Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power Book

This book is about social cooperation and its preservation, and how the State is used as a tool for some people to exploit other people. That, of course, is not what Sumner is supposed to have written about: he is supposed to have been a heartless "social Darwinist".

Sumner warns against the risk of plutocracy. He is considered a "social Darwinist", along with Spencer, because of his views that the State shouldn't take from some to give to others, even if those others are poor. What is seldom said is that neither Spencer nor Sumner were against helping those in need: they just thought that wasn't for the State to do.

The last chapter is about how people should help each other because no one is free from making mistakes. That doesn't sound like a "social Darwinist", right? There are some comments that may sound shocking, about saving people from their own folly at the expense of those that worked hard. But Sumner's argument is more about not undermining responsibility, which is characteristic of the free man, and not punishing people for their virtues. A considerable number of pages is about unions, and how they can be beneficial. Hardly "social Darwinist" material. That rights and duties, freedom and responsibilities go together is one of Sumner's main points. But he argues along the lines that this is so because this is how society is preserved: people rely on each other. Some of his arguments remind one of Public Choice theory, and he warns against what we today call "crony capitalism", whose main victim is "The Forgotten Man", who is not precisely a rich man.

Sumner's phrase "the struggle for existence" is sometimes mentioned to describe his "social Darwinism". Yet, the phrase doesn't refer to a fight of man against man in which the stronger will prevail: it refers to the fight of man against Nature: the struggle for life, in which we are all partners.

So, next time you see someone accusing Sumner of being a heartless monster, ask the accuser whether he actually read his books. This isn't to say Sumner's opinions can't be found objectionable. But as much as one may object Sumner's and Spencer's views about the role of the State, one should not misrepresent them. Sumner thought that the free society, which is the one that achieves more for everyone, particularly the poor, was in danger if the State was used as a tool for taking from some to give to others.