Abstract
Much attention has already been paid to the important historical role played in the constitution of scientific discourses by the transference of concepts from one area of knowledge to another. The enquiries generally focus on the analogical or metaphorical nature of these conceptual transfers. Some investigations suggest that these transfers consistently aim not so much at monistic or reductionist explanations as at providing heuristic scaffolding or firmer scientific basis and authority for fledgling domains of knowledge. This is why one should generally expect a typical declivity in the process, the more exact and established sciences providing conceptual frameworks for the less firmly grounded ones. Thence the frequent borrowings of the biological sciences from the physical sciences, and of the social to the biological and the physical sciences.1
The research for this article has been made possible by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Current research is funded by the “Actions structurantes” programme of the Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Science, Québec.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See for instance: Owsei Temkin: “Metaphors of Human Biology”, pp. 169–194 of Robert C. Stauffer (ed.): Science and Civilization (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949); Georges Canguilhem: “Le problème des régulations dans l’organisme et dans la société”, Cahiers de l’Alliance Israélite universelle (Paris), 1955 n° 92: 64–81; Georges Canguilhem: “Modèles et analogies dans la découverte en biologie” in Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1968), pp. 305–318; Judith E. Schianger: Les métaphores de l’organisme (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1971); Michael Ruse: “The Value of Analogical Models in Science”, Dialogue, 1973, 12: 246–253. Also, the remarkable analysis of Claude Blanckaert: “Variations sur le darwinisme, epistémologie et transfert lexical”, pp. 9–47 of Martine Groult, Pierre Louis, and Jacques Roger: Transfert de vocabulaire dans les sciences (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1988).
The critical history of the concepts and theories of division of labor is the subject of a forthcoming book.
Peter M. Roget: An Introductory Lecture on Human and Comparative Physiology (London, 1826); Henri Milne-Edwards: “Nerfs”, pp. 529–534 of Dictionnaire classique d’histoire naturelle, vol. 11, (published in January 1827); and “Organisation”, ibid., vol. 12, pp. 332–345 (published in August 1827).
See Bernard Balan: “Premières recherches sur l’origine et la formation du concept d’économie animale”, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 1975, 28: 289–326; see pp. 290–291.
For a summary of Milne-Edwards’ life and career, see J. Anthony: “Henri-Milne Edwards” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), vol. 9; Also: A de Quatrefages, E. Blanchard, M. Frémy, de Lacaze-Duthiers,, and L. Passy: Discours prononcés aux obsèques de M.H.-Milne Edwards,le vendredi 31 juillet 1885 (Paris: Institut de France, 1885); E. Perrier: “Henri et Alphonse Milne-Edwards”, Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 4th series, 11 pp. xxix—xlviii; de LacazeDuthiers: [Henri Milne-Edwards], Revue scientifique, 1885, pp. 166–169. Anon.: “Sketch of Henri Milne-Edwards”, Popular Science Monthly, 1883, 22: 545–549.
The first mention of “division du travail” by Milne-Edwards occurs on p. 534 of his article “Nerfs” (n. 3 supra) published in January of 1827; this article must have been written at least many weeks before Roget’s book was published in very late 1826, or maybe even in 1827, despite the inscription of 1826 on the title page (a not uncommon discrepancy), since his “Advertissement” is dated “7 November 1826”. This book reproduces lectures given in October 1826.
See (n. 3 supra), pp. 61–62: “In the lowest orders of the animal creation, these functions [digestion and assimilation of nutriments] are conducted in the simplest manner, and by the smallest number of organs. We may compare the reparatory system, in this case, to a manufactory on a frugal base, conducted by ruder methods, with a scanty apparatus, and by the smallest possible number of workmen. In proportion as we ascend in the scale of animals, we find the processes extending in number and in refinement. The principle of the division of labour is introduced: the tasks before assigned to one and the same organ being now apportioned among different sets of organs, the quality of the work is in the same proportion improved. In the higher classes of animals, the separation of offices becomes still more complete, and the products of one set of organs are passed on to the next in regular succession.”
See Roget’s contribution to the “Bridgewater Treatises”: Animal and Vegetable Physiology Considered with Reference to Natural Theology, 2 vols. (London: Pickering, 1834), vol. 2, pp. 104–106, where he substantially repeated on division of labour and “the manufacture of nutriment” what he had written in 1826 and added nothing more.
Milne-Edwards: “Organisation” (n. 3 supra), pp. 340–341. In the article “Nerfs” (n. 3 supra) the argument is of course mainly restricted to the functions of the nervous system, but Edwards emphasizes that “Ce que nous venons de voir pour le système nerveux a également lieu dans toutes les parties de l’économie animale.” He also makes clear the connection with political economy: “La nature, toujours économe dans les moyens qu’elle emploie pour arriver à un but quelconque, a donc suivi dans le perfectionnement des êtres le principe si bien développé par les économistes modernes, et c’est dans ses oeuvres aussi bien que dans les productions de l’art, que l’on voit les avantages immenses qui résultent de la division du travail” (p. 534; the underlinings are mine).
