This article starts with critical analysis about the role the biology, especially the evolution and genetics played in the history and society. So this article tris to answer how reasonable it really is to analyze the human and society biologically as the advocates of Social Darwinism and eugenics of the U.S. did during the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. In particular, this article is to look into the ideology and practice of Herbert Spencer, William G. Sumner and Charles B. Davenport, whose names were raised as the prime advocates of Social Darwinism and eugenics in the U.S. They attempted to defend traditional morality of the U.S. which was supposed to be faced with crisis, and tried to draw a new image of the future by combining their religious and social desire with evolutionary science in vain.
Spencer, Sumner and Davenport believed that human nature as well as morality and the evil and pain of society were the object of biological analysis and the answer to the social problems could be provided by science such as rule of evolution and heredity. However, their religious and social desire ended up in justification of capitalistic and imperial competition and excluding the minority and socially weak from the society. It is doubtful whether it is possible to draw new norm and order of society with the information related to physiological characteristic of a human, and whether it is possible to interpret biologically the problems of human pain such as social crime, poverty and ignorance.
We witness a flux of efforts to interpret ourselves in terms of evolutionary processes, including who we are, why we are here, and how we should live. The appearance of the ideology and practice of the advocates of social Darwinism and eugenics of the U.S. in the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th centuries will offer a poignant caveat for those upsurge of biologizing tendency on human life and society.