Hi Sid,

First off, you’re correct in your understanding: Darwinists of today (known more formally as evolutionary biologists) never use the term social Darwinism nor apply social Darwinist ideas to people (though I am sure someone can locate a rogue biologist who does); most of them regard the term as illegitimate since human culture–which includes political action–has (and had even in Darwin’s day) replaced nature as the prime force upon human survival.

Those who coined the term in the 19th century (Darwin didn’t use it) were social progressives attempting to show how every natural law in the universe leads to progress. It seemed at the time that life was indeed looking up for many folks, some more than others. Like elites in other times and places, those atop the Victorian social order placed themselves at the top of the ‘natural’ order of things, though Darwin himself (in The Descent Of Man, a follow-up to On the Origin of Species) cautioned against what his cousin Francis Galton approvingly (and what we today disparagingly) would term eugenics:

…if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Many who still do use the term social Darwinism today are the ultra-rich (and their apologists) who want to justify positions of privilege, just as robber baron capitalists in the late 1800′s justified cutthroat business dealings. Ironically, proponents of social Darwinist mythology (and its ‘Survival of the Fittest’ myth) include a contingent of fundamentalist Christians who firmly believe in God and a divine plan, all the while calling for removal of evolution in school curricula (and, in a curious non sequitur, lower taxes for the rich).

Myths in the modern world are tools we humans have at our disposal to convince others that certain ideas are ‘true’. Those in positions of wealth and influence have used the social Darwinism myth in order to preserve their positions of privilege. They need only convince their fellow humans (or at least some of them) to accept a myth as valid. Social Darwinism is, primarily, a story about why the losers of cultural and political battles ought to give up fighting and accept the status quo as not only natural, expected, or preordained, but even desirable.

Members of the privileged class don’t have to prove their fitness in accordance with the theory, since, as far as they are concerned, it’s a self-evident truth. It doesn’t matter if they truly believe in the myth. Though, personally, I suspect most of them do. It’s only important to get the culture at large (or at the very least those who might work for change) to accept the myth.

If you can get your opponents to accept their status as inferior (or beaten), then you have won the war without fighting. The social Darwinist myth holds that everyone is (and was destined to be) in their ‘proper’ (social) place and that things could not have turned out differently, which implies that no change in position, influence (i.e., voice in society or government), or wealth is needed, nor is any desirable since intentional change ‘violates’ the ‘natural’ order’ of things.

The mythology of social Darwinism ignores or outright denies a number of facts:

1) Survival is not of the fittest (at least not often) but merely the luckiest of the least unfit. Mediocrity can thrive as long as it is does not possess a trait that actively hurts its chances of survival, and even the not-so-fit can survive as long as it is lucky; selection works in the negative: culling the unfit. Selection has no mechanism to eliminate all competition to the most fit. Survival only proves luck or lack of bad genes or traits.

2) As the environment changes, those that were most fit can quickly become trapped by their fitness to the old conditions, unable to adapt fast enough to the new ones. In other words, fitness is not a static condition.

3) Even if the social Darwinist myth were true, we humans needn’t accept its outcomes. At least in the modern world, we have enough resources to create a more equitable distribution than that made by chance.

4) There is no divine plan ordaining the lucky few as the ‘fittest’. Biologists and geneticists have demonstrated (with support of computer models) that, given enough time and small changes, no plan is necessary. (See Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett for more detail.)

5) In our human world, many of the pressures on survival or success are human-made and therefore open to change by human beings. Even were there a divine plan, if we humans have been granted free will, God couldn’t guarantee that pivotal historical figures would come to the ‘right’ conclusions. Otherwise, there is no free will at all. So this further puts the onus upon all of us to act fairly towards each other instead of pushing unsupportable social fictions about the fitness of some individual or group.

Thus, I think one can reasonably argue that social Darwinism, in its simplest, crudest form is mythology since it explains nothing real or active in the present day. It is an unsupportable story (a social lie) used to justify immoral actions or conditions. Its moral lesson is that those with little ought to accept their proper place.

Well, I hope this is food for thought or discussion. Feel free to comment as you wish.

It is cool to hear that your group is similar in size and dynamic to ours. I wish you all well in your endeavors from all of us at Socrates Cafe Seattle to you in Okemos Michigan.

Best Regards,

Stu Levy, Co-facilitator SCS

[Where the question came from: In her new book The Case for God, Karen Armstrong argues that religion and mythology have to go back to their pre-17^th century roots if they are to remain relevant. That got us interested in discussing the role of mythology today. ]

IS MYTHOLOGY USEFUL IN THE MODERN WORLD?

First, let’s ask: What is a myth?