“Organisation” (n. 3 supra), p. 345.
Milne-Edwards: Eléments de zoologie, ou leçons sur l’anatomie, la physiologie, la classification et les moeurs des animaux (Paris: Crochard, 1834), p. 8. This is the course he taught at the Ecole in 1832–1833 (see p. vii), in which it seems appeared for the first time the complete phrase “division du travail physiologique”. The course of 1831–1832 had been published by lithographic process from the notes taken by some of his students: Ecole centrale des Arts et Manufactures, Cours d’anatomie, de physiologie et de zoologie, par M. Henri Milne Edwards, rédigé par M.M. Camille Laurens, Mamet, L’Amulonnière et Auffroy [Milne-Edwards is given there the title of ‘professeur d’histoire naturelle industrielle”]. The Eléments were much influential, being used as a textbook in the lycées at least for half a century (see 12th edition, 1877; it may not have been the last edition).
vols. (Paris: Roret, 1834–1840).
Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 226–229.
cette tendance au perfectionnement de l’organisme par la division du travail physiologique sur laquelle j’ai appelé l’attention”: “Recherches zoologiques faites pendant un voyage sur les côtes de la Sicile. III. Observations sur la circulation”, Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1845, 3rd, ser., 3: 257–307; p. 287.
H. Milne-Edwards: Introduction à la zoologie générale ou Considérations sur les tendances de la Nature dans la constitution du règne animal (Première partie) (Paris: Masson, 1851). No Second part was ever published.
“Autant la nature est prodigue de la variété dans ses créations, autant elle parait économe dans les moyens qu’elle emploie pour diversifier ses oeuvres”; ibid., p. 9.
Ibid., p. 21.
“L’influence du volume d’un organe ou instrument physiologique sur la quantité des produits qu’il peut fournir, ou pour employer ici le langage de la technologie, l’influence de la masse des matières sur le rendement de la machine que ces matières constituent, est facile à constater” (ibid., p. 23. The underlining is mine). At the time Milne-Edwards was writing, “technology” did not denote a piece of machinery or a technical process, but the project of a new science for the rational use of technical apparatusses and processes to achieve the best possible economic return. See Jacques Guillerme, and Jan Sebestik: “Les commencements de la technologie”, Thalès, 1966, 12 pp. 1–110.
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 26.
Ibid., p. 29.
Ibid., pp. 35–36.
Ibid., pp. 157–158.
Ibid., p. 158.
Though we know that he rejected Darwin’s explanation of evolution through natural selection. See H. Milne-Edwards: Rapports sur les progrès des sciences zoologiques (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1867), p. 428, n. 1. However, he was among the supporters for Darwin’s election to the Académie des sciences.
The family came from Jamaica, established itself in England and later at Bruges, in Belgium where Henri-Milne Edwards was born in 1800, and moved to Paris after the invasion of 1814.
Adam Smith (R.H. Campbell, A. Skinner, and W.B. Todd (eds.): An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) vol. I pp. 4–8. Adam Smith was also aware of other, detrimental, consequences of division of labour; however it is beyond our object to discuss this here.
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 35.
Ibid., p. 22.
Ibid., p. 36.
Ibid., p. 60. Also, p. 68: “La tendance générale de la nature est de varier de plus en plus les instruments physiologiques dont la réunion constitue l’organisme animal à mesure qu’elle produit des espèces plus parfaites.”
These quotations are taken from L.G. Stevenson: “Anatomical Reasoning in Physiological Thought,” pp. 27–38 of C.McC. Brooks, and P.F. Cranefield, (eds.): The Historical Development of Physiological Thought (New York: Hafner, 1959); see p. 35.
“Dans la seconde partie de ce travail, nous présenterons la description anatomique des divers organes de la circulation; mais il était nécessaire de résoudre d’abord la question physiologique par des expériences sur les animaux vivants; l’anatomie seule ne pouvait nous permettre de fournir des lumières suffisantes pour comprendre et expliquer cette importante fonction” (Offprint, p. 32). The paper was published in the Annales des Sciences naturelles in the summer of 1827.
“Quant aux expériences physiologiques… elles sont sûrement importantes, et peut-être ont-elles aidé les auteurs de la découverte des faits qu’ils ont si bien fait connaître; mais le résultat n’en pouvait être déduit et bien conçu qu’après les recherches anatomiques” (Offprint, p. viii). However, in a necrological memoir on Audouin, Milne-Edwards makes clear that it is thanks to the personal support of Cuvier that this research piece earned them that year the Academy’s prize for experimental physiology. See H. Milne-Edwards: Notice sur la vie et les travaux de Victor Audouin (Paris: 1850), p. 11.
Such as the transformation of “dominating characters” into “predominant characters”. See Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), Chapter X.
This aspect is developed as a chapter: “L’économie politique d’une théorie hégémonique en histoire naturelle: le cuviérisme”, in C. Limoges, Etudes d’histoire de la biologie (Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec, forthcoming).
