The Rich Get Richer:Social Evolutionary Thinking in the Operation of Redistribution Programs
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-2003 The rich get richer:social evolutionary thinking in the operation of redistribution programs Eric Sawyers Roark Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Recommended Citation Roark, Eric Sawyers, "The rich get richer:social evolutionary thinking in the operation of redistribution programs" (2003). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 20014. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/20014 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The rich get richer: Social evolutionary thinking in the operation of redistribution programs by Eric Sawyers Roark A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Sociology Program of Study Committee: William Woodman (Major Professor) Kathleen Waggoner Robert Hollinger Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2003 II Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the master's thesis of Eric Sawyers Roark has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University Signatures have been redacted for privacy 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The Social and Political Dynamics of Wealth Accumulation 3 Fundamental (Foundational) Social Question(s) 7 Statement of the Problem 14 Primary Objectives 16 Research (Thought) Question 17 The Contrarian 19 The Interventionist 20 Why Social Evolutionary Theory 21 CHAPTER 2. THE BUILDING OF SOCIAL EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS 27 Theory or Thought 27 The Origins of Linear Time 33 Newtonian Physics 35 History as an Evolutionary Metaphor 37 CHAPTER 3. A THEORY OF EVOLUTION, DARWINAN STYLE 43 Linking Darwinism and Social Concerns 43 The Development of Darwinism 46 Darwinian Evolutionary Principles 48 CHAPTER 4. DARWIN'S INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCES 55 Newtonian Influences 55 The Malthus-Darwin Connection 57 Making Evolution Fit into an Enlightenment Vision of Political Economy 63 CHAPTER 5. EVOLUTIONISM IN SOCIOLOGY 67 Background 67 Scientific Magic 69 Prominent Social Evolutionary Thinkers 72 Confronting the "Ugly" Side of Social Evolutionism 75 Organicism and Naturalism 77 lV CHAPTER 6. THE INTERVENTIONIST 80 A Deeper Reading of the Ideal Type 80 Making "Natural Selection" Applicable to People 84 Interventionist Thought 85 Karl Marx: Anti-Interventionist 87 Rosseau: Artificial Inequality 88 Lester Ward: Debunking Nature 90 Kropotkin: Cooperation Not Competition 91 Veblen: The Rich Deserve What 93 CHAPTER 7. THE INTEVENTIONIST ARGUMENT 97 Framing the Argument 97 A "Conservative Continuance," as Opposed to a History of Nation-States 98 Finding the Theoretical Origins of an Interventionist' s Social Order 102 The Social Structure of the Savage l 06 The Social Group Survives and Distributes Interdependently 108 Generational Technological Interdependence 111 Barbarism: Agrarianism Begins Class Interdependence 113 The Functional Creation of Class 116 The Guidance of the Priest and the Reciprocity of the Peasant 11 7 Class as a Means of Protection 120 The Emergence of Class Perceived Opportunity 126 Summing Up the Argument 131 CHAPTER 8. THE CONTRARIAN REBUTTAL 133 Contrarian Thought Examined 13 3 John Locke as an Alternative to Edmond Burke 135 Nietzsche and the "Will to Power" 140 Herbert Spencer: The Apex of "Evolutionary Individualism" 145 William Graham Sumner: The Forgotten Man 158 Closing Thoughts on the Use of Discourse and Ideal Types 162 V CHAPTER 9. SOCIAL EVOLUTIONISM AND AMERICAN POVERTY 164 Making Poverty Welfare Real 164 The History of American Poverty Welfare Prior to the Civil War 165 American Poverty Welfare Post Civil War 17 4 The Roosevelt Era 178 CONCLUDING REMARKS 186 APPENDIX A. REP. GEPHARDT'S CAMPAIGN SPEECH 189 APPENDIX B. STATE POVERTY WELFARE DATA 192 REFERENCES 205 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 216 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This thesis is not the typical work that one might expect to be created within a department of sociology at a research one institution. I give this warning now as a respectful request to look elsewhere is "typical" sociological analysis is desired. Contemporary American mainstream sociological endeavors are often both atheoretical and ahistorical, and as such often lacking the innovation that ought to accompany the study of social relationships. Theory driven approaches, it is commonly believed, must be sacrificed in the name of more valid and reliable quantitative techniques. Further, numbers-based data is often believed to offer something approaching "value-free" research. 