Capitalist Contexts for Darwinian Theory: Land, Finance, Industry and Empire

When socio-economic contexts are sought for Darwin's science, it is customary to turn to the Industrial Revolution. However, important issues about the long run of England's capitalisms can only be recognised by taking a wider view than Industrial Revolution historiographies tend to engage...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the history of biology 2009, Vol.42 (3), p.399-416
Main Author: Hodge, M. J. S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biology
British Industrial Revolution
Capitalism
Capitalization
Darwinism
Economics
England
Evolution
Finance
General points
Historians
History
History of medicine and histology
History of Science
History of science and technology
History of science in relation to other disciplinary fields
History, 19th Century
Humans
Industry - history
Investments - history
Land economics
Land use
Life sciences
Natural selection
Palaeontology
evolution
genetics
Philosophy
Philosophy of Biology
Political revolutions
Politics
Selection, Genetic
Social Class
Socioeconomics
Sociology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:When socio-economic contexts are sought for Darwin's science, it is customary to turn to the Industrial Revolution. However, important issues about the long run of England's capitalisms can only be recognised by taking a wider view than Industrial Revolution historiographies tend to engage. The role of land and finance capitalisms in the development of the empire is one such issue. If we historians of Darwin's science allow ourselves a distinction between land and finance capitalisms on the one hand and industrial capitalism on the other; and if we ask with which side of this divide were Darwin and his theory of branching descent by natural selection aligned, then reflection on leading features of that theory, including its Malthusian elements, suggests that the answer is often and largely, though not exclusively: on the land side. The case of Wallace, socialist opponent of land capitalism, may not be as anomalous for this suggestion as one might at first think. Social and economic historians have reached no settled consensuses on the long-run of England's capitalisms. We historians of Darwin's science would do well to import some of these unsettled states of discussion into our own work over the years to come.
ISSN:0022-5010
1573-0387
DOI:10.1007/s10739-009-9187-y