A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19Th and Early 20Th Centuries

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19Th and Early 20Th Centuries MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2005 PREPRINT 294 Conference A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19th and Early 20th Centuries Table of Contents Introduction Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger 3 Mendel’s impact Raphael Falk 9 The Biometric Sense of Heredity: Statistics, Pangenesis and Positivism Theodore M. Porter 31 Sources of Johannsen´s Genotype Theory Nils Roll–Hansen 43 Inheritance of Acquired Characters: Heredity and Evolution in Late Nineteenth-Century Germany Wolfgang Lefèvre 53 Darwinism versus Evo–Devo: a late–nineteenth century debate Jeffrey H. Schwartz 67 Message in a Bottle: The Business of Vaccines and the Nature of Heredity after 1880 Andrew Mendelsohn 85 The Chromosomal Theory of Heredity and the Problem of Gender Equality in the Work of Theodor and Marcella Boveri Helga Satzinger 101 Hugo de Vries's transitions in research interest and method Ida H. Stamhuis 115 Herbert Spencer’s two editions of the Principles of Psychology: 1855 and 1870/72. Biological heredity and cultural inheritance Snait B. Gissis 137 Writing Heredity: Emile Zola’s Rougon-Macquart and Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks Ulrike Vedder 153 Heritage – Appropriation – Interpretation: The Debate on the Schiller Legacy in 1905 Stefan Willer 167 From pedigree to database. Genealogy and Human Heredity in Germany, 1890–1914 Bernd Gausemeier 179 Bismarck the Tomcat and Other Tales: Heredity and Alcoholism in the Medical Sphere, The Netherlands 1850–1900 Stephen Snelders, Frans J. Meijman and Toine Pieters 193 A Changing Landscape in the Medical Geography of ‘Hereditary’ Disease: Syphilis, Leprosy, and Tuberculosis in Hawai‘i (1863-1903) Philip K. Wilson 213 How Cultural Is Heritage? Humanity’s Black Sheep from Charles Darwin to Jack London Marianne Sommer 233 Race and Kinship in Anthropology: Morgan and Boas Staffan Müller–Wille 255 Introduction Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger The contributions to this volume were prepared for the workshop “A Cultural History of heredity III: Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries” that took place at the Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science January 13-16, 2005. The workshop was part of a long-term interdisciplinary project dedicated to the cultural history of heredity. Concentrating in turn on a succession of time periods in chronological order, this series attempts to uncover and relate to each other the agricultural, technical, juridical, medical, and scientific practices in which knowledge of inheritance was materially anchored and in which it gradually revealed its effects.1 The two previous workshops took place in May 2001 and January 2003, each devoted to what we identified as ’historical epochs’ in the history of hereditary thought.2 What follows is a summary of the results reached so far in our project, of the questions we wanted to address with the third workshop, and the answers suggested to these questions by the contributions collected in this preprint.3 In his book “The Logic of Life”, François Jacob already pointed out that the concept of reproduction, and by extension, that of heredity were virtually absent from speculations about generation until the eighteenth century. This we found largely corroborated. It may be worthwhile to stress that heredity as a biological concept originated as a metaphor: prior to the nineteenth century it was used as a synonym of “inheritance” in legal contexts only, a sense which it since then has lost. It was only in the early nineteenth century, in medical contexts, that metaphors of heredity began to gain currency. To be sure: Phenomena that nowadays would count as hereditary had by no means gone unnoticed before. It seems, however, to be a simple matter of historical fact that these phenomena were not addressed in terms of inheritance. The conceptual reason for this was the lack of some fundamental distinctions in pre-modern theories of generation. Before the end of the eighteenth century hereditary transmission was not a domain regarded as separate from the contingencies of conception, pregnancy, embryonic development, parturition, and even lactation. Similarity between progenitors and their descendants was thought to come about as a result of the similarity in the constellation of causal factors involved in each act of generation. Parental organisms were thought to actually make their offspring, without the intervention of a specific hereditary substance transmitted from generation to generation. So if speculations into generation did not provide the context in which biological heredity originated, what did? When Buffon, Maupertuis, and Kant were addressing heredity in the second half of the eighteenth century, they were referring, alongside the discourses of natural history and breeding, to a discourse of highly idiosyncratic origin, namely the Latin-American system of racial 1 See http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/HEREDITY/ for further information on the project. 