This article was downloaded by: On: 28 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Handbook of Religious

Donald A. Crosby, Jerome A. Stone

Ernst Haeckel’s Creation

Publication details Whitney Bauman Published online on: 01 Feb 2018

How to cite :- Whitney Bauman. 01 Feb 2018, ’s Creation from: The Routledge Handbook of Routledge Accessed on: 28 Sep 2021


Full terms and conditions of use:

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 of theimplicationswhatplacing humansinane a monismthatwas much more basedinaestheticsthanmetaphysics. Then, I (which laterwouldof ontological by bearticulated thelikes of Pragmatists),American (mostly idealistsordualists). Here I version ofmonism,a triune andtheologians whichangered bothscientists(mostlymaterialists) cal dualism. It was his position against dualism that Haeckel in articulating managed to wanted toavoid whathesaw asthelargestphilosophicalmistake in Western :- ontologi toalllife: /material, /body, /, culture/. At thesametime, he inthedirection ofreductivefar orreductive , but ratherwanted to give full is real andofvalue intotheidealorspiritual. Inotherwords, heneitherwanted tomove too Bergson and in Theosophy (Weber 2000b: 6–7). He thought such works everything that turned ism atsomelevel, Haeckel alsofoughtagainstthesenotionsasthey were found intheworks of abiotic lifedoesnothave (Weber 2000a: 91). Though this may- soundlike vitalismorspiritual of internalization “,” that whichhappensinthe cell, ofinteriority leadstosomesort (Haeckel 1917). Infact, thedifference forHaeckel between bioticandabioticlifeisthatthe display ofcontinuityeven withbioticlife(bothplantandanimal) ofcrystals somesort theforms (Haeckel 2008: 69). One of his final books was, after all, ofsubstancethatincludesmaterial, structure triune energy, andexperience “all theway down” I toidealisticpluralistic(Holt1967).many from different typesofmonismranging materialistic getslumpedinwiththereductive ofmonism, variety wheninactualitythere were tions by Haeckel many was thatErnst merely areductive materialist. Quiteoftenphilosophical I beg

would arguethat the lastanalysis, transformed The wholemarvelous panoramaoflife ERNST HAECKEL’S CREATION in my reflections Haeckel withthiswidelycitedquotefrom tohelp Ernst ward offaccusa- Developing anon-reductive religious Triune monism: and theproblems dualism, idealism, with Haeckel’s because he outlines a in part monism is of the pluralistic variety


want oftr tofocusonhisconstruction Whitney Bauman Whitney naturalism materialism

that spreads over ofour thesurface 3 33 volutionary context meantforHaeckel in Krystal ,Krystal in which he argues that (Haeckel 1900: 139) iune monism as form iune monismasform

will move tosome

globe is, in Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 version ofNon-Reductiv terms ofethicsandvalues.terms Finally, I In creating his “anti” position, thatheisfightingagainst. ofauthority the structure hemirrors stemsfromepistemic uncertainties hisoverzealousness dualisms. instampingout theological thinkers) are ofwhat Foucaultassumptions thatare arguing. (andotherpostmodern attheheart .un-interpreted Suchanassumptionopensthedoor to theperspectivism andcontextual his assumptionsaboutplacinghumansintoanevolutionary framework, thatthere are nobare, not bear out this possibility (Haeckel 1900). Haeckel argues, in my according correctly to ence willsolve alloflife’s riddles, Monisticway theconclusionsofhistriune ofthinkingdo Similarly, despiteHaeckel’s intheRiddle oftheUniverse, rhetoric whichinsiststhat one day sci- “given” or “natural” is, rather, andshiftsover constructed historically (Foucault 1970). in MichelFoucault. For instanceinTheOrder of Things, Foucault arguesthatwhatseemstobe Haeckel thinkers comesvery thatfollow closetomany postmodern similarargumentsfound hasjustbeencovered construction bio-historical over by time(Haeckel 1905: 25). Inthissense, whose // that anything beanaposteriori must we infact might think ofasapriori “the way thingsreally are.” For Haeckel, anevolutionary perspective meant, among otherthings, ing, andthuswe are always inthemidstoflife. There isnoway we canhave abird’s-eye view of thatwe donothaveof experience accessto; rather, everything andevolv isradicallyinterrelated - because there was aspacefrom whichthatobjectivity was possible. There isnohidden “outside” inthinkingthatwewas couldnever right fullyhave anobjective view oftheworld, but not imperatives ofcategorical (Haeckelform 1905: 10–11, 69). From Haeckel’s pointofview Kant separation between oflifethatscientistsuse. thedifferent categories There simply is no room for any of self and other, type of essentialist and no hard biotic lifeemergesfrom abioticlife, animallifefrom plantlife, and humanlifefrom animallife. known. This , forHaeckel, was impossible from anevolutionary perspective in which of dualism,sort or space of removal of essence of the in which some sort “other” could not be Haeckel, that there was something outside of relationality and thus meant that there was some philosophy. was First Kant’s. assumptionofthedingansich This assumptionmeant, according to related inwhichdualism, wrong turns Haeckel thought, slippedbackintohisotherwisesound scientistsofhistime(e.g.of many materialist Haeckel 1905: 5–6). Kant, however, madetwo other words, Haeckel would thatthere agree arefacts, noun-interpreted much tothedismay that we cannever of toreach somesort escapehermeneutics “bare facts” abouttheworld. In it, targets. andKantianthoughtwas oneofhisprimary emergent framework. Indoingso, thathefound hemanagedtoattackdualisminany form withinanimmanent,philosophical monisminwhichallthingscouldbemadeintelligible and other. Itwas Darwin’s of theory that finally enabled of himtopromote aform ofGodandtheworld,whether intheform energyandmatter, soulandbody, oreven self stood it, all of had been sidetracked as a result of dualistic thinking, Galileo, Spinoza, andlaterGoethe, andvon Humboldt(Haeckel 1905: 53–57). As heunder- of shiftstoward immanentways ofthinkingincludingthoseshiftsmadeby Copernicus, He couched his own work around evolutionary thinking and its implications in a long line dualism, and he thought the church was the worst offender and propagator of this mistake. text inthetwenty-first century. want At the risk oftakingresponsibility andagencyawayAt therisk from Haeckel, whichI Kant’s secondmistake, according toHaeckel, statementsinthe was hisinsistenceonapriori For Haeckel there was much tobecommendedinKant’s thought, especiallythevery For Haeckel theworst ofontological philosophicalsinwas thatofassumingsomeform to do, I

