“Survival of the fittest” –we heard this phrase in the classroom, in the government office and all other places. This phrase is most often connected to Charles Darwin though it was one of sociology’s pioneers, Herbert Spencer who coined these words. Herbert Spencer was fascinated by the work of the natural scientist, Charles Darwin whose theory of biological evolution held that a species changes physically over many generations as it adapts to the natural environment. Thus leveling sociology as “Science of Society”, Herbert Spencer used to describe society as an “organism”, with an idea of “social evolution”. Society is a jungle with the “fittest people rising to wealth and the deficient gradually sinking into miserable poverty”. Spencer as we can see distorted Charles’ theory by applying it to the operation of society as well as using it in the same situation with natural science. It seemed that it justified the plight of the poor that they deserve it because they are unfit. Their poverty shows that they do not measure up in the social evolution –in competition like other unfit organisms. With this, it is easy to conclude that people get more or less what they deserve in life.
In our current social reality, we heard many rich people make discriminatory remarks to poor people. They have this prejudice that the poor becomes poor and poorer because they have many children. They say they deserve their situation because they never join in the struggle created by social evolution –the fight for survival. In order for poor people to survive, they should stop growing in numbers. They should limit giving birth and resort to contraceptives. On one hand, wealth serves to be the basis of being fit in the society, the people’s way to survive. On the other hand, poverty is a sign of weakness; poor people cannot control themselves in having many children and such “out of control birth-giving” is a withdrawal to take the course of being fit. If this is the case, and if this idea will continue to widespread, then it takes out sympathy from the people’s vocabulary. There will be no more generosity, no gift-giving or “bayanihan” because the poor people do not deserve recognition in the society as there is no place for the unfit. This too emphasizes the wide gap of inequality between the rich and the poor, and may lead to hostile actions between the classes later. Some rich people would convince poor people to believe that the latter should resolve in using contraceptives if they want to have a better life. But in actual circumstance, how many rich people do help the poor and treat their helpers, drivers, errand boys fairly? The problem of poverty exists because there are people who are greedy. In their greediness, they think they are the only ones who should survive. It is better to reflect then that social status and social standing or being poor is not simply a matter of personal merit. There is a need to consider the circumstances and the structures that made the person difficult for him to reach at least a better standard of living. Moreover, it is not the case that generating more money necessarily makes people better or fit for society. Human as we are, though we are rich or poor, have the right to live and the right to preserve life in the best way we can. The survival of the fittest has a sense of truth but it does not have the general truth. The poor people even how poor they are, still we can see the mystery of their survival. In their struggle to survive then, we may say they are not yet out of the game –the game of the survival of the fittest.