowledges it in his notebooks, this theory exposes the concepts and mechanisms that guide biological evolution. These concepts – “natural selection” and “struggle for life” – have also been used by Herbert Spencer and other scholars to explain politics, economics, social and morals, giving birth to what is called social Darwinism. Social Darwinism can thus be described as a specific version of, a transference to human societies of Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Thus, a Darwinian or a biological theory of social evolution, this doctrine argues that the functioning and evolution of human societies follows the same mechanisms as nature or non human societies. However, to refer to “natural selection” only is too broad a way to characterise social Darwinism. In fact, a precise definition of this doctrine cannot be separated from the meaning it received in the second half of the 19th century. Now, within the context of triumphant capitalism, natural selection was closely associated with the survival of the fittest: “To the Anglo-Saxon imperialist, or to the rising capitalist produced by the industrial 2 Among the 20 books Darwin wrote, 3 are of a major importance for economists and social scientists: the Origin of Species by the Means of Natural Selection (1859), the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) and the Expressions of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). 2 #0521 revolution, natural selection meant the survival of the fittest competitor” (McConnaughy, 1950, p. 397). Then, social Darwinists used “survival of the fittest” to transform Darwinism into a “quasi-ontological racial discourse” based on “a redefinition of ‘fitness’ as ‘intelligence’ and an identification of ‘intelligence’ with the ‘white’ races” (Claeys, 2000, p. 240). This is the reason why social is associated with unregulated and uncontrolled capitalism and unrestricted laissez-faire and some of its consequences such as racism, nationalism and imperalism, (see Crook, 1996; Hodgson, 2003 c; Paul 2003). And this is the way this doctrine was defined by Richard Hofstadter’s influential and much read Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944)3. The latter gave a specific meaning to social Darwinism (Bannister, 1973), in particular emphasizing a strong connection Accordingly, Hofstadter emphasized a strong connection between Darwin, Spencer and social Darwinism. It thus contributed to the spreading of Darwin’s image as a social Darwinist among economists. Now, despite its ambiguities, Darwin’s biology can certainly not be interpreted as social Darwinism defined so specifically. In particular, one of the most significant aspect of social Darwinism – the role given to “survival of the fittest” – plays a different and even minor role in Darwin’s theory of social evolution. Thus, not only this expression – repeatedly attributed to Darwin – was coined by Spencer. Also, Darwin hesitated to adopt Spencer’s concept to explain biological evolution: he adopted it in the 6th edition of the Origin of Species, in 1882 that is 25 years after Spencer’s first use of the phrase. And, finally, he also criticised its use to in the context of human societies. Thus, in the Descent of Man, Darwin explains that, “in the earlier editions of my ‘Origin of Species’ I perhaps attributed too much to the action of natural selection or the survival of the fittest” (1988). The distance with Spencer and social Darwinism that Darwin seems cautious to put forward illustrates the difference that exists between his theory of biological evolution and his theory of social evolution, which we found in particular exposed in the Descent of Man. In effect, although he was convinced that “man was part of the 3 Hodgson (2003 c) shows that the definition of social Darwinism retained by economists and social scientists changes with the publication of Hofstadter’s boo. He notes that “Richard Hofstadter gave the use of the term a huge boost, in the context of a global anti-fascist war”. 3 #0521 evolutionary process” and therefore that his theory was likely to apply to animals and to man also4, Darwin nonetheless proposed a theory of social evolution that does not consist in a biological theory of social evolution. There are important differences between what happens in animal and human societies. Thus, the principle and target of selection in human societies is different as in natural selection. In effect, in Darwin’s theory of social selection the group – rather than the individual – is the target of the selection process. Thus, Darwin notes that “with strictly social animals, natural selection sometimes acts on the individual, through the preservation of variations which are beneficial to the community […] With the higher social animals, I am not aware that any structure has been modified solely for the good of the community […] In regard to certain