HUXLEY,T.H. CRITIQUE OF GEORGE,HENRY - AN EXPANDED PERSPECTIVE

Authors
Citation
Lb. Jones, HUXLEY,T.H. CRITIQUE OF GEORGE,HENRY - AN EXPANDED PERSPECTIVE, The American journal of economics and sociology, 53(2), 1994, pp. 245-255
Citations number
12
Categorie Soggetti
Economics,Sociology
ISSN journal
00029246
Volume
53
Issue
2
Year of publication
1994
Pages
245 - 255
Database
ISI
SICI code
0002-9246(1994)53:2<245:HCOG-A>2.0.ZU;2-T
Abstract
In 1890 Thomas Henry Huxley launched an extremely harsh attack against Henry George. The basis for the attack has until now remained unclear . The opening in 1959 of Charles Darwin's research journals, has led d erivatively to reconsideration of Huxley's position as an advocate of evolutionary biology and proponent of science and scientists in Britai n, and thereby offers new perspective on the roots of the Huxley-Georg e controversy. The reasons for the conflict are to be found in Huxley' s attempt to attract British workers to acceptance of evolutionary sci ence, and to market scientists to employers as defenders of order and progress, who should be supported by the public and the public purse. The challenge George made was to appeal for social reform and fairer t reatment for workers through more traditional, non-science based appea ls. Thus, George accepted the concept of natural order and religion as valid. The heart of the science Huxley propounded had a Maltbusian be at, but George, perhaps unknowingly, turned the primary argument of ev olutionary science-Malthusian dynamics-against Huxley. George was not only a threat to Huxley personally but also to the enormous efforts Hu xley had invested in attempting to professionalize science through the vehicle of having British workers accept the cosmic kaleidoscope and concepts of biological man. George, holding the older human self-image was triumphant in appealing to British workers since the message stre ngthened the quest of British workers for a better life. Huxley's atte mpt to portray science as the basis for a new morality failed in its c ontest with the morally infused political economy advanced by George.