do arguethat e Religious Naturalism,e Religious fromcon- particularly withinourplanetary his overconfidence in the scientific ability to one day overcome these

will endwithsomelessonswe from Haeckel’s mightlearn Whitney Bauman Whitney 34

certainly donot certainly Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 (Stenmark 2013). naturalismisahybrid, Hisreligious then, . ofscientificand religious model between thanhedoesa scienceandreligion “dialogical” or “disputational” approach thought.modern Indoingso, I naturalisms, andreligious consequences notonlyforlateremergencetheory but alsoforpost- some otherimplicationsofHaeckel’s placinghumans withinanevolutionary context, thathave has had grave consequences for the I between anevolutionary oftheworld oftheworld understanding understanding andareligious whowould laterbecomeknownagainst thesetheories ascreationists. rift This constructed between proponentsto hugerifts ofevolutionary andthosethatpositionedthemselves theory things (Wuketits 2006: 19). ofHaeckel Indeeditwas andHuxley largelytherhetoric thatled ondeafears, couldfall theory soitwas bettertostickwiththemore strictly “scientific” sideof ideasmore.tionary Inotherwords, Darwinknew thattheradicalimplicationsofevolutionary Haeckel against to tone down so that people would his rhetoric listen to his evolu- (Weber 2000b: 14; Krauße1987: 116). Inoneletterfrom DarwintoHaeckel, Darwinbegged notjustfrom theChurchscorn andsomeprotestant theologians, but alsofrom Darwinhimself Haeckel oftenpublicly declared was nothingmore thana “ gasbag,” brought him commentsabout theGodofChristianity,arguing againsttheology andhisinflammatory which lifeanddeath(Haeckelics surrounding 1895; Weber inallthings:authority from educationalreform, toaesthetics, to “spiritual” andtheeth- inmetaphysics, andthechurch oncehadauthority Whereas priests sciencewillnow have (the , , andeven culture andeducation) leadstotwo quitedifferent organisms ments suggestingthathuman and dog embryos were thesame, virtually but thatthecontext , andhumans(Haeckel 1904; Haeckel 1917; Haeckel 1874). Indeed, heeven madestate- in additiontohisstudiesonembryos, from looked crystals, forcommonpatterns toplants, to equally important. Haeckel’s derNaturandothersketches Kunstformen ofabioticandbioticlife, that madebettersenseofthephenomenalifethanany onesciencecouldprovide. based uponobjective retrieval ofbare facts, but uponthecollaborationbetween perspectives any singlesciencecould(Haeckel 1895). Again, this “better” forHaeckel understanding was not wouldvarious give ofthe world usamuch betterunderstanding inwhichwe live than of monism, but again, of monism. a pluralistic form For Haeckel, multiple perspectives from the spectives on “nature” together intoasingleworldview. thisworldview Heunderstood asaform evolutionaryasaway these andunderstood theory multiple per- teenth century tofinallybring He was flustered by thefragmentationofchemical, biological, andphysical sciencesinthenine- For Haeckel, thisconviction madedeveloping anaturalisticworldview allthemore important. is nature; rather, ofnature allunderstandings involve interpretation. Putanotherway, allknowledge thisemergentnatureunderstood ofhumanidentities, histories, andvalues inseveral ways. context asdoesallotherlife, thenhumanknowledge oftheworld isalsoemergent. Haeckel In otherwords, ifhumanidentity, values, emergeoutofthecommonplanetary andhistories over uponhumansbeingplacedwithinanevolutionary time—dependinlargepart context. nity—all reality isinterpreted, identitiesare non-essentialandfluid, and values are co-constructed tist ofhistimewas post-modern. Rather, my argumentisthatsomeofthetenetspost-moder- My argumentinthissectionisnotthatHaeckel scien - himselforany othernineteenth-century knowledge;a posteriori hence, withKantandneo-Kantians. oneofhismajor disagreements In additiontotherole theworld, ofthesciencesinunderstanding nature aestheticswas First, andasI Human context thought inan and evolutionary history