mental powers the case […] is wholly different; for these faculties have been chiefly, or even exclusively, gained for the benefit of the community, and the individuals thereof have at the same time gained an advantage indirectly” (1988 b, p. 285-286; emphasis added). That the group is the target of social evolution does not mean that social evolution does not rest on “natural selection”; however, the role of this principle is complemented by other factors such as moral sentiments and, more precisely, on sympathy: “When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of 4 In his Autobiography, Darwin notes: “As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law” (p. 131). Man was then “a leitmotiv” (Herbert, 1977, p. 197) and also “an issue of its own merit” (1997, p. 197; emphasis added) for Darwin since 1837, thirty- four years prior to the publication of the Descent of Man, when he filled his transmutation notebooks (from 1837 to 1841). Why is it so? The importance of a theory of human behaviour for Darwin “simply” rests in the possible generalisation of his theory of biological evolution. Indeed, this early conviction indicates both his optimism and satisfaction “about the general prospects … and … the explanatory powers of his theory” (Herbert, 1977, pp. 201-2). The confidence thus gained led him to raison “questions concerning the evolution of instincts, emotions, language and intelligence”, and to ask “how one can explain sociability and the 4 #0521 danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other” (ibid., p. 322). Thus, the theory of social evolution that Darwin indeed proposed departs (at least slightly) not only from any (including his own or Spencer’s or the ones proposed by social Darwinists) biological theory of evolution. As such, Darwin’s theory of social evolution differs from the Darwinian or biological theories of social evolution proposed by social Darwinists , as it has been stressed by many scholars (see among others, Bowler, 1990; Gruber, 1981; Roger, 1972; Kaye, 1986; Alland Jr., 1985)5. From this perspective, the Descent of Man is valuable. Furthermore, the book is also interesting with regard to the connections with classical political economy, the Descent of Man is interesting for it evidences a second but rarely noticed debt towards political economists. In effect, it includes references to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments – a book that Darwin actually read6 –, stresses the importance of sympathy and mentions precise passages from David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (see Marciano and Pélissier, 2001). How do economists treat these differences between Darwin’s theories of biological and social evolution, and the complex links with Spencer and social Darwinism? Do they take into account the different aspects of Darwin’s works? Do they mention the many connections with classical political economists? These are the question we address in this paper. More precisely, we analyse the way economists refer to Darwin, mention his name and quote his writings to show how and how far these different aspects of Darwin’s theories were taken into account. We then identify three ways to answer this question; that is three different modes of references to Darwin and thus three ways to depict Darwin. First, from the perspective of the origins of Darwin’s theoretical framework and, in particular, with regard to the influence of economists on his works and writings, Darwin is considered evolution of human societies and their institutions” (Schweber, 1977, p. 232). 5 There have been and still are ongoing debates over social Darwinism and, more specifically, over Darwin’s social Darwinism. Many insist that there is no doubt that Darwin was social Darwinist (Young, 1985; Greene, 1981). See also Weikart in the a presentation of “a Darwin letter on social Darwinism” (1995). 6 Darwin read the Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1838 and in 1842 (“I skimmed part of the book”, Darwin writes in his notebooks). 5 #0521 as a biologist exclusively and quoted to evidence that his biological theory has its roots in economic theories; economists mention Darwin, refer to his writings and even quote him to remind the reader that his theory of biological evolution consists in a transposition of a theory developed in social sciences; no mention is never made to a possible theory of social evolution proposed by Darwin. Second, from the viewpoint of the possible use of biological concepts to model social evolution; then, Darwin is quoted as a biologist who inspired Spencer and social Darwinism; Spencer is mentioned as having developed a Darwinian theory of social evolution but Darwin’s theory of social evolution remains ignored. Third, Darwin’s general theory of evolution, and its twofold aspects – biological and social; from this perspective, Darwin is quoted as the first scholar who tried to bridge the gap between two scientific domains – economics and biology. 