2 Contributions to the first two workshops have been documented in the Max Planck Institute’s preprint series (no. 222 and 247). 3 A more extensive summary of the resultsfrom the project so far, including a bibliography, has been published as in the Max Planck Institute’s preprint series no. 276. 3 Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger classification, known as las castas, and usually presented in paintings arranged in a tabular form. This scheme was primarily based on a classification according to skin color, to a lesser degree also on hair form and eye color. Children resulting from mixed marriages were positioned in this scheme in analogy to the simple mechanism of color mixing, implying “blending” as the causal relation connecting traits of parents with traits of their offspring. The castas classification originated from attempts in early colonial Latin America to find a measure by which legal and social status could be allocated, while colonial society experienced constant flux due to intermarriages and migration. This indicates an important general result of our project: the problem that biological heredity came to address was not the constancy of species; it were the patterns and processes that structure communal life at a sub-specific level. This shift of attention was associated with a mobilization of early modern life within various largely independent cultural domains, all of which also saw a growing concern with hereditary phenomena towards the end of the eighteenth century: Breeding new varieties for specific marketable characteristics, the exchange of specimens among botanical and zoological gardens, experiments in fertilization and hybridization of plants and animals, the dislocation of Europeans and Africans that accompanied colonialism, and the appearance of new social strata with their particular pathologies in the context of industrialization and urbanization, all of these processes interlocked in relaxing and severing cultural and natural ties to provide the material substrate for the emerging concept of heredity. The various domains in which the knowledge regime of heredity took shape during the eighteenth century did not cohere, however, after the model of an overall “influence” that a fundamental idea of heredity gained over them. Rather, conjunctions between them came about by a kind of domino effect that mobilization in one field had on another. The growth of a class that depended on mobile property evoked a culture of leisure collecting and breeding. The import of plants for collection purposes of natural history in turn inspired attempts at their acclimatization for economic purposes. Several, highly specific, and largely independent cultural sub-fields were thus subsequently conjoined to form a field of phenomena which only eventually, in the mid-nineteenth century, came to be addressed by the concept of biological heredity. Although this makes it difficult, even impossible, to draw a general picture of the historical development that led to the formulation of full-fledged theories of heredity in the mid-nineteenth century, it is possible, in hindsight, to characterize the result of that development. As a point of departure, let us take Darwin’s theory of pangenesis. Two aspects of that theory, if compared with premodern theories of generation, are remarkable. First of all, Darwin endorsed a view of heredity that abstracted, to some extent at least, from the personal relation between parents and their offspring. While conceding an inheritance of acquired properties, Darwin believed that the true carriers of the properties to be inherited are not the parents themselves, but submicroscopic entities — “invisible characters” as he called them — which circulate, from generation to generation, among individuals within one and the same species. Secondly, Darwin’s theory of heredity shows a peculiar inversion in comparison with early modern theories of generation: while the latter emphasize the vertical dimension of lineal descent — where ancestral organisms bring forth their offspring — Darwin invoked an image where the horizontal dimension dominates, the dimension of a common reservoir of dispositions, passed down from the sum total of ancestors, 4 Introduction redistributed in each generation among individuals, and competing now, in the present, for their realization. We take these two aspects, which accord well with the long term development of Western European kinship systems as social anthropologists have reconstructed them, to be the fundamental hallmarks of modern hereditary
Recommended publications
  • Using Maps in Genealogy