already mentioned, Haeck

would arguethatHaeckel r Ernst Haeckel’s creation el thescientistarguedthatthere are in nobare facts

do not need to 35

& Breidbach 2006: 161–174). rehash here. Instead, I epresents much lessofa “warfare”

turn nowturn Hiszealfor to Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 ing toHaeckel, fueledevolutionary changes. Inotherwords the contextorenvironment were organisms interact with otherorganisms. The interactions of organismswithinnature, accord- oforganisms,the forms including , evolve andemerge out ofnatural processes inwhich ing forms “in thebeginning,” creation ofhumansasmaleandfemale. noranoriginal Rather, into anevolutionary contextmeantthatthere couldbenomore ofGodcreat understanding - However, hisdeepobservation ofthediversity ofsexualityinnature andhisplacinghumans racist, nationalist, andanti-Semiticviews ofthehumanworld. More willbesaidaboutthisfact. , were atthe “top” oftheevolutionary tree (Marks2010). This ideafueledhismore tion thatheimposeduponevolution inthathearguedEuropean humans, andparticularly as if that was merely evident and natural. Of course, Haeckel too had his own cultural loca- human language, ideas, andforms), hewas able toproject hisown ontotheworld understanding he didn’t have aconceptofhumans beingplacedwithinanevolutionary context(andthus and sexualityontotheworld ofplants, asifthey were merely “natural.” In otherwords, because forthinkingaboutsex helpedtoenable Linnaeustoimposehiscultural forms theory tionary (Schiebinger1993:model ofthefamily 1–40). I of the world. were male and female, andhad children, much like a human Victorian of , is apparent in the way and this fact he transposed human relationships to his description and sexuality. evolutionary ofdiversity contextwas insex essentialtothistypeofscientificnormalization of sex and sexualityfound throughoutjust as diverse the natural world. as the forms The of ways in which human could develop. Human sexuality, then, would naturally be and sexualdimorphism, andeven heteronormativity would give way toadiverse number thatoncehumanswereunderstood placedintoan evolutionary context, the idea of gender theevolution inhisstudiessurrounding innature.particularly offorms Haeckel andhe in 1919. to that time, Prior he admired the work from of and found support Haeckel, Hirschfeld, arenowned ofthetime, sexologist foundedtheInstituteforSexualResearch in the latenineteenthandearlytwentieth (Jacobson century 2005: 208; Richards 2008: 275). possibilities forwhatlifecouldbecomewas Haeckel’s in ofMagnus Hirschfeld support theseasoldwaysunderstood ofthinkingfrom withinapre-evolutionary context. of hisvehemence dualisms, againsttheological idealismsandreductive was thathe materialisms an evolutionary contextrequired new methodsforanswering, andHaeckel realized this. Part “male” and “female?” What doesthismeanfor “beauty?” These are thetypesofquestionthat time (Haeckel 1904: 9–18). What does this mean for “the human?” What does this mean for we onceheldtobestable, thattheforms and withthatanunderstanding actuallychangeover world andwhatitmeanstobehumanrequired abottom-upway ofthinkingaboutthe world, ments. Ratherthana “top down” approach toknowledge, thisnew way ofthinkingaboutthe such thingsasthought, ideas, andvalues, emergedfrom alonglineofevolutionary develop- oftheworld,understanding asthesethingswere asimportant andare; italsomeanttracinghow what itmeanstobehumanvis-à-visotheranimals, orwhatthismeantforone’s religious previously have imagined. Placing us in an evolutionary context was more than just re-thinking meantthatthe antecedent fixerworld offorms) was much more diverse thanhumanscould nihilo insomecosmicbeginning. evolution andemergenceofforms, were ratherthanassumethatforms imposeduponnature ex it couldonlycomeaboutwiththehelpofanature aestheticinwhichwe couldwitnessthe (Haeckel 1900: 65–66). Hispointwas thatknowledge oftheworld with andourinterrelatedness only a century earlier,Carl Linnaeusonlyacentury forinstance, hadnoreal conceptoftheevolution ofall One exampleofthisnew way ofthinkingabouttheworld andtheproliferation of Second, from transcendent foundations (in a creator this loosing of forms or some other Whitney Bauman Whitney 36

