Abstract
The expressions “struggle for existence,” “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” are the catchphrases associated with the theories of evolution that swept through American society in the late nineteenth century. The particular focus of this paper1 is the way these phrases gained currency and were used in contemporary explanations of American industrial competition. The context for their usage was the well-known growth of “Big Business.” Large firms organized into cartels and oligopolies known generically as “trusts,” and their ruthless methods of competition became disturbingly widespread in the American economy, and hence in the subject of economic commentary, from the 1880s onwards.2 In order to make sense of the new phenomena and offer policy prescriptions, American economists used the metaphors both to explain the historical emergence of the trusts, and to categorize and interpret the changes in behavior and in industrial structure.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See the classic work by A. D. Chandler, “The Beginnings of “Big Business” in American Industry,” Business History Review 33 (1959), 1–31
A. D. Chandler, The Visible Hand: the Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977)
Carl Degler, The Age of the Economic Revolution (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Co, 1997)
N. R. Lamoreaux, The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
Elsewhere, see M. S. Morgan, “Competing Notions of “Competition” in Late-Nineteenth Century American Economics,” History of Political Economy (1993), forthcoming. I have given an account of the different notions of competition utilized by economists in their attempts to understand the “new competition” and its development. Their responses were surprisingly varied: competition was seen as an institution, a law of nature, an agent of natural law and an economic law. This paper extends my earlier analysis in a particular direction.
The classic work is R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1944)
D. C. Bellomy, “‘Social Darwinism’ Revisited,” Perspectives in American History New Series 1 (1984), 1–129
Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
J. J. Spengler, “Evolutionism in American Economics, 1800–1946” in S. Persons (ed.), Evolutionary Thought in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950).
G. M. Hodgson, Economics and Evolution (forthcoming).
R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 1944, p. 144.
Sometime between the early classical economics of Adam Smith and the neoclassical economics of the twentieth century, the concept of competition did become more important and undergo some changes. No doubt, there was some influence from evolutionary biology. But this is boggy and treacherous ground, for such general changes are exceedingly difficult to pin down. For other influences at work, see K. G. Dennis, ‘Competition’ in the History of Economic Thought (New York: Arno Press, 1977) for one of a few accounts of the changing notions of competition over the longer period.
S. Fine, Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1957).
S. Maasen, “Who is Afraid of Metaphors?” in this volume. By comparison with other fields, interest in the role of metaphors in economics is rather limited and recent, dating only from W. Henderson, “Metaphor in Economics,” Economics (Winter, 1982).
Though see P. M. Hejl, “The Importance of the Concepts of ‘Organism’ and ‘Evolution’ in E. Durkheim’s ‘Division of Labor’ and the influence of H. Spencer,” and A. La Vergata, “Herbert Spencer: Biology, Sociology, and Cosmic Evolution,” in this volume and Hodgson op. cit. (forthcoming). Note 4, Chap. 6.
See for example, R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 1944, p. 144, Note 4, Chap. 2
S. Fine, Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1957, Note 7, Chap. 2
D. Ross, The Origins of American Social Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), Part II.
H. Spencer, Social Statics (1850, American edition 1864).
R. T. Ely, Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (New York: MacMillan, 1903), pp. 6–7.
On Sumner, see R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 1944, p. 144, Note 4, Chap. 3
B. Curtis, William Graham Sumner (Boston: Twayne, 1981).
See A. W. Coats, “The First Two Decades of the American Economic Association,” American Economic Review 50 (1960), 555–574, for a discussion of the foundation of the association
J. Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization 1865–1918 (New York: Arno Press, 1949), Vol. 3, Part II for a good general discussion of the economics of the period.
J. Dorfman, Science Economic Discussion (New York: The Science Co., 1886) for a contemporary debate between old and new style economists
R. T. Ely, “The Past and Present of Political Economy,” Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, Second Series, III (Baltimore, 1884) for a statement of the new school.