    Using Maps in Genealogy Though their names have changed, some of these places may be noted on an old map. The location of some others may be found in sources such as lists of abandoned post offices, local histories, government records, microfilm records, or clippings from old newspapers, old city directories, or old county atlases kept in the library archives of a town, city, or county in the region. If you find unfamiliar place names during your search, the U. S. Geological Survey can help. The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) is the Nation's official data base of place names. The GNIS is maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and can often provide information on name changes. This data base contains 2 million entries, including the names of places that no longer exist, as well as variant names for existing places. Getting Started and Marriage Records. If not, you can pur- chase a copy from the U.S. Government This automated system also contains the Maps are one of the many sources you Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. names of every type of feature except roads may need to complete a family tree. and highways. It is especially useful for Finally, online searching on terms such as genealogical research because it contains In genealogical research, maps can provide "genealogy" through any of the major World entries for communities, as well as for church- clues to where our ancestors may have lived Wide Web search engines (including es and cemeteries, even those that no longer and where to look for written records about www.yahoo.com, www.excite.com, and exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Sources & Title
    Marriage Records of Residents of Prince William County, Virginia 1731 – 1930 (From Various Sources Except the Official Register) Compiled by Margaret B. Binning Updated: January 2021 Ruth E. Lloyd Information Center (RELIC) Bull Run Regional Library, Manassas, Virginia Marriage Records of Residents of Prince William County, Virginia, 1731 - 1930 Source Notes Beveridge Family File, RELIC (Bible Record) Bible Record Collection at the Library of Virginia (Web Site: www.lva.virginia.gov/) The Boy Major of the Confederacy, Joseph White Latimer by David T. Myers (RELIC Bio Latimer) Connections and Separations: Divorce, Name Change and Other Genealogical Tidbits from the Acts of the Virginia General Assembly by Wesley E. Pippenger (RELIC 929.3755 Con) Chick Family File, RELIC District of Columbia Marriage Records Index (June 28, 1877- Oct. 19 1885) By Wesley E. Pippenger (RELIC929.3753 Pip) District of Columbia Marriage Records Index (Oct. 20, 1885 – Jan. 20, 1892) By Wesley E. Pippenger (RELIC 929.3753 Pip) Daily National Intelligencer Marriage and Death Notices Jan.1, 1851 to Dec. 30, 1854 by Pippenger (1999) (RELIC 929.3753 Pip) Death Notices, Obituaries & Memoriams from the PWC Manassas Gazette & Manassas Journal 1885-1910 by Carol Thompson Phillips (RELIC 975.527 Phi) Dumfries Episcopal Church Register, Prince William County, Marriages 1815- 1834 in Magazine of Virginia Genealogy, Vol 24, No.1, Feb 1986 transcribed by Joicey Haw Lindsay (RELIC Mag) also available AncestryLibrary ed Ewell Family File, RELIC Bible Record Fauquier Democrat / Times-Democrat Index on Fauquier Co. Library Web Site Fauquier Heritage Soc. News Vol 2, No. 4 & Vol. 3, No. 1 (RELIC Mag) Foley Family File, RELIC & The Virginia Genealogist, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada William Leeming OCAD University [email protected]
    OCAD University Open Research Repository Faculty of Liberal Arts & Sciences and School of Interdisciplinary Studies 2004 The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada William Leeming OCAD University [email protected] © Oxford University Press. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. Original source at DOI: 10.1093/shm/17.3.481. Recommended citation: Leeming, W. “The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada.” Social History of Medicine 17.3 (2004): 481–500. Web. Leeming, W. (2004). The early history of medical genetics in Canada. Social History of Medicine, 17(3), 481-500. Pre-Publication Draft The Early History of Medical Genetics in Canada Abstract: This article shows that the intellectual and specialist movements that supported the growth of medical genetics in Canada between 1947 and 1990 were emergent phenomena, created, split, and reattached to different groups of actors, and reconfigured numerous times over the course of four decades. In each instance, new kinds of working relationships appeared; sets of diverse actors in local university- hospital settings coalesced into a new collectivity; and, as a collectivity, actors defined and/or redefined occupational roles and work rules. In its beginnings, medical genetics appears to be the object of a serious institutional manoeuver: a movement in support of the creation of examining and teaching positions in human genetics in North American medical schools. With time, the institutionalization of ‘medical genetics’ took hold, spurred on by changes in the rate and direction of service delivery associated with genetic consultation and laboratory services in clinical settings.
