Abstract
That Jean Gayon never paid attention to Darwin’s pangenesis might seem like an oddity given that natural selection and biological heredity were his primary focuses for decades. This lack of interest reveals Gayon’s specific methodological orientation: he aimed at producing rational reconstructions of the way a scientific hypothesis entered experimentation and subsequently evolved within a specific theoretical pattern. Gayon’s most important achievements, Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival (1998) in the first place, were all based on this “structuralist approach”, where philosophy of science provides a strong problematization and even shapes the historical narrative. I argue that Lakatos and Duhem were Gayon’s main inspirations, and that his work is thereby substantially different from both philosophy of biology and French historical epistemology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This is a phrase he used during the conference in his honor held in Paris in early 2017. He put it in print twice and explained it in few paragraphs: Gayon and Petit (2018, pp. 68–69, 252–253). The term “structuralist approach” is used on page 253.
- 2.
On the definition and history of historical epistemology in the French tradition, from Bachelard to Foucault, see Braunstein (2002).
- 3.
In The Descent of Man, Darwin did not expand further on the issue of heredity because he believed he had done enough in Variation: “I have elsewhere so fully discussed the subject of Inheritance that I need here add hardly anything” (Darwin, 1871, p. 110).
- 4.
In On the Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859, pp. 489–490): “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. […] Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”.
- 5.
Note that Geison focused on Olby’s 1966 book Origins of Mendelism rather than on his 1963 article.
- 6.
“Pangenesis, in short, was not a single-minded attempt to defend against any attack Darwin’s commitment to blending inheritance. Neither was it an ad hoc attempt to account solely for the inheritance of acquired characters. It was, rather, an attempt to develop a broad organizing principle, an attempt to connect under one point of view a wide range of previously unconnected and poorly understood phenomena. As such, it had its origin in what Goeffrey West called Darwin’s ‘naked need for order’ – the same need, it might be added, that gave birth to the lasting principle of natural selection” (Geison, 1969, p. 411).
- 7.
His most extensive account on pangenesis is in Gayon and Petit (2019, pp. 177–180).
- 8.
- 9.
The term “scénario cohérent” is absent from the 1998 translation.
- 10.
Pierre-Olivier Méthot, in a recent paper based on an impressive breadth of archives and interviews, has detailed the context in which Gayon studied Canguilhem’s work (Méthot, 2022).
- 11.
- 12.
This was for instance Kuhn’s main criticism.
- 13.
Except for the ‘Preface to the English edition’ (4 pages), the 1998 English version is very close to the original 1992 one.
- 14.
- 15.
See for instance Yves Delage’s late ninetenth century synthesis: La structure du protoplasma et les théories sur l’hérédité et les grands problems de la biologie générale (1895).
- 16.
Note that this part is absent from Gayon and Petit (2019).
- 17.
The French version was published in 1906 and already translated into English in 1908.
- 18.
Duhem (1906, Chap. 2), “Physical theory and natural classification”.
- 19.
This is the title of the third part of Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival.
- 20.
What is usually considered as the founding paper in the field is Hull (1969).
- 21.
Pierre-Olivier Méthot showed that Gayon worked first within a Bachelardian perspective and made use of some of these categories. Yet, this Bachelardian early phase never materialized in a published text (Méthot, 2022).
- 22.
In the following paragraph, Gayon specified his criticism: “Canguilhem’s theory [scientific ideology] is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad in that, in my opinion, there is no evidence that all new sciences must be preceded by a “scientific ideology”. It is too narrow as in most cases the premises of a new theory or new science contain much more than ideology” (Gayon & Petit, 2019, p. 247).
- 23.
“It is excluded, in any case, that the vigor of a concept in a given theoretical ground can constitute a sufficient presumption to limit to the theoretical grounds of the same composition the research of the places of its birth.” (Canguilhem, 1955, p. 6, my translation).
- 24.
Limoges wanted to “situate the place” where natural selection originated as a scientific concept (Limoges 1970, p. 20).
- 25.
- 26.
A project not completed yet.
- 27.
“The following passage from The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (henceforth The Variation of Animals and Plants) epitomizes Darwin’s strong externalist position on variation, ‘if it were possible to expose all the individuals of a species during many generations to absolutely uniform conditions of life, there would be no variability.’” (Wither, 2000, p. 428, my emphasis).
- 28.
Darwin 1859, chapter V (Laws of Variation). Darwin started the chapter as follows: “But the much greater variability, as well as the greater frequency of monstrosities, under domestication or cultivation, than under nature, leads me to believe that deviations of structure are in some way due to the nature of the conditions of life, to which the parents and their remote ancestors have been exposed during several generations” (Darwin, 1859, p. 173, my emphasis).
- 29.