Mary O. Furner, Advocacy and Objectivity (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1975) gives an excellent account of the professionalization of economics at this time.
H. Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1876-96).
See H. C. Adams, “The Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” Publications of the AEA 16 (1987), 471–549, for a discussion of the German versus English influences on the economics of himself and his peers.
See H. Spencer, The Principles of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1950), pp. 206–211, Note 4 and for early economics writings
Paul Conkin, Prophets of Prosperity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980).
See T. C. Cochran and W. Miller, The Age of Enterprise (New York: MacMillan, 1942), Chap. VI
S. Fine, Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1957, Chap. 4, Note 7
M. Lerner, “The Triumph of Laissez-faire” in A. M. Schlesinger Jr. and M. White (eds.), Paths of American Thought (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963).
See R. C. Bannister, “ ‘The Survival of the Fittest is our Doctrine’: History or Histrionics?” Journal of the History of Ideas 31(3) (1970), 377–398
See R. C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979).
J. J. Spengler, “Evolutionism in American Economics, 1800–1946” in S. Persons (ed.), Evolutionary Thought in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950). Note 4.
See for example, W. G. Sumner, “Earth Hunger or the Philosophy of Land Grabbing,” (1896) in A. G. Keller (ed.), Earth Hunger and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913)
See for example, W. G. Sumner, “A Group of Natural Monopolies” (1888) in A. G. Keller (ed.), Earth Hunger and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913)
See for example, W. G. Sumner “The Challenge of Facts,” (undated) in A. G. Keller, (ed.) The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914). Sumner was a fan of Spencer, but also appreciated that Darwin represented the “best yet” theory of evolution in biology
B. Curtis, William Graham Sumner (Boston: Twayne, 1981). Note 14, Chap. 5.
W. G. Sumner, “The Concentration of Wealth: Its Economic Justification,” (1902) in A. G. Keller, (ed.) The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914).
J. B. Clark, “The Limits of Competition” in Modern Distributive Process, with F. H. Giddings (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), pp. 2 and 3–4 [Originally published in Political Science Quarterly 2 (1887), 45–61].
J. B. Clark, The Control of Trusts (New York, Macmillan, 1901; Second edition, with J. M. Clark, 1912), p. 33.
See for good examples J. B. Clark, The Philosophy of Wealth (New York, Macmillan, 1886), Chap. IX
A. T. Hadley, Standards of Public Morality, 1906 John S. Kennedy Lectures (New York: MacMillan, 1907), Chap. 2
T. B. Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, 1904, Chap. VIII (reprinted by Augustus Kelley, New York, 1965).
W. G. Sumner, “What Makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer?” (1887), A. G. Keller, (ed.) The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914). p. 67.
W. G. Sumner, “What Makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer?” (1887), A. G. Keller, (ed.) The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1902). p. 67, Note 23.
Sumner has been portrayed in the literature on Social Darwinism as a conservative, which indeed he was. Although it is fashionable nowadays to deride the early literature, Goldman’s distinction between conservative and reformist Social Darwinism still remains valid, at least in the field under discussion here, E. F. Goldman, Rendezvous with Destiny (New York: Knopf, 1953).
On the reformist Ely, see J. R. Everett, Religion in Economics (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1946), Chap. 3.
R. T. Ely, Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (New York: MacMillan, 1903), pp. 6–7, Note 13, pp. 139–140.
Ward was both a natural and social scientist. Though Ward himself was highly critical of Spencer, they shared many elements in their evolutionary thinking On Ward, see R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 1944, p. 144, Note 4, Chap. 4.
R. T. Ely, Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (New York: MacMillan, 1903), pp. 6–7, Note 12, p. 142. Ward went further than this and claimed that competition did not lead to the survival of the fittest, rather that the removal of competition in the natural sphere allowed the maximum development level to be quickly reached (as in the case of agricultural breeding) (see L. F. Ward, Outlines of Sociology (New York: MacMillan, 1897), pp. 257–258).
