PrepTest 83, Section 4, Question 22
The novelist and social theorist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, whose writings were widely read and discussed in the early twentieth century, played an important role in the debate about the theories of Charles Darwin and their application to society. Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas of natural selection into social language and argued about their interpretation. Some of these Social Darwinist theorists held that the nature of human social interactions is strictly determined by the process of biological evolution, and that it is futile to try to meddle with the competitive struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Another, more activist group of Social Darwinists held that although changes in human societies, like those that occur in biological species, do constitute a sort of evolution, this evolution at the level of a human society need not be competitive, but can emerge through collective action within society.
Gilman identified herself with this latter ideological camp and applied evolutionary theory in the movement for social change. The central thesis of this group of Social Darwinists was that although people, like all life, are the products of natural evolutionary forces, the principles of change that determine the development of organisms have brought humans to the point where it is possible for us to contribute consciously to the evolutionary process, to redesign and mold our societies in appropriate ways. This, for Gilman, was not simply a descriptive observation about humanity but was also a source of ethical responsibility. She argued that since a prime source of social evolution is human work, whether in crafts, trades, arts, or sciences, one of the primary ethical responsibilities of a person is to identify and engage in work that is societally relevant and that makes the best use of that person's talents.
Gilman was not merely engaged in an intellectual debate. Motivated by her ethical vision and convinced of the plasticity of human nature, Gilman vehemently sought to break the molds into which people, especially women, had been thrust. In both her fiction and her social theory she urges women to further social evolution by collectively working toward a reorganization of society. A central goal of the reorganization she envisioned would be the abandonment of gender-specific work roles and hierarchical relationships. Gilman believed that at one time such arrangements had been necessary for evolution because what she felt were male traits of assertiveness, combat, and display were essential for the development of a complex society. Future progress, she believed, now required the restoration of a balance that would include what she saw as female qualities of cooperation and nurturance.
The novelist and social theorist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, whose writings were widely read and discussed in the early twentieth century, played an important role in the debate about the theories of Charles Darwin and their application to society. Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas of natural selection into social language and argued about their interpretation. Some of these Social Darwinist theorists held that the nature of human social interactions is strictly determined by the process of biological evolution, and that it is futile to try to meddle with the competitive struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Another, more activist group of Social Darwinists held that although changes in human societies, like those that occur in biological species, do constitute a sort of evolution, this evolution at the level of a human society need not be competitive, but can emerge through collective action within society.
Gilman identified herself with this latter ideological camp and applied evolutionary theory in the movement for social change. The central thesis of this group of Social Darwinists was that although people, like all life, are the products of natural evolutionary forces, the principles of change that determine the development of organisms have brought humans to the point where it is possible for us to contribute consciously to the evolutionary process, to redesign and mold our societies in appropriate ways. This, for Gilman, was not simply a descriptive observation about humanity but was also a source of ethical responsibility. She argued that since a prime source of social evolution is human work, whether in crafts, trades, arts, or sciences, one of the primary ethical responsibilities of a person is to identify and engage in work that is societally relevant and that makes the best use of that person's talents.
Gilman was not merely engaged in an intellectual debate. Motivated by her ethical vision and convinced of the plasticity of human nature, Gilman vehemently sought to break the molds into which people, especially women, had been thrust. In both her fiction and her social theory she urges women to further social evolution by collectively working toward a reorganization of society. A central goal of the reorganization she envisioned would be the abandonment of gender-specific work roles and hierarchical relationships. Gilman believed that at one time such arrangements had been necessary for evolution because what she felt were male traits of assertiveness, combat, and display were essential for the development of a complex society. Future progress, she believed, now required the restoration of a balance that would include what she saw as female qualities of cooperation and nurturance.
The novelist and social theorist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, whose writings were widely read and discussed in the early twentieth century, played an important role in the debate about the theories of Charles Darwin and their application to society. Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas of natural selection into social language and argued about their interpretation. Some of these Social Darwinist theorists held that the nature of human social interactions is strictly determined by the process of biological evolution, and that it is futile to try to meddle with the competitive struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Another, more activist group of Social Darwinists held that although changes in human societies, like those that occur in biological species, do constitute a sort of evolution, this evolution at the level of a human society need not be competitive, but can emerge through collective action within society.
