Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens

<p><strong><em>To elevate or to exterminate? Evolution theory and the ‘Man’s ability to be transformed’<br /></em></strong>Around 1900, Belgian scientists from different disciplines were tempted to use the theory of evolution as a tool to make pronouncements about...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: R. de Bont
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Journals 2007-01-01
Series:BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/articles/6665
id doaj-81ad89787954409587171cbe71e9301c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-81ad89787954409587171cbe71e9301c2021-10-02T07:53:11ZengOpen JournalsBMGN: Low Countries Historical Review0165-05052211-28982007-01-01122450351810.18352/bmgn-lchr.66656633Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mensR. de Bont<p><strong><em>To elevate or to exterminate? Evolution theory and the ‘Man’s ability to be transformed’<br /></em></strong>Around 1900, Belgian scientists from different disciplines were tempted to use the theory of evolution as a tool to make pronouncements about the ‘Man’s ability to be transformed’. Although<em> </em>some biologists did examine this issue, it was primarily sociologists, anthropologists, educationalists, criminologists and eugenicists who used biological language to tackle the question. In this article I argue that these commentators can be divided into two groups: the determinists and the voluntarists.  The first tended to believe in an evolution that was determined by an insurmountable struggle for life.</p><p> </p><p>A larger group of voluntarists, however, believed human evolution could be adjusted by changing the milieu in which people lived. In spite of this difference, the two groups also had a lot in common. Both used biological terminology to argue for a new type of government, which was completely ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’. In this way, both became defenders of what can be described as a ‘depoliticization’ of politics.</p><p> </p><p>This article is part of the special issue '<a href="/412/volume/122/issue/4/">De menselijke canon en de Lage Landen</a>'.</p>https://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/articles/6665Science, history of
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author R. de Bont
spellingShingle R. de Bont
Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
Science, history of
author_facet R. de Bont
author_sort R. de Bont
title Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
title_short Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
title_full Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
title_fullStr Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
title_full_unstemmed Verdelgen of verheffen? De evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
title_sort verdelgen of verheffen? de evolutietheorie en de maakbaarheid van de mens
publisher Open Journals
series BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
issn 0165-0505
2211-2898
publishDate 2007-01-01
description <p><strong><em>To elevate or to exterminate? Evolution theory and the ‘Man’s ability to be transformed’<br /></em></strong>Around 1900, Belgian scientists from different disciplines were tempted to use the theory of evolution as a tool to make pronouncements about the ‘Man’s ability to be transformed’. Although<em> </em>some biologists did examine this issue, it was primarily sociologists, anthropologists, educationalists, criminologists and eugenicists who used biological language to tackle the question. In this article I argue that these commentators can be divided into two groups: the determinists and the voluntarists.  The first tended to believe in an evolution that was determined by an insurmountable struggle for life.</p><p> </p><p>A larger group of voluntarists, however, believed human evolution could be adjusted by changing the milieu in which people lived. In spite of this difference, the two groups also had a lot in common. Both used biological terminology to argue for a new type of government, which was completely ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’. In this way, both became defenders of what can be described as a ‘depoliticization’ of politics.</p><p> </p><p>This article is part of the special issue '<a href="/412/volume/122/issue/4/">De menselijke canon en de Lage Landen</a>'.</p>
topic Science, history of
url https://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/articles/6665
work_keys_str_mv AT rdebont verdelgenofverheffendeevolutietheorieendemaakbaarheidvandemens
_version_ 1716857301736882176