Final answer:
Survival of the fittest, a concept erroneously applied to society by social Darwinists, suggested that success in competition for resources was an indicator of inherent superiority. This theory was used to justify imperialism and was later discredited due to its association with eugenics and racial superiority ideologies.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding Survival of the Fittest
The theory of survival of the fittest, coined by Herbert Spencer, is often associated with Charles Darwin's natural selection but takes on a different context. It suggests that organisms best suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. This evolutionary concept was unfortunately appropriated by social Darwinists in the 19th and 20th centuries to justify colonialism and the conquest of various regions around the world, like Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Using this distorted interpretation, social Darwinists argued that the success of a conquering group over another was evidence of their superior fitness. However, this concept has been broadly discredited, as it was a misapplication of Darwinian theory to social and political realms.
Herbert Spencer and other followers of social Darwinism believed that societal progress mirrored the natural world, where certain racial and ethnic traits would lead to success in a competitive society. They attached the idea of survival to the ability to acquire resources, adapt, and possess inherent traits that were incorrectly deemed superior. This idea fed into policies of imperialism and social engineering. Figures like William Graham Sumner championed these views, which were later used to endorse eugenics and racial superiority theories, ultimately being discredited by the mid-20th century.