argue that the lack of a strong form ofe argue thatthelackofastrong form volu- Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 poesies and (Larson Art in many different directions thatcouldnotandcannotbeanticipated. Nature, forHaeckel, was “from the beginning” of what and how the process of life will unfold, but rather may develop variety. Rather, ofintelligence, itisanemergentform oranintelligencethatisnotpredictive by theworld around them. There is, inthissense, intelligencetolife, but notofateleological world intheways displayed ofbeautyandpattern thatrocks forms andotherthingswere shaped be the unit of internalized “memory” of living cells. But even in abiotic life such as crystals, the for suchvalues inbioticlifewas tobefoundintheprotoplasm ofthecell, whichhethoughtto evolution one can findthroughout thenatural of earlier forms world. For Haeckel, the source self-reflectivescene withthefirst Homosapiens; rather, these thingsmust have emergedfrom the Fechner 1848; Bölsche 1926). It was not just that Beauty, Goodness, and appeared on the of orensoulmentwas inlife “all theway down” (Haeckel 1917; Haeckel 1904; Bölsche’s , of Crystals emergeoutofacontinuous processideals andforms ofevolution. Hiswork ontheSoulLife The samewould ofHaeckel’s betrue ofaestheticsandethics. understanding device theworld. thatscientistsusetounderstand thisorthatisaheuristic naming onelifeform biologically, andpsychologically, oflifeinteractandshiftover forms timetosuchanextentthat as well:ness of nature of human forms has everything to do with the queerness evolutionarily, linked withdiversity andchange. contextwe Putintoacontemporary mightsay thequeer- the term “ecology” (Richards 2008: 409). Sofrom theideaofecology thevery is beginning for shaping the evolutionvery important of the organism and for this reason Haeckel coined one decadetothe next. a largercommunity ofevolving life, andrecognize justhow much scientificfindings shift from of the natural world,bit of humility and an apophaticunderstanding I based upontheevolving naturalworld ofwhichwe are apart. What Haeckel lacked, namelya taleforanyone asacautionary attention tohisfailures whoseekstodevelop outlook areligious the humanworld. I help explainsomeofhismore short-sighted, nationalistic, andxenophobic of understandings against theGnostics, or Augustine arguingagainstthePagans. fervorThis religious alsomight ists isevident inthathisargumentation oftenisreminiscent ofsomeonelike Tertullian arguing aMonisticworldviewpursued inhisargumentsagainstdualists, idealists, and reductive- material than justascientificnecessity; it duty.was alsoa religious withwhichHaeckel The religiosity education. andreligious logical For Haeckel, promoting anevolutionary was more world, andwhy hefoughtsovehemently against whatheperceived astheignoranceoftheo- founded) argued vehemently that would for educationreform lead to more study ofthe natural words, books, andideas. Itwas thisreason thatheandtheMonistbund ingeneral(whichhe study oftherest ofthenatural world from whichthey came, ratherthanreflecting merely on to asmonism. Haeckel was thatallpeopleswould certain benefitfrom closeobservation and should bereplacedofwhatwe by naturalism, mightcallreligious someform whichhereferred theory,ary which would put into context all sciences and humanities, meant that old However, he argued, of evolution the arrival of the natural sciences and particularly - the arrival much asthey helpedhumanbeingstobecomemore aware ofbeauty, goodness, andtruth. the beautyofnaturalworld. they were “fine-tuned” over millionsof of years evolution tomake possible theperception of in ourplanetar According toHaeckel, toKant, andagaincontrary Beauty, Truth, andGoodnessallsuch According toHaeckel, (andphilosophies)served inas religions anevolutionary purpose Love Life in Nature , how were some type attempts to describe all nineteenth-century Art Forms ofNature, Forms Art ’s workand Wilhelm onTheSoulLifeofPlants, y context, acontextinwhichwe are globalized, of ourselves understand aspart

think wefr canlearn

& Brauer2009). Humanswer Ernst Haeckel’s creation om Haeckel’s mistakes inthisregard, andwe shouldpay 37 e notimposingthesetraitsupontheworld;

