Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change Macrosociology: Four Modern Theorists A Commentary on Malthus" 1798 Essay as Social Theory Great Classical Social Theorists In the Classical Tradition: Modern Social Theorists Dr. Elwell's Professional Page
|
rbert Spencer's Evolutionary Sociology T. Robert Malthus [1766-1834] | |
Reclaiming Malthus
by Frank W. Elwell
T. Robert
(Bob) Malthus, there is no comparable historical figure who has been so
thoroughly misunderstood in modern intellectual history. (Except
perhaps for Karl Marx—who ironically contributed much to the
misunderstandings or Charles Darwin who was inspired by Malthus). One reason that he is so thoroughly misunderstood has to
do with the political ramifications of his arguments. Communists and
socialists hate Malthus because he argued that inequality is rooted in the
very nature of man’s relationship to the environment, that mere structural
reform could never attain a just and equal society. Capitalists and
conservatives condemn him because he seemingly refutes the possibility of
unending industrial progress. A second set
of factors that affect the interpretation of the Essay is the explosive
social content of Malthus’ topics: welfare, infanticide, sex, marriage,
disease, infant mortality, family, birth control, faith, the poor,
self-interest, and charity. Because Malthus writes plainly of what is rather
than what ought to be, he is often characterized as a miser, one who
begrudges charity and help to the poor, a man who even approves of premature
death for those who can’t make it on their own. Even reputable social
scientists often equate his thought with the (misnamed) Social
Darwinists—some attributing to him the sentiments (if not the phrase)
“Survival of the Fittest,” seemingly gloating in the superiority of the
upper classes. Malthus image
also suffers among a wider audience. Dickens, for example, clearly
based his Scrooge character on his misreading of Malthus’ characterization
of the poor. When asked to contribute money to help the poor, Scrooge
responded:
"I wish to be
left alone. Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I
don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people
merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned [the Work
Houses and Prisons] they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go
there.'' ``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and
decrease the surplus population." While this
passage from Dickens is clearly based on Malthus’ writings, it is a gross
mischaracterization of both the letter and spirit of those writings.
But again, this sort of misrepresentation of Malthus occurs throughout the
secondary literature. It is perhaps
because of this misrepresentation and mischaracterization that Malthus is
rarely mentioned in introductory social science textbooks, and is usually
given short shrift in our social theory texts. The short
shrift consists of a summation of his “prediction.” And this is
usually summarized in the secondary literature like this: “Malthus predicted
that population growth would someday outstrip the production of food, and
that we would experience a population crash as a result.” The summary
then goes on to explain why his prediction is so very wrong. “Stupid
Malthus, he failed to consider advances in agricultural technology that can
feed far more people than he thought. He also excluded consideration
of birth control from his system. What a jerk!” And it isn’t
just Malthus’ critics that get this wrong, also many of his friends. They
usually begin by buying into the caricature of the prediction of some future
population crash. They go on to admit that while Malthus may have been
wrong to this point, we can not realistically expect technology to solve the
population problem indefinitely. Sooner or later the “Malthusian trap”
will be sprung. My book on Malthus is simply a 120-page commentary that is
closely footnoted to the Essay. By tying my commentary closely to
Malthus’ original Essay, I try to demonstrate how wrong the secondary
literature is about Malthus. The second
goal of the book is to lay bare the underlying theory of Malthus—for it is a
very sophisticated ecological/evolutionary theory Malthus lays out, not a
simplistic prediction of some distant population crash—and to point out how
relevant this theory is to understanding sociocultural systems. But I don’t
want to talk about my book at this point. Rather, I want to take a
brief side trip and talk about the discovery and writing process before
briefly mentioning some of what I discovered.
Discovery & Writing Process: I first
encountered Malthus, like most people in our culture, in the secondary
literature. In the early 1980s, after some 10 years in sociology I
became an advocate of ecological-evolutionary theory. In the
literature of ecological- evolutionary theory, some nice things are written
about Malthus. There is actually some reference to his work that does
not completely dismiss him as a lightweight. Gerhard Lenski, for
example, cites Malthus as one of his main theoretical influences.
Marvin Harris also pays some homage to Malthus. Though both give some nods
to the prevailing myth-information about Malthus’ supposed mistakes with
birth control, Social Darwinism, and technology, they also both make clear
that they find much that is useful in his thought. Then, about
five years ago I found a rough copy of Malthus’ 1798 Essay on the Web.
I decided to copy it, pretty it up some with nice formatting, and make it
available to my undergraduate students. In the
process of cleaning it up I started reading the Essay. I was astounded
first by how eloquent the man was. Second, I was surprised by the amount of
myth-information about Malthus that existed in the secondary literature. The man I was editing on my web pages bore little resemblance to the man I
had read about much of my adult life. After reading, cleaning up and
reformatting the Essay, I decided to highlight some key passages that I
found particularly relevant for understanding both Malthus’ theory and what
was going on in contemporary society. I got a little carried away and
ended up with some 124 hi-lighted passages. Then I
noticed that what Malthus had to say about many topics, Welfare for example,
was spread through out the Essay. So, I started cutting and pasting
passages and reorganizing the passages among chapter headings. I ended
up with 10 different topical sections of Malthus quotes, Malthus on Methods,
Theory, Materialism, Checks, Evolution, Functionalism, Inequality, Poor
Laws, and Progress. Each quote was then linked back to its original
context in the Essay itself.