See the above quote from . J. B. Clark, “The Limits of Competition” in Modern Distributive Process, with F. H. Giddings (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), pp. 2 and 3–4 [Originally published in Political Science Quarterly 2 (1887), 45–61], Note 24, p. 2.
J. E. Cairnes, Some Leading Principles of Political Economy (London: MacMillan, 1874), Chap. 3, para. 5.
J. B. Clark, “The Limits of Competition” in Modern Distributive Process, with F. H. Giddings (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), pp. 2 and 3–4 [Originally published in Political Science Quarterly 2 (1887), 45–61], Note 24, p. 15.
F. H. Giddings, “The Persistence of Competition” in Modern Distributive Process, with J. B. Clark (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), pp. 31–32. (Originally published in Political Science Quarterly 2 (1887), 62–78.)
Ely drew on H. C. Adams, “The Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” Publications of the AEA 16 (1987), 471–549, Note 17, who in turn drew on Jevons’ analysis.
R. T. Ely, Problems of To-day (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1888), p. 124.
See J. B. Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York: MacMillan, 1899). In Clark’s first book, op. cit., 1886, Note 27, neither his description of population nor that of competition made use of the evolutionary metaphors which suddenly became evident, in a strong form, in his treatment of 1887/8.
Thereafter they began to wane so there was again almost nothing left in his 1907 textbook, J. B. Clark, Essentials of Economic Theory (New York, MacMillan, 1907). On Clark’s changing view of competition, see Morgan, op. cit., 1993, Note 3; and Everett, op. cit., 1946, Note 30, Chap. 2.
C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; London: Penguin, 1968), p. 134.
J. B. Clark, “The Limits of Competition” in Modern Distributive Process, with F. H. Giddings (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1899), Note 42, p. 254.
Thus those races or groups with better institutions had an advantage over those with poorer or more rigid laws and customs (see A. T. Hadley, Economics: An Account of the Relations between Private Property and Public Welfare (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896), paras 20–26).
He distinguished between those who were truly competent in the organization of production, and thus deserved to succeed, from those who merely made it through financial manipulation, as Veblen was later to distinguish more clearly (see A. T. Hadley, Standards of Public Morality, 1906 John S. Kennedy Lectures (New York: MacMillan, 1904), Note 27).
A. T. Hadley, Standards of Public Morality, 1906 John S. Kennedy Lectures (New York: MacMillan, 1907), Chap. 2; Note 27, pp. 59–60.
A. T. Hadley, Railroad Transportation: Its History and its Laws (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1885), p. 99.
See Morgan, op. cit., 1993, Note 3
M. Cross and R. B. Ekelund, “A. T. Hadley on Monopoly Theory and Railroad Regulation: An American Contribution to Economic Analysis and Policy,” HOPE 12 (1980), 214–233.
For good examples, see The Chicago Conference on Trusts [held Sept 13–16, 1899] The Civic Federation of Chicago: Chicago, 1900 (republished, New York: Arno Press, 1973) and the US Industrial Commission Reports on Trusts. (1899 and 1900).
See P. Weingart, “Struggle for Existence — Selection and Retention of a Metaphor,” in this volume, for the lack of influence of evolutionary metaphors in the commercial field in Germany. For a contemporary German commentary on American trusts of the period, see E. von Halle, Trusts of Industrial Combinations and Coalitions in the United States (New York: MacMillan, 1895).
See H. D. Lloyd, Wealth against Commonwealth (New York: Harper, 1894)
for a more restrained treatment, J. W. Jenks, The Trust Problem (New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1903), Chap. X.
See E. A. Ross, Sin and Society (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1907)
T. B. Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise, 1904, Chap. VIII (reprinted by Augustus Kelley, New York, 1965). Note 27.