For instance, to explain how molecular genetics became so successful in the French context, they put the emphasis on the positive role played by Pasteurian microbiology. Their perspective was then primarily philosophical: “Formulated in a more conceptual manner, the question becomes: How did transformation of a problematique of contagion to a problematique of heredity came about in France?” (Burian et al., 1988, p. 383, emphasis in the original).
- 30.
It should be noted that I never had the opportunity to directly discuss these subjects with Jean. The interpretations proposed here are entirely based on the examination of his published writings.
References
Braunstein, J.-F. (2002). Bachelard, Canguilhem, Foucault. Le ‘style français’ en épistémologie. In P. Wagner (Ed.), Les philosophes et la science (pp. 920–963). Gallimard.
Burian, R., Gayon, J., & Zallen, D. (1988). The singular fate of genetics in the history of French biology, 1900–1940. Journal of the History of Biology, 21(3), 357–402.
Canguilhem, G. (1955). La formation du concept de réflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Presses Universitaires de France.
Canguilhem, G. (2005) [1968]. The object of the history of science. In G. Gutting (Ed.), Continental philosophy of science (pp. 198–207). Blackwell.
Churchill, F. B. (2015). August Weismann: Development, heredity and evolution. Harvard University Press.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (Vol. II). John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex (Vol. I). John Murray.
Delage, Y. (1895). La structure du protoplasma et les théories sur l’hérédité. C. Reinwald.
Duhem, P. (1906) [2007]. La théorie physique. Son objet—sa structure. Vrin.
Gayon, J. (1992). Darwin et l’après-Darwin: une histoire de l’hypothèse de sélection naturelle. Kimé.
Gayon, J. (1994). De la mesure à l’ordre; histoire philosophique du concept d’hérédité. In M. Porte (Ed.), Passion des formes (hommage à René Thom) (pp. 629–645). ENS, Editions Fontenay St Cloud.
Gayon, J. (1995a). From measure to order: A philosophical scheme for the history of the concept of “heredity”. Workshop “Gene concepts and evolution”. Max-Planck-Institut Für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Preprint, 18, 53–60.
Gayon, J. (1995b). Entre et force et structure: genèse du concept naturaliste de l’hérédité. In J. Gayon & J.-J. Wunenburger (Eds.), Le paradigme de la filiation (pp. 61–75). L’Harmattan.
Gayon, J. (1996). The individuality of the species: A Darwinian theory? From Buffon to Ghiselin, and back to Darwin. Biology and Philosophy, 11, 215–244.
Gayon, J. (1997). The paramount power of selection: From Darwin to Kauffman. In M.L. Dalla Chiara, K. Doets, M. Mundici, & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Structures and norms in science, Volume Two of the tenth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science (pp. 265–282). Kluwer.
Gayon, J. (1998a). Darwinism’s struggle for survival: Heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge University Press.
Gayon, J. (1998b). The concept of individuality in Canguilhem’s philosophy of biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 305–325.
Gayon, J. (2000). From measurement to organization: A philosophical scheme for the history of the concept of heredity. In P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives (pp. 69–90). Cambridge University Press.
Gayon, J. (2003). Bachelard et l’histoire des sciences. In J.-J. Wunenburger (Ed.), Bachelard et l’épistémologie française (pp. 39–85). Presses Universitaires de France.
Gayon, J. (2006). Hérédité des caractères acquis. In P. Corsi, J. Gayon, G. Gohau, & S. Tirard (Eds.), Lamarck, philosophe de la nature (pp. 105–163). Presses Universitaires de France.
Gayon, J. (2013). Pangenèse. In P.-A. Taguieff (Ed.), Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme (pp. 1309–1310). Presses Universitaires de France.
Gayon, J & Petit, V. (2018). La connaissance de la vie aujourd’hui. Iste Editions.
Gayon, J., & Petit, V. (2019). Knowledge of life today: Conversations on biology. Wiley.
Gayon, J., & Pradeu, T. (Eds.). (2021). Philosophie de la biologie. Explication biologique, hérédité, développement. Vrin.
Geison, G. L. (1969). Darwin and heredity: The evolution of his hypothesis of pangenesis. Journal of the History of Medicine, 4, 375–411.
Gingras, Y. (2010). Naming without necessity. On the genealogy and uses of the label “historical epistemology.” Revue de synthèse, 131, 439–454.
Hodge, J. (1985). Darwin as a lifelong generation theorist. In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 207–244). Princeton University Press.
Hodge, J. (2010). The Darwin of Pangenesis. Comptes-Rendus Biologies, 333, 129–133.
Holterhoff. (2014). The history and reception of Charles Darwin’s hypothesis of pangenesis. Journal of the History of Biology, 47, 661–695.
Hull, D. (1969). What philosophy of biology is not. Synthese, 20, 157–184.