    [Show full text]
  • A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing-Over in Zea Mays. PNAS 17:492–497
    A CORRELATION OF CYTOLOGICAL AND GENETICAL CROSSING-OVER IN ZEA MAYS HARRIET B. CREIGHTON BARBARA MCCLINTOCK Botany Department Cornell University Ithaca, New York Creighton, H., and McClintock, B. 1931 A correlation of cytological and genetical crossing-over in Zea mays. PNAS 17:492–497. E S P Electronic Scholarly Publishing http://www.esp.org Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project Foundations Series –– Classical Genetics Series Editor: Robert J. Robbins The ESP Foundations of Classical Genetics project has received support from the ELSI component of the United States Department of Energy Human Genome Project. ESP also welcomes help from volunteers and collaborators, who recommend works for publication, provide access to original materials, and assist with technical and production work. If you are interested in volunteering, or are otherwise interested in the project, contact the series editor: [email protected]. Bibliographical Note This ESP edition, first electronically published in 2003 and subsequently revised in 2018, is a newly typeset, unabridged version, based on the 1931 edition published by The National Academy of Sciences. Unless explicitly noted, all footnotes and endnotes are as they appeared in the original work. Some of the graphics have been redone for this electronic version. Production Credits Scanning of originals: ESP staff OCRing of originals: ESP staff Typesetting: ESP staff Proofreading/Copyediting: ESP staff Graphics work: ESP staff Copyfitting/Final production: ESP staff © 2003, 2018 Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project http://www.esp.org This electronic edition is made freely available for educational or scholarly purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included. The manuscript may not be reprinted or redistributed for commercial purposes without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution in Cultural Anthropology
    UC Berkeley Anthropology Faculty Publications Title Evolution in Cultural Anthropology Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pk146vg Journal American Anthropologist, 48(2) Author Lowie, Robert H. Publication Date 1946-06-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California EVOLUTION IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A REPLY TO LESLIE WHITE By ROBERT H. LOWIE LESLIE White's last three articles in the A merican A nthropologist1 require a reply since in my opinion they obscure vital issues. Grave matters, he clamors, are at stake. Obscurantists are plotting to defame Lewis H. Morgan and to undermine the theory of evolution. Professor White should relax. There are no underground machinations. Evolution as a scientific doctrine-not as a farrago of immature metaphysical notions-is secure. Morgan's place in the history of anthropology will turn out to be what he deserves, for, as Dr. Johnson said, no man is ever written down except by himself. These articles by White raise important questions. As a victim of his polemical shafts I should like to clarify the issues involved. I premise that I am peculiarly fitted to enter sympathetically into my critic's frame of mind, for at one time I was as devoted to Ernst Haeckel as White is to Morgan. Haeckel had solved the riddles of the universe for me. ESTIMATES OF MORGAN Considering the fate of many scientific men at the hands of their critics, it does not appear that Morgan has fared so badly. Americans bestowed on him the highest honors during his lifetime, eminent European scholars held him in esteem.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodosius Dobzhansky: a Man for All Seasons
    GENERAL ARTICLE Theodosius Dobzhansky: A Man For All Seasons Francisco J Ayala In 1972, Theodosius Dobzhansky addressed the convention of Francisco J Ayala the National Association of Biology Teachers on the theme obtained his Ph D with Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolu­ in the 1960s and is tion". The title of that address (published in The American presently the Donald Bren Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, pp. 125-129) might serve as an epigram Professor of Biological of Dobzhansky's worldview and life, although it is limited in Sciences at the University of California, Irvine and a scope, for Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the impli­ member of President cations of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into Clinton's Committee of philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues. The Advisors on Science and place of biological evolution in human thought was, according Technology. He is a member of the U S to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted National Academy of from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "(Evolution) is a general Sciences and has been postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must President and Chairman hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be of the Board of the American Association for thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all the Advancement of facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is Science. He has worked what evolution is". extensively on the population ecology and The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory evolutionary genetics of Drosophila species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Reproductive Compensation on Recessive Disorders Within Consanguineous Human Populations
