What Social Classes Owe to Each Other was written by William Graham Sumner in 1883. In this excerpted passage Sumner explains what social classes should do for each other. He starts off by arguing that humanitarians and social reformers are in the wrong for trying to take something earned by one man and support another. Throughout his paper he argues that the separation between rich and poor is how society is supposed to be. He was not in support of welfare-like programs because money people earned was being used to support the “dead-weights” of society. Sumner reasoned that the one action the rich should take on behalf of the poor was to fight for equal opportunity for everyone. “We owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances.” His argument here stems from his avid belief in social Darwinism. Equal opportunity for all would create an environment where some would succeed because of individual capability and others would fail because of a lack of skill. William Sumner thought that the best way to support the poor was to “increase, multiply, and extend the chances.”
In this excerpt Sumner takes a much more factual and logical approach. His use of logos is very apparent throughout the excerpt. Two examples are both of Sumner’s definitions of a “poor man” and a “weak man”. Another example of his use of logos is in his sarcastic ridicule of philanthropists’ social reform. “Poverty is the best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to support you.”
Sumner’s use of pathos also comes in logical form. There are few places where he appeals to the emotional side of his readers. A society based on contract, therefore, gives the utmost room and chance for individual development, and for all the self-reliance and dignity of a free man.” Though his argument is logical, he is trying to play on the same emotional strings connected to independence from Britain and the feeling of superiority of free white men.
His appeal to ethos is quite simple. By his use of proper grammar, extended vocabulary, and a respectful tone throughout his excerpt he succeeds in presenting himself and his theory as respectable, knowledgeable, and commendable.
I do not believe this excerpt or book has much historical significance. It was written in 1883 in response to the economic growth and development during the Gilded Age and addressed questions that many people had about free labor and its effects on society. Though this book most likely helped the supporters of social Darwinism, it did not have a fundamental impact on American society.
I do find Sumner’s argument to be somewhat convincing. I am not in complete agreement with his idea that there should be no form of social support that offers capital; I do agree that the best way to help an impoverished man is to give him the skills necessary to succeed and provide as many options as possible for him. For the time period, many people must have found his argument convincing because of his polished use of logic and his high position at a renowned university.
Uche, great job with your TA!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this book was not along the same lines as Lincoln's Inaugural addresses with the importance and impact. I do however think it is important to study because it is a great example of how Darwinism became widely acknowledged in the second half of the 19th century. Sumner's arguments were a common held belief that discouraged charity and encouraged the self sufficient ideal.
What I found interesting about this excerpt is that he did not attempt to appeal to the emotions. There was no imagery or anecdotes to invoke sympathy. Sumner was very deliberant in this. Because he is arguing citizens to stop aiding "the man who had done nothing to raise himself above poverty," he is requesting they see this form of charity logically instead of emotionally (p.43). Therefore, like you said, he uses little emotional appeal other than logic.
Like you, I thought he had a sophisticated and persuading argument that appealed to the men with the most power--business men. His argument was very logical and would attract those who made their way on their own. By addressing the middle-class that rose out of poverty independently, he does an excellent job of appealing to both the upper-class and middle-class citizens.
I thought you summed up Sumner's word well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observation of his lack of emotional appeal. I believe this was partly due to the audience he was targeting, and the idea being sent to them. Its hard to appeal to someones emotional side when telling them not to help fellow humans.
Also, by presenting himself with little emotional involvement, he can again accredit is opinion even further. I say this because the people being spoken too were most likely middle, to upper-middle class business men, who for the most part, valued logic over emotion simply as a principal of business.
I also agree with your own personal opinion of the article. I think that forms of help should be provided to the more down-trodden members of society, but it should not be given in the form of money. Educate these people, teach them skills that can be useful for acquiring jobs.