Gilman identified herself with this latter ideological camp and applied evolutionary theory in the movement for social change. The central thesis of this group of Social Darwinists was that although people, like all life, are the products of natural evolutionary forces, the principles of change that determine the development of organisms have brought humans to the point where it is possible for us to contribute consciously to the evolutionary process, to redesign and mold our societies in appropriate ways. This, for Gilman, was not simply a descriptive observation about humanity but was also a source of ethical responsibility. She argued that since a prime source of social evolution is human work, whether in crafts, trades, arts, or sciences, one of the primary ethical responsibilities of a person is to identify and engage in work that is societally relevant and that makes the best use of that person's talents.
Gilman was not merely engaged in an intellectual debate. Motivated by her ethical vision and convinced of the plasticity of human nature, Gilman vehemently sought to break the molds into which people, especially women, had been thrust. In both her fiction and her social theory she urges women to further social evolution by collectively working toward a reorganization of society. A central goal of the reorganization she envisioned would be the abandonment of gender-specific work roles and hierarchical relationships. Gilman believed that at one time such arrangements had been necessary for evolution because what she felt were male traits of assertiveness, combat, and display were essential for the development of a complex society. Future progress, she believed, now required the restoration of a balance that would include what she saw as female qualities of cooperation and nurturance.
The novelist and social theorist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, whose writings were widely read and discussed in the early twentieth century, played an important role in the debate about the theories of Charles Darwin and their application to society. Darwin's theory of evolution did not directly apply to social ideology, but various intellectuals translated his ideas of natural selection into social language and argued about their interpretation. Some of these Social Darwinist theorists held that the nature of human social interactions is strictly determined by the process of biological evolution, and that it is futile to try to meddle with the competitive struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. Another, more activist group of Social Darwinists held that although changes in human societies, like those that occur in biological species, do constitute a sort of evolution, this evolution at the level of a human society need not be competitive, but can emerge through collective action within society.
Gilman identified herself with this latter ideological camp and applied evolutionary theory in the movement for social change. The central thesis of this group of Social Darwinists was that although people, like all life, are the products of natural evolutionary forces, the principles of change that determine the development of organisms have brought humans to the point where it is possible for us to contribute consciously to the evolutionary process, to redesign and mold our societies in appropriate ways. This, for Gilman, was not simply a descriptive observation about humanity but was also a source of ethical responsibility. She argued that since a prime source of social evolution is human work, whether in crafts, trades, arts, or sciences, one of the primary ethical responsibilities of a person is to identify and engage in work that is societally relevant and that makes the best use of that person's talents.
Gilman was not merely engaged in an intellectual debate. Motivated by her ethical vision and convinced of the plasticity of human nature, Gilman vehemently sought to break the molds into which people, especially women, had been thrust. In both her fiction and her social theory she urges women to further social evolution by collectively working toward a reorganization of society. A central goal of the reorganization she envisioned would be the abandonment of gender-specific work roles and hierarchical relationships. Gilman believed that at one time such arrangements had been necessary for evolution because what she felt were male traits of assertiveness, combat, and display were essential for the development of a complex society. Future progress, she believed, now required the restoration of a balance that would include what she saw as female qualities of cooperation and nurturance.
The passage most strongly suggests that which one of the following statements is true?
Gilman's social theory was unlike other applications of evolutionary theory to the social realm because it was not closely allied with any of the major political movements of her time.
One of Gilman's innovations was the introduction of social discourse into the debate about the theories of Charles Darwin, which prior to her work had focused purely on biological issues.
Gilman worked in direct collaboration with other social activists toward the implementation of a set of social reforms that were based on her evolutionary doctrines.
Charles Darwin's writings on the evolution of biological species influenced Gilman's work only indirectly through the writings of other Social Darwinists.
Other evolutionary theorists contemporary with or prior to Gilman shared her view about whether or not evolutionary theory has implications for social practice.
0 Comments