    Heredity (2002) 88, 474–479 2002 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/02 $25.00 www.nature.com/hdy The effect of reproductive compensation on recessive disorders within consanguineous human populations ADJ Overall1,2, M Ahmad1 and RA Nichols1 1School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, UK We investigate the effects of consanguinity and population results show how reproductive compensation can effectively substructure on genetic health using the UK Asian popu- counteract the purging of deleterious alleles within con- lation as an example. We review and expand upon previous sanguineous populations. Whereas inbreeding does not treatments dealing with the deleterious effects of con- elevate the equilibrium frequency of affected individuals, sanguinity on recessive disorders and consider how other reproductive compensation does. We suggest this effect factors, such as population substructure, may be of equal must be built into interpretations of the incidence of genetic importance. For illustration, we quantify the relative risks of disease within populations such as the UK Asians. Infor- recessive lethal disorders by presenting some simple calcu- mation of this nature will benefit health care workers who lations that demonstrate the effect ‘reproductive compen- inform such communities. sation’ has on the maintenance of recessive alleles. The Heredity (2002) 88, 474–479. DOI: 10.1038/sj/hdy/6800090 Keywords: marriage; inbreeding; mortality; morbidity; genetic counselling Introduction whether reproductive compensation, at the level ident- ified by Koeslag and Schach (1984), can effectively The majority of the UK Asian population can trace their counteract the purging of deleterious alleles within con- origins to the Punjab region of India and Pakistan within sanguineous populations.
    [Show full text]
  • (1908): Recent Studies in Human Heredity
    NOTES AND LITERATURE HEREDITY Recent Studies in Human Heredity.-j\Iustthe fallacy always persist that all ancient and powerful families are necessarily degenerate? As long ago as 1881, Paul Jacoby wrote a book1 to prove that the assumptionof rank and power has always been followedby mentaland physicaldeteriorations ending in sterility and the extinctionof the race. By collectingtogether all evi- dence supportinghis preconceivedtheory, by tracing only the well-knownfamilies in whichpathological conditions were heredi- tary,by failing to treat of dozens of otherswhose recordswould not have supportedhis thesis,by saying everythinghe possibly could that was bad about everyone (followingalways the hostile historians), by ignoring everywherethe normal and virtuous members,he was able to presentwhat was to the uninformedan apparently overwhelmingarray of proof. In regard to the injustice of this one-sided picture I have already had some- thingto say in "M'Nlentaland M\IoralHeredity in Royalty, first publishedsome six years ago. A furtherstudy based upon Jacoby's unsound foundations has recentlycome to my notice,3and althougha well-miadebook containingan interestingseries of 278 portrait illustrations,is necessarilyquite as misleadingas the older structureon which it rests. The main idea of Dr. Galippe is to show that the great swollen protrudingunderlip which descended amionogthe Hiaps- burgs of Austria, Spain and allied houses,and also the protrud- ing underjaw (progil)athismine in e'rieuitr), are stigmata of de- generacy,and to demonstratethis he places beside his portraits, quotationsfrom the writingsof Jacoby. Galippe uses no statistical methods, not even arithmetical counting,and appears to be totally ignorant of English bio- metric writings. His general conclusionsabout the causes of degeneracy (aristocratic environment,etc.) are quite as mis- Etudes sur la selection chez I homem.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • Degeneration Theory in Naturalist Novels of Benito Pérez Galdós
