Abstract
The topic of this paper is external versus internal explanations, first, of the genesis of evolutionary theory and, second, its reception. Victorian England was highly competitive and individualistic. So was the view of society promulgated by Malthus and the theory of evolution set out by Charles Darwin and A.R. Wallace. The fact that Darwin and Wallace independently produced a theory of evolution that was just as competitive and individualistic as the society in which they lived is taken as evidence for the impact that society has on science. The same conclusion is reached with respect to the reception of evolutionary theory. Because Darwin’s contemporaries lived in such a competitive and individualistic society, they were prone to accept a theory that exhibited these same characteristics. The trouble is that Darwin and Wallace did not live in anything like the same society and did not formulate the same theory. Although the character of Victorian society may have influenced the acceptance of evolutionary theory, it was not the competitive, individualistic theory that Darwin and Wallace set out but a warmer, more comforting theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ingemar Bohlin (1991) ArticleTitle“Robert M. Young and Darwin Historiography.” Social Studies of Science 21 597–648 Occurrence Handle10.1177/030631291021004001
Ingemar Bohlin (1994) ArticleTitle“Popularizing Darwin.” Science as Culture 4 425–439 Occurrence Handle10.1080/09505439409526395
Peter Bowler (1988) The Non-Darwinian Revolution The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore, MD
Robert Chambers (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation John Churchill London
Charles Darwin (1859a) “Extract from an Unpublished Work on Species” and an “Abstract of a Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray.” J. Loewenberg (Eds) Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of Natural Selection Arlington Books Cambridge
Charles Darwin (1859b) The Origin of Species Murray London
Darwin, Charles. 1899, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2 New York: D. Appleton
Darwin, Charles. 1989, 1990, 1991. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. F. Burkhardt and S. Smith (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Adrian Desmond James Moore (1991) Darwin W.W. Norton New York
Alvar Ellegård (1985) Darwin and the General Reader University of Chicago Press Chicago
Jim Endersby (2003) ArticleTitle“Escaping Darwin’s Shadow.” Journal of the History of Biology 367 385–403 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1024442921798
Michael Ghiselin (1969) The Triumph of the Darwinian Method University of Chicago Press Chicago
F. Glick Thomas (Eds) (1974) The Comparative Reception of Darwinism University of Texas Press Austin, TX and London
Stephan Jay Gould Richard Lewontin (1979) ArticleTitle“The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205 581–598 Occurrence Handle10.1098/rspb.1979.0086
Gertrude Himmelfarb (1959) Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution Chatto & Windus London
Michael Jonathan Hodge (1974) “England” T.F. Glick (Eds) The Comparative Reception of Darwinism. University of Texas Press Austin and London
Michael Jonathan Hodge David Kohn (1985) “The Immediate Origins of Natural Selection.” D. Kohn (Eds) The Darwinian Heritage Princeton University Press Princeton
David L. Hull (1988) Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science The University of Chicago Press Chicago Occurrence Handle10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001
David L. Hull (2000) “Why did Darwin Fail? The Role of John Stuart Mill.” R. Creath J. Maienschein (Eds) Biology and Epistemology University of Cambridge Press Cambridge
Malcom Kottler (1985) “Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: Two Decades of Debate Over Natural Selection.” D. Kohn (Eds) The Darwinian Heritage Princeton University Press Princeton
Anthony Leeds (1974) “Darwinian and ‘Darwinian’ Evolutionism in the Study of Society and Culture,” T.F. Glick (Eds) The Comparative Reception of Darwinism University of Texas Press Austin and London
Malthus, Robert. 1803. An Essay on the Principle of Population 1826 ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
A.J. Nicholson (1960) “The Role of Population Dynamics in Natural Selection,” S. Tax (Eds) Evolution after Darwin University of Chicago Press Chicago
Henry Fairfield Osborn (1894) From the Greeks to Darwin: An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea Columbia University Press New York Occurrence Handle10.1037/12938-000
Charles Sanders Peirce (1893) ArticleTitle“Evolutionary Love.” The Monist 3 176–200 Occurrence Handle10.5840/monist18933235
Gregory Radick (2003) “Is the Theory of Natural Selection Independent of its History?” J. Hodge G. Radick (Eds) The Cambridge Companion to Darwin Cambridge University Press Cambridge
Michael Shermer (2002) In Darwin’s Shadow Oxford University Press Oxford
John Wyhe Particlevan (2004) Phrenology and the Origins of Victorian Scientific Naturalism Ashgate Press Hants, England
Alexander Vucinich (1974) “Russia: Biological Sciences,” T.F. Glick (Eds) The Comparative Reception of Darwinism University of Texas Press Austin and London
Alfred Russel Wallace (1855) ArticleTitle“On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 16 184–196 Occurrence Handle10.1080/037454809495509
Alfred Russel Wallace (1859) “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type” L. Loewenberg (Eds) Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of Natural Selection Arlington Books Cambridge
Alfred Russel Wallace (1870) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection Macmillan London and New York
Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1889. Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection 2nd ed., London and New York: Macmillan.
Alfred Russel Wallace (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, vol 2 Chapman Hall London
Robert Young (1969) ArticleTitle“Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory.” Past and Present 43 109–145 Occurrence Handle10.1093/past/43.1.109
Robert Young (1971) ArticleTitle“Darwin’s Metaphor: Does Nature Select?” The Monist 55 442–503 Occurrence Handle10.5840/monist197155322
Robert Young (1985) “Darwinism is Social.” Kohn David (Eds) The Darwinian Heritage Princeton University Press Princeton
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hull, D.L. Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary theory in context. J Hist Biol 38, 137–152 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-004-6514-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-004-6514-1