think we can embrace Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 Society. He also questioned whether it was to allow severely those who are born disabled Haeckel’s consequenceduring horrific time was . ognize, consequences forhumansandthe rest ofthenatural world. somany horrific Onesuch by scholars, religious theologians, philosophers, orscientists, hadandstillhave, aswe shouldrec- darkness foundintherest oftheworld, so now would . These ways ofthinking, whether ofcolonialism: its allegedlighttotheassumed forms logical was bringing justasChristianity differences adoptedfromapproach was thepreceding tocomparing itselfuncritically theo- of eugenics(Weirthe future ofhumanityintheform 2012: 6). This colonialso-calledscientific ; andthisprogress, according toHaeckel, calledforustotake someresponsibility for ralistic worldview baseduponevolutionarywas theory forhimjustthenextstepinevolutionary supposed highlydeveloped of forms “” (Haeckel 1905: 53). Monismandhisnatu- to compare religions, of hetoothoughtsomeforms “” were more primitive thanthe tive ideas. onreligious whowere Like scholars religious somany nineteenth-century beginning He, like manyofhistime, others anevolutionary ofreligions - alsoread perspec intothehistory of nature, henonethelessthoughtofEuropean (Richards 2008: cultures assuperior 245–276). “good” dealofnaturalsciencesandobservation educationthatincluded agreat Monistoriented Haeckel 1905: 74–77). Though hethoughtthese “lower” cultures couldbe “taught” through a up to the height of European (andevenest peoples right cultures and peoples(e.g. German) the world ontoahierarchical ofevolution understanding thatleadsfrom thelowest anddark- be theway inwhichHaeckel projects of andracializedunderstanding hisown ethnocentrism projecting one’s own locationontonature. cultural-social-biological Oneexampleofthiswould ticular perspective ontheworld. Inotherwords, andcontextualitycanleadto denying partiality come from notbeingable torecognize even theirmostpowerful insightsascomingfrom apar- lines ofexperimentation. law, andthese “remainders” may eventually shiftustoward adifferentwithnew understanding explain the data. There are always “remainders” or even outside of a theory or data that fall a andvalidated/invalidatedtested through experimentation ofhow adequatelythey interms can Finally, seemstogoagainstthescientificmethodinwhich thistypeofcertainty hypotheses are are evolving alongwithit, thenourknowledge oftheworld willchangealongwiththeworld. perspective oftheworld. Ifindeedwe ofanevolving are part planet, andourbodiesminds assuch. must beinterpreted rather allfacts face ofan evolutionary alsofliesinthe Suchcertainty own, ofallideasandvalues understanding beingaposteriori andthatthere are nobare facts, but 1900).face ofhis ofthingsfliesinthe atthetruth andsenseofarriving This typeofcertainty era ofevolution, andthatthenaturalscienceswould oftheworld solve (Haeckel alltheriddles oftheworldunderstandings (pastandpresent), but itcannotbethefinal word. oftheworldunderstanding thattakes intoaccountmany more embodiedrealities thanother of every understanding aspectof the world.correct This is not to deny that science may have an evangelical peoplewhoholdto “” believe andtruly thescienceoftoday gives usthe sion ofthetruth. I seem tobethosewho, inany given generation, lay claimtohaving atamore stable arrived ver- role plays inthelives ofindividuals, inpolitics, large. andinculture writ Yet, there still cal, socialandeconomicrealities are constantlychanging, as are and the ideasaboutreligion As oldergenerationscanattest, there exceptchange. isreally nothingcertain Scientific, politi- Haeckel was far from the originator of eugenics,Haeckel was from far being the originator but he was a member of the Eugenics It seems to me that Haeckel’s largest mistakes, and the largest mistakes of most scientists, Haeckel was alsothoughtthattheendofnineteenthcentury goingtogive way tothe Haeckel’s non-reductive religious naturalism context for aplanetary