2 The economic origins of Darwin’s theory of biological evolution: Darwin as a borrower We first propose to analyse the image of Darwin and the way economists quote him within the framework of the discussions around the connection between economics and biology. This image can be associated with the conviction shared by many economists that their discipline “may … count itself among the sources of modern biology” (Houthakker, 1956, p. 181). In effect, and more precisely, the credit of the foundation of modern biology is attributed to certain economists: “modern biology was in a sense founded by the world’s first professor of economics, Malthus” (Tullock, 1977, p. 502). Even more precise is the belief that economists were the first to propose theories of social evolution: “one of the most satisfying evolutionary discussion that I have read is in the 15 pages of the Wealth of Nations in which Smith writes about the evolution of money” (Adelstein, 1982, p. 162). Therefore, the concepts proposed by economists and the theories of evolution developed in the context of social sciences at the end of the 18th century supposedly have preceded and made possible the theories of biological evolution developed during the 19th century, in particular that of Darwin. Thus, the “conceptual apparatus” (Hayek, 1958, p. 242) developed by classical political economists was ready for being transposed from one discipline to the other; it “lay readily fashioned at hand for him [Darwin] to use” 6 #0521 (ibid.). This allowed him to develop his theory of biological evolution7. In other words, in this view, Darwin is considered as a biologist – in fact, the most famous representative of modern biology – who borrowed concepts from political economy. Undoubtedly, Darwin was a biologist and the role economic theories played in the birth and development of his theory can hardly be questioned; therefore, one cannot be puzzled by the fact that economists refer to, and quotes him in such a way. Now, and this is the point we would like to make, the attempts to shed light on the economists’ influence on Darwin’s biological theories, that is the focus on Darwin as a biologist, cloud all the other – than biological – parts of Darwin’s writings. His theory of social evolution is then ignored or evacuated. As a corollary, since Darwin’s theory of social evolution seemingly does not exist, when a Darwinian theory of social evolution is evoked, it is always in connection with Spencer and social Darwinism. Within this context, references to Darwin are not aimed at evidencing his theoretical contribution. They rather remind the readers of the economic origins of his biological theory. Thus Darwin is named to stress the influence of classical political economists: Malthus’s theory of population ‘inspired” (Hayek, 1991, p. 262) or “partly inspired … Charles Darwin’s work on evolution, according to his own statement” (Houthakker, 1956, p. 181); alternatively, it is argued that “economists often take pride in the fact that Charles Darwin came to his theory of evolution as a result of reading Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith” (Coase, 1985, p. 73). Furthermore, because the role of past economists is particularly important, Darwin is also named to insist that they were his predecessors. This is exactly what Hayek suggests when he claims that “Hume may be called a precursor to Darwin in the field of ethics” (1967, p. 107) because “what he produced (...) became the basis of his case for liberty and the foundation of the work of the great Scottish moral philosophers, of Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart, who are recognised as the chief ancestors of modern evolutionary anthropology” (ibid. p. 106) 7 This debt to political economists has been subject to controversial debates. It ranges from opinions assuming that the influence is almost negligible (de Beer, 1958) to statements about the “enormous impact of Malthus on Darwin’s work” (Herbert, 1977, p. 216) and that 7 #0521 and may even be considered as “Darwinians before Darwin” (1973, p. 153). Obviously, Darwin’s theory is not important as such but because it helps to bring economists’ into light8. Thus, there is not need to enter into its details nor to quote precisely any of Darwin’s writings. A reference to Darwin’s name is, most of the time, considered as sufficient. Sometimes, either direct or indirect precise references are used. They strengthen and clarify Darwin’s image. For instance, Hayek’s perception of Darwin is illustrated and supported by the indirect references he utilises: Gladys Bryson’s Man and Society: The Scottish Inquiry of the Eighteenth century (1945) and Henry F. Osborn's From the Greeks to Darwin (1894). These two books present Darwin as a biologist who made use