1 The number is largely universal, and not subject to the same subjective attacks as the written word. In the attempt to avoid attack, the number has replaced imaginative judgment. Numbers have their place in sociological research, but this place is much more limited than the pages of mainstream sociological journals would suggest. What can a number, even aptly interpreted, accomplish? It can tell you what did happen, but little more. On occasion this "accomplishment" is enough to address the research question under review, but often such an ex post-facto review is treated with more aspiration and enthusiasm than is reasonably warranted. Why trade a number representing a glimpse of the past with a qualitative or theoretical approach to sociology that is often more inventive and 1 Max Weber is often attributed as endorsing the idea of "value free" research. Actually a closer, less superficial, reading of Weber's work reveals that Weber himself was quite skeptical as to the ability of removing subjectivity from the domain of academic (sociological) research. 2 imaginative?2 Where has the imagination of sociology gone? I am unsure of where the imagination has gone, but one reason suggests why it has gone. The worst action that one can take, provided they are not wearing a black robe and holding a gavel, is to judge. Judgment, if a secular religion is said to exist, is the venial sin of contemporary America. We are so afraid to judge others with our "subjective" conclusions, that instead cold, impersonal numbers are used as a way of avoiding such an insensitive and subjective fate. Judgments must be rendered carefully and with much consideration, but if social advancement is to occur they must be rendered. Furthermore, making a judgment might well mean that you will be called to defend it, and this defense might prove difficult or worse uncomfortable. Judgment likely leads to conflict, and sadly many professional sociologists would rather evaluate and be left alone than judge and defend their stance. To avoid judgment is to choose ease, but if sociologists refuse to address the difficult -or the fundamental, as I will later discuss- the discipline will fall to those that are less squeamish about rendering judgment. Judgment is understandably feared because it might lead to being "wrong," but when judgment itself is treated as wrong sociologists are condemning themselves to a far worse fate than potentially being considered wrong. Where there is no judgment there is no debate, and any intellectual discipline withers when confronted with this proposition. As you read this thesis I invite you to evaluate the ideas therein, and by all 2 In no way am I suggesting the elimination of quantitative endeavors in sociological research. I am, however, concerned about why an ever-increasing theme of mainstream sociologists is to label the number good and the thoughtful sentence as bad, or worse insignificant. Actually, most serious sociological methodologists argue that the best research blends a heavy dose of quantitative and qualitative approaches. 3 means please judge them. If you do not my effort and your time will have meant nothing. The Social and Political Dynamics of Wealth Accumulation "What I want to see above all else is that this country remain a country where someone can always get rich." This telling sentiment offered by former President Ronald Reagan might correspond well with certain economically driven ideological conceptions of the "American Dream."3 Many notable social and political thinkers, however, have warned about the insurgence of potentially destructive (socially disorganizing) forces within a social order endorsing an economic system placing the material wealth of a sociopolitical community in the hands of a few. Writing in 1625, during the birth of the Enlightenment, Francis Bacon forewarned that if getting rich was a goal to be realized by only a few, which has represented the American experience both before and after the legacy of Former President Reagan,4 an undesirable social structure could emerge. As Bacon (1625) argued, Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and monies in a state be not gathered in the hands of a few. For otherwise a state may have great stock and yet starve. Money is like muck not good unless it be spread. In addition, William Graham Summer an influential late nineteenth and early twentieth century American sociologist argued a similar point. Sumner (1909:3) maintained, The tendency of "a rapid accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few" is the subject which, with increasing insistency, occupies the chief attention of the American people. Already huge accumulations of property by corporate consolidations, accumulations such as the world has never seen, are subject to single control. .. In such a situation it does not take the public long to discover that monopoly and duress are identical - customers must deal with you or go without - and that is what gives value to monopoly. 3 The "American Dream" of prosperity is usually invoked as an appeal "to all." It is fair to ask, however, whether the "someone" in Reagan's commentary can actually represent all, or if the "someone" is (must be) limited by number in some specific economic or social fashion.