am reminded ofthinker Whitney Bauman Whitney s suchasRichard Dawkins, orany number ofless- 38 Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 I by Haeckel againstdualism, idealism, andreductionism, even thoughitwas a “triune” andwhat worldview thesescientistswere toconstruct. beginning Inotherwords, themonismproffered qualityofmonotheismintothevery todowiththeadoptionofsome lingering part “scientific” Daniel Gasman argues, I of thinking. Though I people). of The horrors WWII revealed theworst ofeugenicsandthatline ofthetechnologies would andshouldberoundly rejected by mostscientiststoday (nottomentionmosteducated musings, but inotherways they have changeddrastically. allofthisup.bring Insomeways theconversation hasnotadvanced beyond someofHaeckel’s many stillpondertoday, andquestionsofinuterogenetictesting, abortion, anddesignerbabies depressed ormentallyilltoendtheirown (Haeckel 1905: 101). These are questionsthat to continue living andquestionedwhether it was immoralto allow someone who was severely maintain theunity of(andthusnotrankthedifferences among)Homosapiens cultures, Haeckel and races. Whereas Virchow rejected theevolution inorder ofHomosapiensfrom to This was fordifferences inhypotheses astrue asitwas forvisible differences amongcultures ultimate truth. with equality, and “poly” and “” were equated with inequality? I (Marks2010).origin Myquestioniswhy, atthattime, “mono” and “sameness” were equated ofthehumanspecies,argued foramonogenic origin whereas Haeckel arguedforapolygenic in order tocombattheracistassumptions hesaw beingdrawn from evolutionary theory. He from primates. Hemaintainedaseparateandunifiedforhuman beings evolutionary history ogy arguedvehemently againstthisapproach tothe pointofrejecting theevolution ofhumans of aprogressiveterms evolutionary scale. For instance, Virchow, of ethnol- oneofthe founders tions of evolutionary history. Not all scientistsof the time were ranking the races and cultures in None ofwhatI allow ustoseeapluralisticplanetinway thatwasHaeckel’s notquitepossible during time. movements,rights andahugeadvance that technologies incommunication andtransportation of societaleugenicprograms thatwere ofthetwentieth popularatthebeginning century. cal andnon-progressive ofevolution understanding today helptoguard againstthetypes standing ofthecomplexitygenomeandrole ofepigenetics; andanon-hierarchi- complexity ofgeneticselection, geneticvariation, andevolutionary drift; ourlackofunder - more easilyanddirectly inthefuture ofevolution thanwe would now thinkpossible. The 2009: 92–115; Haeckel 1898: 42). Thus, forHaeckel, scienceandmedicinecouldintervene tion—led tothe “higher” or “lower” developing ofthatgiven organism(Haeckel 1913; Brain environment—including themother’s womb, theenvironment/ecosystem, andeduca- of evolutionary of the whole course development.the history The developing organisms’ that recapitulates phylogeny, was that every individual organism went through chical inanimalsasyou moved upthechaintohumanbeings. Hisideaofrecapitulation, made upsocieties, whichwere more democraticinthingslike plantsandmore monar- was “remembered” by a given cell’s protoplasm. Within an organism, these cells of the protoplasmunderstanding of the cell and recapitulation. For Haeckel, remember, lution towork, placestheresponsibility ongeneticselection andvariation, notonHaeckel’s ranking different cultures inahierarchy helpedfeedintothatway ofthinking(Gasman1971).

might callapluralisticmonism, stillhadastrong under First ofall,First theracialaspectsofHaeckel’s ofhisthought thoughtandtheethnocentrism Accordingly, differences hadtoberank-ordered according totheirvalue and/orveracity. Third andperhapsforemost, we have hadwomen’s suffrage, movements, civil rights workers’ Second ofall, synthesis, theModern themechanismby whichwe now evo understand -

say here ismeanttoexcuseHaeck

do notthinkHaeckel’s ideasleadinadir

do thinkthatplacing Ernst Haeckel’s creation 39 humanity in an evolutionary context and then el from hisracistandxenophobic- interpreta standing oftheonenessandunity of ect linetotheHolocaust, as

argue that this has in Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 sense ofourown context. world, withina4.5 consequences, they are biasesnonetheless. wanted ittoremain constant). Though notallbiaseshave immediateandnegative social admit thathismathematicalconclusionssuggestedtheuniverse was expanding(he were evolved from primates, andeven Einsteininthe twentieth didnotwant century to the conclusionsoftheirown thinking: Darwinhimselfdidnotwant tosuggestthathumans to allow theirown biases to preventinto new territory them from following through with which hadracistandxenophobic implications. Itisnotuncommonforscientistsbreaking ranked them. Hisrankingwas simplyaculturalbiasthathewas unable toseeassuchand words, there reason isnological why differences must beranked intheway thatHaeckel removeditself” from , and in which all ideas and values are “a posteriori.” In other monism inwhichthere are no ofatriune understanding “bare” facts, there isno “thing in scientific thinkingbecauseofitsequationobjectivity atsomelevel withunity. betweenbinary andrelativity hasplagued Western religious, philosophical, and such asystem, callsforconformity; otherwise, objectivity gives way torelativism. This false about a of given can be problematic.Reason—multiple facts Objectivity, under ofNaturalLawsby thatcouldbediscovered, theNaturalSciencesinterms objectively via values andaccountsfordifferences. was Inamonotheisticview oftruth—which assumed could beranked. from whichextanthumansevolvedprimates (apolygenicorigin), andthusthesedifferences assumed thatifhumansevolved from therest ofthenaturalworld, there were probably different there was notyet adecidedupon, foundationandworldview single methodological forthe gies, there is also much we from that era. might learn As stated earlier, in the nineteenth century thanks to the speed of advances in communications, transportation, and production technolo- thatwesuch asthefact are now living inamuch more globalizedandhyper-connected world, Although there are many differences andourown between Germany era, nineteenth-century own time. Thus I tain themaswell. This isnotunlike whatHaeckel andtheRomanticswere doingintheir oftheworld enter- understanding sothatwe inandseriously canletotherunderstandings however, much messierandrequires thatwe allow inourown forsometypeofuncertainty where journey polydoxybe inaplaceourplanetary suitsusmuch better. Polydoxy is, world themore perspectives we canlistentoandinclude. Ratherthanorthodoxy, we might different accountsofthesamephenomena orevent. We gain “better” ofthe understandings it meansthatdifferent embodiments willlikely seedifferent aspectsoftheworld andhave subjectivity oftheobserver must betaken intoany accountingofthefacts. Furthermore, objectivity simplymeansthatifwe are really ourembodiment, goingtotake seriously the give usasenseofwhatSandraHarding calls “strong objectivity” (Harding 1993). Strong a “god’s eye” view oftheworld, themanifold, multiple perspectives on reality are what embodied creatures, noneofwhomcanescapethatentangledembodimentandachieve without beingunifiedunderonetruth. Inother words, perhapsbecause we are multiply lion-year-old of understanding expansion, our entangled reality can be entangled We from must these mistakes. learn From where we stand inapluralistic, globalized However, I The tensionhere isnotreally, inmy mind, unityvs. diversity, but theway inwhichone