Huneman, P. (2018). Jean Gayon (1949–2018). Revue d’histoire des sciences, 71, 311–317.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, I (pp. 91–196). Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, 91–135.
Limoges, C. (1970). La sélection naturelle. Étude sur la première constitution d’un concept (1837–1859). Presses Universitaires de France.
Limoges, C. (2015). Philosophie biologique, histoire des sciences et interventions philosophiques, Georges Canguilhem 1940–1965. Œuvres complètes de Georges Canguilhem, Tome IV (pp. 7–48). Vrin.
Limoges, C. (2018). La confirmation de l’historien des sciences et la mise à l’épreuve de sa philosophie biologique : Georges Canguilhem 1966–1995. Œuvres complètes de Georges Canguilhem, Tome V, Histoire des sciences, épistémologie, commémorations, 1966–1995 (pp. 7–60). Vrin.
Limoges, C. (2019). Épistémologie historique et histoire épistémologique des sciences chez Georges Canguilhem. Œuvres complètes de Georges Canguilhem, Tome III, Écrits d’histoire des sciences et d’épistémologie (pp. 7–128). Vrin.
Liu, Y. (2008). A new perspective on Darwin’s pangenesis. Biological Reviews, 83, 141–149.
Loison, L. (2018). Ce que je dois à Jean Gayon. Sur quelques caractéristiques du style gayonien en histoire des sciences. In F. Merlin, & P. Huneman (Eds.), Philosophie, histoire, biologie, Mélanges offerts à Jean Gayon (pp. 81–88). Editions Matériologiques.
Loison, L., Gayon, J., & Burian, R. (2017). The contribution—and collapse—of Lamarckian heredity in Pastorian microbiology: 1. lysogeny, 1900–1960. Journal of the History of Biology, 50, 5–52.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Méthot, P.-O. (2009). French epistemology overseas: Analyzing the influence of Georges Canguilhem in Québec. Humana-Mente, Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9, 39–58.
Méthot, P.-O. (2013). On the genealogy of concepts and experimental practices: Rethinking Georges Canguilhem’s historical epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, A, 44, 112–123.
Méthot, P.-O. (2018). De l’épistémologie historique à la philosophie de la biologie : Le double héritage philosophique de Jean Gayon. In F. Merlin & P. Huneman (Eds.), Philosophie, histoire, biologie, Mélanges offerts à Jean Gayon (pp. 15–50). Editions Matériologiques. This volume.
Méthot, P.-O. (2022). Jean Gayon face à Georges Canguilhem: Une remontée en trois temps. In M. Arminjon, C. Cherici, & P.-O. Méthot (Eds.), Le normal et le pathologique: des catégories périmées ? Textes réunis en hommage à Jean Gayon (pp. 267–306). Matériologiques.
Olby, R. C. (1963). Charles Darwin’s manuscript of pangenesis. The British Journal for the History of Science, 3, 251–263.
Olby, R. C. (1966). Origins of Mendelism. Constable.
Petit, V. (2019). Jean Gayon (1949–2018): itinéraire d’un darwinien. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 72, 349–380.
Robinson, G. (1979). A prelude to genetics: Theories of a material substance of heredity, Darwin to Weismann. Coronado Press.
Stamhuis, I. H., Meijer, O. G., & Zevenhuizen, E. J. A. (1999). Hugo de Vries on heredity, 1889–1903: statistics, Mendelian laws, pangenes, mutations. Isis, 90, 238–267.
Stamos, D. (1998). Buffon, Darwin and the non-individuality of species—A reply to Jean Gayon. Biology and Philosophy, 13, 443–470.
Winther, R. G. (2000). Darwin on variation and heredity. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 425–455.
Wollman, E. (1920). A propos de la note de MM. Bordet et Ciuca (Phénomène de D’Hérelle, autolyse microbienne transmissible de J. Bordet et M. Ciuca, et hypothèse de la pangenèse de Darwin). Comptes-Rendus De La Société De Biologie, 83, 1478–1479.
Zirkle, C. (1935). The inheritance of acquired characters and the provisional hypothesis of pangenesis. The American Naturalist, 69, 417–445.
Zirkle, C. (1946). The early history of the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters and of pangenesis. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 35, 91–151.
Acknowledgements
This paper benefited from several exchanges with Jon Hodge, whom I thank very much for his detailed examination and advice, especially as regards the historiography of pangenesis. I am also indebted to Pierre Olivier Méthot and Camille Limoges for their subsequent attentive reading. Last but not least, Jean-Yves Bart edited the final version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Loison, L. (2023). A Structuralist Method: Or Why Darwin’s Pangenesis Remained a Remarkable Blind Spot in Jean Gayon’s Writings. In: Méthot, PO. (eds) Philosophy, History and Biology: Essays in Honour of Jean Gayon. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28157-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28157-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28156-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28157-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)