    Degeneration Theory in Naturalist Novels of Benito Pérez Galdós A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Michael Wenley Stannard IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ofelia Ferrán, Advisor April 2011 © Michael Wenley Stannard 2011 i Acknowledgements I should like to record my sincere thanks to Ana Paula Fereira, the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) for having given me the opportunity to realize a dream of many years. My graduate career in Minnesota has been a life-changing experience, and I would not have missed it for anything. Financial support from the department to study at the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, to study Portuguese at the Universidade de Lisboa in Lisbon and to contribute to a conference at Universidad Complutense in Madrid helped significantly in rounding out my graduate student experience, as well as enabling me to collect essential material for this dissertation. I should like to thank my adviser, Ofelia Ferrán, for her help and guidance and to record my additional debt to Toni Dorca and Jaime Hanneken, who listened generously and counseled. To Toni Dorca I owe my introduction to Galdós‘s Naturalist novels which has formed the background of this dissertation. I have seen myself fundamentally as a galdosista at heart ever since. I should like to thank J.B. Shank for allowing me to prevail upon him to direct me in a course of reading that proved invaluable preparation for the study of biological and medical thought in eighteenth and nineteenth century France.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Big Problem and Mendelian Genetics
    Introduction to Biological Anthropology: Notes 7 Darwin’s big problem and Mendelian genetics Copyright Bruce Owen 2011 − Darwin’s big problem − We have seen that natural selection works by favoring the most successful variants among the individuals in a population − it only works if individuals vary in ways that affect their survival and reproduction − offspring must be similar to their parents, but not exactly the same − if offspring were identical to their parents, they would be identical to each other, and there would be no “more successful” and “less successful” individuals for natural selection to pick from − so there could be no change in the next generation: no evolution − Darwin had no good explanation for why offspring resemble parents, but also vary − he knew that this was a big gap in his theory − The prevalent idea of inheritance in Darwin’s time was blending inheritance − blending inheritance holds that the characteristics of offspring are mixtures of the characteristics of their parents − the idea was that the material from the two parents that controlled inherited characteristics blended like two colors of paint − this is a reasonable approximation, based on everyday experience − so, every mating should produce offspring that are intermediate between the parents − for example, if a six-foot man mates with a five-foot woman… − then the offspring should all be between five and six feet tall − no offspring are expected to be more extreme than either parent − there are two huge problems with the blending model of inheritance − First, it obviously isn't true − lots of parents have children who are taller, or shorter, than both of the parents − many kids have traits like hair color, eye color, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Monism and Morphology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by IUScholarWorks From a draft. May differ from the published version, which appeared in Monism: Science, Philosophy, Religion, and the History of a Worldview, ed. Todd Weir, 135–158, New York: Palgrave USA, 2012. Monism and Morphology at the Turn of the Twentieth Century SANDER GLIBOFF Indiana University Abstract. Ernst Haeckel’s monistic worldview and his interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution worked together to help him rule out any role for divine providence or any non-material mind, spirit, will, or purpose in the organic world. In his account of 1866, the impersonal, unpredictable, and purposeless external environment was what drove evolutionary change. By around the turn of the twentieth century, however, new theories of evolution, heredity, and embryology were challenging Haeckel’s, but Haeckel no longer responded with his earlier vigor. Younger monistically oriented evolutionary biologists had to take the lead in modernizing and defending the monistic interpretation and the external causes of evolution. Three of these younger biologists are discussed here: Haeckel’s student, the morphologist-turned-theoretician Richard Semon (1859–1918); Ludwig Plate (1862–1937), who took over Haeckel’s chair at the University of Jena and became an influential journal editor and commentator on new research on heredity and evolution; and Paul Kammerer (1880–1926), whose experimental evidence for the modifying power of the environment was hotly debated. Despite their very different social, political, and religious backgrounds, their contrasting research methods and career trajectories, and their disagreements on the precise mechanisms of evolution, these three were united by their adherence to Haeckelian monistic principles.
    [Show full text]