would ofHaeck arguethatsuchthinkinggoesagainstthegrain

end with a brief spiraling back to the nineteenth century inor spiraling backtothenineteenthcentury end withabrief

billion-year-old ofplanetar understanding Whitney Bauman Whitney Conclusion 40 y evolution, anda13.8-bil- der tomake el’s own Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 sciences ratherthanasthenormative basisforanaturalisticworldview. which may come to see reductive as a 40-year of the natural blip materialism within the history community:retrieve modelsforthefuture ofaplanetary someofthesenineteenth-century one and emergenceintotheanalysisofnaturalphenomenaevents. It may betimetocritically begun toquestionmodelsthatare reductive andbeguntothrow , complexity, probability, environmentalning ofthemodern movement 1962). (Carson Inotherwords, sciencehasagain the late1960s/early1970swithpublication ofRachelCarson’s, SilentSpring - andthebegin model forscience, thoughithasbrought humansmany benefits, begantoclearly buckle around portation, communication, health, and production in general. technologies This “development” revolution, in the so-called green then for agriculture and later for continued advances in trans- which isbaseduponaninstrumental, reductive, andproductive model: for first war technologies, technology transfermodel(oneinwhichsciencebecamereduced outcomes), totechnological the War inthetwo Industry World Wars inthetwentieth century. Scientistswere cooptedby a ing anon-reductive basisforthenaturalsciences, were allbut swept away by thedemandsof though ourchangesare happeningatamuch more rapidpace. appear. Itisnottoomuch ofastretch toseetheparallelwithourown situationtoday, even in cities, about the preservation and already of animals were societies concerned to beginning Revolution. theIndustrial during Forests were disappearing, pollutionwas becomingaproblem of aworld thatwas rapidlybeingchangedthrough assumptions aboutnature theinstrumental were seekinganaturalisticworldview inpart thatwould take accountofallnature, inlight Revolution.Industrial Goethe, von Humboldt, Bölsche, Fechner, and Haeckel, amongothers, suchasHaeckel,the romantic stripe were withtheproblems tostruggle already ofthe beginning within thesciences(broadly conceived) today. worldview, multiple methods, explanations, andcausalitycanperhapsshouldbeembraced scientists, amongnineteenth-century the imagination perhapsahangover from amonotheistic would theory) onedayary solve alloftheworld’s riddles. Where singleexplanationsstillruled naturalsciences(andespeciallyevolutiona posteriori), hestillconcludedthattheemerging - what I scientists).hope ofmostthesenineteenth-century For instance, despiteHaeckel’s focuson perspectival planetofwhichwe are apart. Onetypeofexplanationdoesnotfitall(despitethe pluralismissomethingthatmightbenefitustodaylogical/ontological as we navigate the multi- some combinationthatwas pluralisticand/ornon-reductive. - This methodological/epistemo natural sciences. Somearguedforidealismormaterialism, dualism, others for andstillothers Bölsche, W.(1926) Jacobson, E. P. (2005) FromCosmology to Ecology: Worldview in Germany from 1770 to 1930,Gasman, Bern: D. ofNationalSocialism , (1971)TheScientificOrigins Piscataway: Transaction Publishers. Foucault, Michel. (1970) TheOrder of Things: An Archeology oftheHumanSciences, New York:Fechner, Random L. Gu. Leipzig: Voss (1848)NannaoderüberdasSeelenlebender Pflanzen, Verlag. Carson, R., (1962)SilentSpring New York: HoughtonMifflin. Brain, R. M. (2009) “Protoplasmania: Huxley, Haeckel andthe OrganisminLateNineteenth- Vibratory The non-reductive anaturalisticworldview, modelsforunderstanding andthusforprovid- It isalso, finally, to scientists,remember thatmany important nineteenth-century especiallyof Peter Lang. House. Visual Culture, Hanover: CollegePress. Dartmouth Scienceand Century Art,” inB. andF. Larson Brauer, eds., The ofEvolution:Art Darwin, Darwinisms, and Charles Bonni.