Concurrently,
I had an opportunity to write briefly about Malthus in my book,
Industrializing America. To do
that I reviewed more specialized literature on Malthus. While I did
find pieces of Malthus here and there in this literature, I was again
surprised to find that even in books about Malthus there were often
mischaracterizations, cheap shots, and outright mistakes in describing
Malthus’ 1798 Essay. So, I decided, why not convert my Malthus
undergraduate site into a much-needed commentary on Malthus‘ 1798 Essay? So
over the course of several months I wrote a commentary on each of my topical
headings to better explain Malthus to an audience of undergraduates. My original
plan was to produce a cheap paperback version of Malthus' 1798 Essay with my
commentary serving as an introduction and guide. I had hoped it could
compete with all the other $7 to $10 versions of the Essay out there (many
with only short introductions). However, the publisher I had dealt
with in the past said there were already too many versions of the Essay out
there and rejected the manuscript. They did write, though, that if I
were to drop Malthus' original Essay and expand my commentary to book
length, they might be interested. Well, I am not that wordy. I
figured I wrote everything I wanted to write about Malthus in 120 pages, and
I believed the inclusion of Malthus' Essay (which I footnote in my
commentary very extensively) set my commentary apart from others. So, I sent
the manuscript off to another publisher. Mellen publishes books for
the research library niche--they do not attempt to market broadly. If
they sell 500 copies, they figure they have done well. They also promise to
keep it in print for 35 years. However, the price of the book is some
$90 a copy. Perhaps I should have tried some others, but when Mellen
accepted it, I figured what the heck. “So,” I rationalized, “rather
than try to change the hearts and minds of undergraduates and the
‘intellectual masses’ about Malthus, I would try to change the hearts and
minds of graduate students and serious researchers.” In time, I hope,
my interpretations will filter into the secondary literature and Malthus
will be rightfully incorporated into introductory texts and theory books
where he truly belongs.
The working
title of the book was “Reclaiming Malthus.” I thought this was a
particularly catchy title. You see, the intent of the book was to
“reclaim” Malthus from the trash heap of history. I was also
“reclaiming” Malthus’ theory (Malthus claimed it, I simply "reclaimed" it).
Pretty clever, no? The publisher being prone to serious academic
titles, however, changed it to
A Commentary on Malthus' 1798 Essay on
Population as Social Theory over my objections. The title
of this address, by the way, is “Reclaiming Malthus.” I use this title
because I am reclaiming him from the trash heap of history, and also because
I am restating his theory. Finally, I am reclaiming the title itself.
Back to the Essay: Now, to get
back to the book itself. Here, finally, is the main theoretical point
I want to tell you today: The 1798 Essay—all of the writing Malthus does on
inequality, welfare, progress, morals, and evolution--is actually based on
the elaboration of two inter-related big ideas in the Essay. These
ideas, for the reasons I have already talked about, are ideas that many
people simply cannot or will not acknowledge. The first big
idea is this: “Our ability to produce children will always exceed our
ability to secure food for their survival.” Because of this fact of
human existence, population growth must always be checked. Not in the
distant future, but always. In the past, in the present, and in the
future. Always. There is simply no getting around this basic
biological fact. Now, Malthus goes on to write there are only two ways
to check population growth. One is through preventive checks—
abstinence and delayed marriage, non- procreative sex, and birth control. The other Malthus calls “positive checks.” Here Malthus is writing of
premature death in some form. Such checks will include infanticide,
abortion, pestilence, and disease leading to lower levels of reproduction
and death. For Malthus
this basic imbalance between nature and nurture is expressed in individual
lives through self-interested cost/benefit decisions regarding sexual
behavior, children, work, and standard of living. While all
classes of men and women are subject to these checks, those that have more
resources are more likely to practice preventive checks. The reason
for this is that those with resources are more likely to have the foresight,
opportunity, knowledge, and discipline to prevent childbirth. Also,
they are more likely to benefit from preventive decisions. For the poor,
in pre-industrial and industrial societies, children are often assets. The positive checks of premature death are much more likely to be paid by
the poor. Because of unchecked population’s tendency to outstrip available
food supplies at any given moment, the mass of people must be subjected to
physical distress in order to limit population increase (either through
preventive checks, or failing those, positive checks). In a system of
perfect equality, all would suffer. But self-interest and differential
access to resources prevent such a system of equality from becoming
established or maintained. Social inequality, Malthus argues, is therefore
based on our physical nature—our sexuality and our dependence on food. The second
big idea in the Essay is this: “Increase the food supply and you have
temporarily removed a check, population will rise until it meets the new
level that the environment can support, and then have to be checked again.”
The poor represent that portion of the population that is not adequately
supported through existing technology and distribution systems. Improve these systems—provide more food and sustaining resources to greater
numbers of people—and remove one of the primary motives for individuals to
decrease their fertility. And population will again rise until it
comes up to the new limit. This means
that mere increases in productivity will never address basic problems in
distribution. Structural reform, Malthus maintains, while it can
address some of the worse abuses of mal-distribution cannot create a truly
just and egalitarian society either. The type of utopia anticipated by
his contemporaries through industrial progress, the spread of democracy, or
socialism, is neither attainable nor sustainable. Our own post-industrial
dreams are based on the same utopian fantasies. While we can do
better, progress does not naturally lead to a better world. The
necessity of population checks combined with the self-interest of
individuals makes social inequality inescapable.
Conclusion: To conclude I
would like to restate the following main points of my talk:
1. Never
trust secondary sources unless they are heavily documented and footnoted!
Thank you for
your time and attention. For a more extensive discussion of Malthus’s theories refer to Macro Social Theory by Frank W. Elwell. Also see Sociocultural Systems: Principles of Structure and Change to learn how his insights contribute to a more complete understanding of modern societies.
To cite this
paper you should use the following format:
|