Well, our common conception is that a myth is a very old story, from an oral tradition, such as that of the ancient Greeks. Mythology isn’t about facts. It’s not history. Myths explain the ‘why’ (if not accurately the ‘how’) of the events and ways of the world.

You say a myth isn’t about facts, but don’t some myths purport to explain the natural world as a scientific theory might? I’m thinking, for example, of creation myths and myths about weather gods. Aren’t they intended to be actual descriptions of the beginning of the world and the forces that rule it?

I’m not sure that the Genesis story is meant to be taken literally. It’s a fiction told to tell a deeper truth, or at least raise a deeper question, for example: What is humanity’s place in nature? In this sense, Social Darwinism might be considered to be a modern myth: Although social Darwinism makes use of scientific theory (Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection), it is not itself science. It takes some facts about the real world and uses them metaphorically to conjure a myth about human nature (‘survival of the fittest’ in society) as well as humanity’s relationship to the natural world.

So is mythology a sort of category mistake? The suborning of facts and science to tell just-so stories that reinforce a culture’s prejudices?

Only to the extent that all metaphors are deliberate category violations. Properly used they help one understand a new situation. Metaphor isn’t intended to explain the actual way the new situation works, but instead offers a workable mental model that avoids unsound trains of logic. (At least when used in good faith: Plato banned the artisans of metaphor—poets—from his Republic. He saw poetry as a form of propaganda.)

Would you say that modern conspiracy theories—alien abduction narratives and world-control-by-secret-cabal theories—are also modern myths, useful or otherwise?

Conspiracy theories purport to be about a factual (if hidden) truth. They seem to be trying more to be like history than like myth. Myths aren’t about exposing cover-ups and correcting the public record.

OK. We’ve examined our conception of what a myth is. Now let’s ask: What does it mean for a myth to be useful?

For starters, myths may act to facilitate shared cultural connections, which in turn provides a sense of emotional connection and meaning that humans clearly crave. Religious myths may also provide comfort and a certainty that calms the mind and its fears in the face of an uncertain world. In a similar vein, a mythological explanation can be inappropriately substituted for a scientific explanation: The myth ‘satisfies’ curiosity, preventing or redirecting further examination of some event or practice that might embarrass authorities. But, on the positive side, myths can offer a roadmap to life’s challenges: how to fix a problem, how to live the good life, how to navigate life’s many transitions.

Can you give an example?

Yes, the Hero’s Journey is a recurrent form of myth (for example, The Odyssey) that speaks metaphorically about how a person makes the transition to adulthood by enduring and meeting a series of challenges. These are more sophisticated myths, or interpretations. On the simpler side, a  myth often has some moral to teach, especially if targeted toward children. Myths can help a child internalize a culture’s values leading ultimately to more prosocial behavior. The Santa Claus myth, for example,teaches children to believe an invisible observer is always watching so they begin to control impulsive or socially undesirable behaviors. Thus myths act to smuggle in values and beliefs, like “Bad deeds will be judged by an all knowing being and then punished.” Rituals around the Santa myth encourage kids to actually try out prosocial behaviors: We leave gifts of milk and cookies for Santa, modeling reciprocity; children have to wait to open their presents, modeling patience and delayed gratification; the youngest child is often serves as gift-distributor, modeling service to others. But myths are hard to control. They take on a life of their own. So the Santa myth has also become saturated with crass consumerism.

Doesn’t the Santa myth have a weakness shared by a number of other badly-shaped myths? It is falsifiable. It claims that Santa actually exists. It begins to crumble when, as a kid, you get more than or less than you deserve. What is the explanation? Perhaps the invisible watcher is mean, unfair, or insane. And when kids find out Santa doesn’t exist, they may doubt the reality of the myth’s moral lessons as well, or even come to believe the myth to be a fantasy invented to control them.

That’s possible. But this is also possible: When children mature and learn that Santa IS just a myth, they learn to deal with the disappointment—maybe even heartbreak—of having something they fervently desire to be true shown to be false. It prepares them to cope with this very human experience.

This is all very interesting, but isn’t it also true that a myth can be useful simply by entertaining? Isn’t that what so much of Homer is about: Telling a good story?

It’s certainly true that for a myth to be effective, it’s got to be transmitted reliably. And to be transmitted reliably it must be vivid, memorable, entertaining in its own right, and effective on multiple levels. A myth can entertain both by being as simple as it needs to be, and as elaborate as the teller wants to make it. It should offer both a simple lesson and a deeper, more culturally loaded, lesson for the adept or attuned individual to tease out. At one level, the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a symbolic story about chivalry and loyalty. On another, it’s a commentary about gender relations. But it’s also a rollicking kid’s fairytale, complete with adventures and a scary monster. (It’s no surprise that J.R.R. Tolkien authored a translation. What is the Green Knight if not a proto-Orc?)