of economic concepts (Bryson) and played a relatively minor role in the development of a modern theory of evolution (Osborn)9. Alternatively, when direct references to Darwin’s writings are added, besides mentions to his notebooks, economists and other social scientists almost exclusively quotes his biological works, that is the Origin of species (see among others, Vorzimmer, 1969; Young, 1969; Herbert, 1971, 1977; Schweber, 1977, 1980; Jones, 1989). Very rare but nonetheless significant are the references made to the Descent of Man. And, in this regard, the presence of a mention is at least as significant as its absence. In effect, within the context of the influence of economists’ writings on Darwin, to refer to a book in which Darwin quotes Hume and Smith would obviously have served to give more weight to the idea that there indeed exists a connection between the former and the latter, showing that their influence goes beyond his theory “biology remains permanently indebted to the field of political economy” (ibid). 8 This perception echoes an image well and long established among biologists, namely that Darwin imported the scientific methodology used by Scottish 18th century scholars in social sciences and thus can be considered as responsible of the transformation of biology into professional and scientific biology (Merton, 1938; Manier, 1978, 1987). Thus, during the first third of the 20th century, Darwin’s theory was considered only as “an interesting but unworkable intellectual gambit that warranted a footnote in the history of ideas but needed to be quietly put aside while the real mechanics were worked out” (Brace, 1997, p. 106). 9 It is interesting to note that Osborn’s book dates back to a time when Darwin's image has not yet changed under the influence of the synthetic theory of evolution. Now, although Hayek by 1958 was particularly well aware of this change, since he met, in particular, Julian Huxley when participating in the preparation of the Darwin centennial celebration organised in Chicago in 1959 (Caldwell, 2000; Angner, 2002), he nonetheless sticks to a quite old- fashioned image of Darwin as a marginal contributor to modern biology. 8 #0521 of biological evolution. It would also undeniably have thrown light on Darwin’s theory of social evolution. He then could have been presented both as a biologist and a social evolutionist, these two dimensions complementing each other. Now, this is seemingly impossible. Thus, when the book is mentioned, it is always in passing. For instance, Schumpeter stresses how important the Origin of Species and also the Descent of Man are – “their secular importance for mankind’s cosmic conceptions is comparable with that of the heliocentric system” (1954, p. 445); but he derives no conclusion as to a possible theory of social evolution elaborated by Darwin. Significantly, even a remarkably detailed account of the relationships between Darwin and political economists such as Schweber’s (1977), based on a large use of the different notebooks filed up by Darwin but also his books, refers to the Descent of Man but only in a footnote (p. 278, n. 108). There, Schweber recalls that in 1909 Hoffding established a connection between Darwin, and Shaftsbury, Hutcheson, Hume and Smith and then notes: “this attribution is, however, based primarily on Darwin’s moral philosophy as expressed in the Descent” (ibid.; emphasis added). Thus, when the connection between Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Darwin’s Descent of Man is noted, one insists that there is no need to pay attention to it. This is explained by the fact that the Theory of Moral Sentiments is “peripheral to political economy” (Gordon, 1989, p. 451). Even Hayek notes that Darwin probably read the Theory of Moral Sentiments and certainly not the Wealth of Nations; he nonetheless continue to link Darwin, as a biologist, with Smith as an economic theorist (1988, p. 10; also the appendix). There is nothing to gain from a reference to the Descent of Man since it does not add to the representation of Darwin as a biologist. In other words, what reveals this way of citing Darwin is that this image of a biologist prevents economists to acknowledges the existence of other elements in his writings. Economists stick to the image of a biologist influenced by the reading of economists and, more specifically, of their economic writings. This emphasis even leads them to reject other Darwin’s works, especially those on social evolution. Not that any Darwinian theory of social evolution is deemed as impossible. However, it is not that of Darwin. In may exist under the form developed by other scholars, such as Spencer or other social Darwinists as a sequel of Darwin’s theory. Thus, and this is revealed by the way Darwin is quoted in reference to past economists, there is another aspect of his image among economists: the link between 9