would callperspecti Love LifeinNature: oftheEvolutionThe Story ofLove, 2vols., New York: and Albert vism (thatthere andthatallideasare are nobarefacts uninterpreted Ernst Haeckel’s creation References 41 Downloaded By: At: 15:15 28 Sep 2021; For: 9781315228907, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315228907-4 Wuketits, Franz(2006) Haeckel,“Mein LieberHaeckel! Ernst CharlesDarwinundderDarwinismus,” in Weir, Todd (ed.)(2012)Monism: Science, Philosophy, ofa ReligionandtheHistory Worldview, New York: Palgrave. Weber, H. andBreidbach, O. (2006) “Der DeutscheMonistbund 1906bis1933,” in und Antimonistiche A.Weltanschauung:—— (2000b)Monistiche Berlin:Eine Auswahlbibliographie E., VWBVerlag. Lenzund V. Weber, H. (2000a) “Der Monismus als einereinheitlichen Theorie Weltanschauung amBeispielderPosi- Stenmark, L. (2013)Religion, ScienceandDemocracy: A Schiebinger, L. (1993)Nature’s Body: Science, GenderintheMakingofModern Piscataway: University Rutgers Richards, R. (2008)The Tragic SenseofLife: andtheStruggleover Evolutionary Haeckel Ernst Thought, Chicago: Marks, J. (2010) “Why Were theFirst Anthropologists Creationists?” inEvolutionaryAnthropology, 19: Larson, B. andF. Brauer(2009)The ofEvolution:Art Darwin, Darwinisms, and Visual Culture, Hanover: Dart- Holt, R. N. MonistMovement, (1967)TheSocialandPoliticalIdeasoftheGerman New Haven, CT: Yale Uni - Harding, S. (1993) “Rethinking StandpointEpistemology: What IsStrong Objectivity?” inL. Alcoff andE. , desMenschen —— (1874)AnthropogenieoderEntwickelungsgeschichte Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Englemann. —— (1895)MonismasConnectingReligionandScience: The ConfessionofFaith ofaManScience, translated —— (1898)TheLastLink:, OurPresentKnowledgeoftheDescentMan London: Adam andCharlesBlack. —— (1900)Riddle oftheUniverse, New York: andBrothers. Harper —— (1904; derNatur, 2015edition)Kunstformen Leipzig: Verlag desBibliographischen Instituts. —— (1905)The Wonders ofLife: A Berlin:——, (1913)DieNaturalsKünstlerin VitaVerlag. —— (1917)Kristallseelen: Studienüberdas Leben,Anorganische Leipzig: Alfred Kroner Verlag. Haeckel, E. (2008edition)Gott-Natur(Theophysis), undUwe von OlafBreidbach KommentarNachdruck Krauße, E. Haeckel: (1987)Ernst Biographien Naturwissenschaftler, hervorragender Techniker undMediziner, Leip- Neustadt amRübenberge: Angelika Lenz Verlag. A. Lenz and V. R. Mueller, eds., LenzVerlag. Rübenberge:Angelika Mueller, eds., Darwin, unddieFolgen: Haeckel Monismus in Vergangenheit, undGegenwart Neustadtam Weltanschauung Berlin:, VWBVerlag. tionen vonHaeckel und Ernst August Forel,” inP. Ziche, ed., Monismus um 1900: und Wissenschaftskultur Press. University ofChicagoPress. 222–226. mouth CollegePress. versity PhDDissertation. Potter, eds., FeministEpistemologies, New York: Routledge, 49–82. by J. Gilchrist, London: Adam andCharlesBlack. andBrothers. Harper Hoßfeld, Stuttgart: FranzSteiner Verlag. zig:Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft.

Popular Study ofBiologicalPhilosophy Darwin, und die Folgen: Haeckel Monismus in Vergangenheit, und Gegenwart Whitney Bauman Whitney 42

, Disputational Friendship , translatedby J. McCabe, New York: Lanham: LexingtonPress.