The more well-known phrase, “the robber barons” was popularized by Josephson’s 1934 book, M. Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists. 1861–1901 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1934) which captures perfectly the late nineteenth century view of the chief entrepreneurs as medieval warlords who acted with force and outside the law. The description by Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization (New York: MacMillan, 1927), Vol II, Chap. XX, remains one of the most colorful of a large literature.
L. F. Ward, “The Psychologic Basis of Social Economics,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 3 (1893), 89.
A. T. Hadley, Standards of Public Morality, 1906 John S. Kennedy Lectures (New York: MacMillan, 1907), Chap. 2; Note 27, p. 60.
See L. F. Ward, “The Psychologic Basis of Social Economics,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 3 (1893), 89, Note 55, pp. 4, 464–482 and Ely, op. cit., 1903, Note 13, Part II, Chaps. I and II.
J. B. Clark, The Control of Trusts (New York, Macmillan, 1901; Second edition, with J. M. Clark, 1912), p. 33, Note 26, p. 20.
R. T. Ely, Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (New York: MacMillan, 1903), pp. 6–7, Note 13, p. 97.
H. Spencer, The Principles of Ethics (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1892-93), Book II, para 397.
See R. T. Ely, Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (New York: MacMillan, 1903), pp. 6–7, Note 13, p. 97, Note 13, Part II, Chap. IV
H. C. Adams, “The Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” Publications of the AEA 16 (1887), 471–549, Note 17.
See J. B. Clark, The Problem of Monopoly (New York: MacMillan, 1904).
See for example, H. George, Progress and Poverty (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1882).
C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; London: Penguin, 1968), p. 134, Note 43, p. 117.
C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; London: Penguin, 1968), p. 129.
For example, see W. G. Sumner, “The Concentration of Wealth: Its Economic Justification,” (1902) in A. G. Keller, (ed.) The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914), Note 22, p. 25.
Perhaps this explains why, as J. J. Spengler, “Evolutionism in American Economics, 1800–1946” in S. Persons (ed.), Evolutionary Thought in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), Note 3, p. 211, suggests, the theory of natural selection became almost synonymous with theory of evolution for most economists.
More recent attempts to transfer evolutionary theories, post understanding of genes, etc. by, for example, R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1982) have proved problematic in some of the same ways.
C. Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; London: Penguin, 1968), p. 127, Note 43.
See Hejl, op. cit., 1992, Note 10.
An instructive comparison is with the examples of physics transfers into economics involving theories, entities, and models in nonhistorical forms (see M. Boumans, A Case of Limited Physics Transfer (unpub. Phd diss., University of Amsterdam 1992), and P. Mirowski, More Heat than Light (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
The importance of biology in changing our understanding of variation within populations and variation over time has been emphasized by T. M. Porter, The Rise of Statistical Thinking (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
See P. L. Williams, The Emergence of the Theory of the Firm (London, MacMillan, 1978).
P. L. Williams, The Emergence of the Theory of the Firm (London, MacMillan, 1978), p. 39.
Its most famous product was T. B. Veblen, Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: MacMillan, 1899) which in many respects is riven with evolutionary thinking. See also Veblen’s important essay on the evolutionary approach in economics
T. B. Veblen, “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 12 (1898), 373–397. It is notable that the modern disciples of American institutionalism call their organization the “Association of Evolutionary Economists.”
See C. D. W. Goodwin, “Marginalism Moves to the New World” in R. D. Collison Black, A. W. Coats and C. D. W. Goodwin (eds.), The Marginal Revolution in Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 1973) on the mixture of methods and gradual usage of marginal thinking in the period
J. Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization 1865–1918 (New York: Arno Press, 1949), Vol. 3, Part II for a good general discussion of the economics of the period, Note 15, on the German element.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morgan, M.S. (1991). Evolutionary Metaphors in Explanations of American Industrial Competition. In: Maasen, S., Mendelsohn, E., Weingart, P. (eds) Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors. Sociology of the Sciences, vol 18. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0673-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0673-3_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0251-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0673-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive