The Distortion of Darwin

How vested interests distorted Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' ideology to further the Capitalist economic ideology

One prominent feature of capitalist societies is competition. Its spirit permeates many areas of modern human life: college admissions processes, elections, markets, and work applications (and, consequently, promotion within an organisation) are just a few examples. The main characteristic of this competitive environment is that people within it are pitted against each other. In the pursuit of personal aspirations, a person is compelled to undermine the other.

It feels like this state of affairs is undesirable. Why not cooperate with others to achieve goals? Interestingly, it turns out that most people embrace the idea that competition is good. The population of a large number of countries has been surveyed by the World Value Survey since the 1980s, and data shows that a significant majority of people consider competition to be ‘good’ rather than ‘harmful’ (see Figure 1.).

Figure 1. from Ergen & Kohl, 2020

Our perceived ‘goodness’ of competition is because, over the last three centuries, competitive organisation of the economy has been “enthusiastically advertised as a source of stability, progress, efficiency, justice, equality, harmony, freedom, diversity and healthy individualism…” (Dennis, 1977)¹. This outlook dominates people’s opinions so that, for some reason, they neglect the other part of the story. Dennis (1977) suggests that proponents of the counter view condemn competition “as a source of instability, poverty, inefficiency, injustice, inequality, alienation, coercion, and insecurity”.

Furthermore, there is a widespread belief that competition is an innate feature of human nature. This belief hinges largely on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution², particularly on the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’. This concept emphasises the role of competition for limited resources in shaping the evolution of any species. It implies that humans act in their own self-interest, striving to enhance their reproductive opportunities, or at least those of their immediate kin. There seems to be a problem, however, with this belief.

Darwin’s main concern lay in the domain of biology, namely how to scientifically explain the origin and flourishing of life on Earth and its differentiation into species³. However, his theory was extended beyond the domain of biology to the domains of social sciences and economics. The expression’ survival of the fittest’ frequently attributed to Darwin does not stem directly from his work per se but from Herbert Spencer’s 1864 work, Principles of Biology⁴. Spencer applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to the domain of sociology. He believed that species in the natural world compete with each other, so, by analogy, the same applies to the human race.

We can also see the application of Darwin’s theory in evolutionary economics. For instance, proponents of the school of Generalised Darwinism specify three general principles:

1. Variation

2. Inheritance, and

3. Selection.

These principles are no longer biological but ontological and, hence, generalised (ontological principles pertain to fundamental ideas about the nature of being or existence, as opposed to biological, which are scientific concepts that pertain to the study of living organisms and their processes). In a sense, these principles are fundamental to nature (not just the biological side of it). According to this school of thought:

The degree to which some entities (firms, for instance) are relatively successful leads to spread or decline of the frequency of their properties in the population. The frequency of the properties of successful entities tends to increase in the population, while the frequency of the properties of less successful entities tends to decrease. (Portera, 2016)

In short, according to this view, these three generalised Darwinian principles can be applied to any field or domain of human activity.

We can see that Darwin’s theory of evolution, particularly the feature of competition, was applied to the domains beyond biology. However, extending principles beyond the proper domain should always be done cautiously. For example, Mesoudi (2011) argues that evolutionary processes in biology and cultural evolutionary processes do not necessarily overlap⁵. A significant proportion of phenomena within the field of human culture is not Darwinian.

Moreover, proponents of Generalised Darwinism appear to concentrate on a particular and limited interpretation of evolutionary theory, emphasising concepts such as replication, rivalry, and competition, as if these elements constitute the entirety of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Due to this extension of biological principles to other domains, a misleading and partial interpretation of Darwin’s theory spread in mainstream and popular culture. Heightened self-interest and competition with other members of society became almost a prerequisite for living. This interpretation focuses “on selfish and greedy behaviours, supposed to be intrinsic to humans, and on the idea that rivalry and greed, to the detriment of the co-specific competitors, are a natural evolutionary heritage of Homo sapiens” (Portera, 2016; p. 125).

But is evolution possible only in terms of competition? I would argue that it is not. Competition is not the only mode of behaviour in our socio-economic environment. There is an innate tendency within our species to provide mutual assistance to one another and a tendency for empathy and altruism towards others.

In his book Mutual Aid⁶, Petr Kropotkin (1976) presents an alternative perspective on the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’. Drawing from his fieldwork in Siberia and his analysis of evolutionary theory’s implications, he proposes the following thought experiment: what is more conducive to species’ survival – mutual aid or ruthless competition among each other? If we consider it, mutual aid appears to provide a more significant survival advantage than competition. This is because species that can work together, support and protect each other have more chances to survive and reproduce than those that constantly compete. Although Kropotkin acknowledges that competition exists, he argues it is limited to exceptional situations, as “natural selection continually seeks out ways of avoiding competition as much as possible” (Kropotkin, 1976, 74). Therefore, what makes a species survive is the opposite of competition.

“Don’t compete! – competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!” That is the tendency of nature, not always realised in full but always present. This is the watchword that comes to us from the bush, the forest, the river, the ocean. “Therefore, combine – practice mutual aid!” That is the surest means for giving to each the greatest safety, the best guarantee of existence and progress, bodily, intellectual, and moral. (Kropotkin, 1976, 75).

Kropotkin extends his analysis beyond the broad examination of “survival of the fittest” in the animal kingdom, emphasising the human species. His argument is threefold. His first point is that given nature’s overall inclination towards mutual assistance, it would be unusual for humans to deviate from this pattern. It would seem odd if humans, initially so vulnerable, did not rely on mutual support like other animals but instead engaged in fierce competition for personal gain. He then turns to insights from anthropology. By examining human groups that resemble our ancestors, he challenges the belief that human existence is in constant conflict. Instead, he highlights that throughout the paleo-ethnology of humanity, individuals lived in societies similar to those of highly developed mammals. Kropotkin suggests that these societies are characterised by bands or tribes rather than isolated families and represent the earliest form of human organisation.

It is important to note that our innate tendency to be cooperative, altruistic and empathetic does not preclude us from having opposing tendencies. In particular, Struhl (2016) highlights our tendency to be competitive⁷. These tendencies toward competition and cooperation seem to coexist with each other. But what is meant by a ‘tendency’? We can think of it as biological potentialities. While specific genes determine some structures in the brain, most brain structures result from the interaction between genes and the environment. In other words, we, as a human species, are not biologically determined to be either competitive or cooperative. These are just potentialities (or tendencies) that genes manifest in a particular environment. It is no surprise that nowadays, we consider ourselves competitive because our socio-economic environment facilitates the expression of competitive tendencies rather than cooperative ones.

To summarise, we live in a socio-economic environment where competition is the predominant mode of our day-to-day behaviour. Moreover, the majority embrace competition and consider it to be ‘good’. This attitude towards competition, however, can be due to a misleading and distorted interpretation of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Competitiveness is just one of the tendencies or potentialities, but there is another – the tendency to cooperate. These tendencies coexist, and genes manifest these tendencies according to the environment in which we live. Is it not preposterous to accept the ‘fact’ that we are competitive creatures rather than to change our environment to facilitate the expression of cooperative tendencies? While we cannot completely eradicate competition from our nature, we can, at least, promote a society in which cooperation will be the predominant mode of our daily lives.

---

This week’s podcast discusses the apparent dichotomy of competition and cooperation in life and work. Check out the episode and subscribe on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, or here on Substack.

---

References

1. Dennis, K. G., 1977. ‘Competition’ in the History of Economic Thought. New York, Arno Press

2. Darwin, C. (2016). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.

3. Portera, M., 2016. Is capitalism in our genes? Competition, cooperation and the idea of homo oeconomicus from an evolutionary perspective. Filozofija i društvo, 27(1), pp.119-130.

4. Spencer, H. (2020). The Principles of Biology: Volume 1. Outlook Verlag.

5. Mesoudi, A., 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesise the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

6. Kropotkin, Petr. 1976. Mutual Aid. Boston, Massachusetts: Porter Sargent Publishers

7. Struhl, K.J., 2016. Marx and human nature: The historical, the trans-historical, and human flourishing. Science & Society, 80(1), pp.78-104.