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 36.
Wealth of Nations, Chapter 3, “That the Division Labour is Limited by the Extent of the Market.”
C. Limoges: “Introduction”, pp. 7–22 of C. Linné: L’équilibre de la nature, trans. B. Jasmin (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1972).
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 13.
Bernard Balan has pointed out in his very lucid analysis of Milne-Edwards’ ideas that the very notion of a division of physiological labor, in contrast with Cuvier’ s emphasis on the significance of the “conditions of existence”, substituted a viewpoint centered on the “internal technology” of the organism. See L’ordre et le temps. L’anatomie comparée et l’histoire des vivants au XIXe siècle (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1979), p. 298. This would have removed the attention from the consideration of the market-like living environment. However the extent to which Cuvier’s concept of “conditions of existence” really referred to environmental conditions is debatable. See C. Limoges: “L’économie naturelle et le principe de corrélation chez Cuvier et Darwin”, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 1970, 23 pp. 35–48.
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 12.
Ibid., p. 21.
Ibid., p. 52.
Ibid., p. 23.
Ibid., p. 36.
Ibid., p. 38.
See his Leçons sur la physiologie et l’anatomie comparée des hommes et des animaux, 14 vols. (Paris: Masson, 1857–1881): “On voit alors la division du travail s’introduire de plus en plus complètement dans l’organisme: chaque acte vital tend à s’effectuer au moyen d’un instrument particulier, et c’est par le concours d’agents dissemblables que le résultat général s’obtient. Or les facultés de l’animal deviennent d’autant plus exquises que cette division du travail est portée plus loin; quand un même organe exerce à la fois plusieurs fonctions, les effets produits sont tous imparfaits, et tout instrument physiologique remplit d’autant mieux son rôle que ce rôle est plus spécial” (vol. 1, p. 19). “… plus cette division est portée loin, plus les produits ont de valeur, plus la machine vivante est parfaite” (vol. 14, pp. 279–280; the underlinings are mine.)
Milne-Edwards (n. 15 supra), p. 177.
Ibid., p. 118: “Mais à côté de la concession ainsi faite de besoin de variété qui semble exercer une influence si puissante sur la création toute entière, nous voyons encore les effets de cette tendance à l’économie dont l’étude du perfectionnement physiologique nous avait déjà fourni tant de preuves.” It is no surprise that Darwin marked the passage in his copy and wrote in both margins: “poor!”.
Ibid., Préface, p. ii.
Notebook E: 100. The paper was Milne-Edwards: “Mémoire sur la distribution géographique des Crustacés,” published in 1838 in L’Institut, where Darwin read it (pp. 290 sq.), and in the Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1838, 11: 129-174. Notebook E, p. 25 refers to another article by Milne-Edwards published in the same journal in 1838; Notebook B, p. 112, in 1837, Darwin refers to Milne-Edwards: “Sur l’organisation de la bouche chez les Crustacés suceurs”, Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1833, 28: 78-86. Notebook D, p. 52, (1838) quotes William Sharp MacLeay referring to MilneEdwards’s Histoire naturelle des Crustacés.
In Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1844, 3rd ser. Zoologie, 1: 65–99. The date of reading is taken from Darwin’s notebook on the books he read, Cambridge University Library, DAR 119, fol. 17.
Reading completed through volume 3 on the 30th of January 1847 (volume IV includes plates only). Darwin’s copy, kept in the Darwin Collection at the Cambridge University Library bears his marks, particularly on pp. 226–227 in volume I, from which we have quoted above, where Milne-Edwards makes explicit his views, distinct from those of Cuvier, on the natural grouping of organisms. Darwin manifested his agreement on a penciled paper note pinned in that volume: “226–8 on 2 methods of classification: that of Cuvier impracticable (very good sentence).” Darwin had also had taken note of these views when he read and annotated the detailed summary given by George Johnston: “Miscellanea Zoologica”, Magazine of Zoology and Botany, 1837, 1: 368–382. See the copy kept in the Darwin Collection, Cambridge University Library; esp. pp. 374–375. The reading of the Magazine is mentioned by Darwin in Notebook C, p. 275.
Underlining here is mine.
Cambridge University Library, DAR 72, fol. 117–121.
C. Darwin: Letter to J.D. Hooker, June 8, 1858, in Francis Darwin, and A.C. Seward (eds.): More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1903), vol. 1, p. 109. See C. Limoges: “Darwinisme et adaptation”, Revue des questions scientifiques, 1970, 140: 353–374; p. 353.
“. our principle of Divergence, which regulates the Natural Selection of variation … “ in R.C. Stauffer (ed.): Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection, being the Second Part of His Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858 (London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 249.
Ernst Mayr: “Darwin’s Five Theories of Evolution”, pp. 755–772 of David Kohn (ed.): The Darwin Heritage (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 759–760.
C. Limoges: La sélection naturelle. Etude sur la première constitution d’un concept (1838–1859) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970), p. 131 sq. Darwin’s complete argument is best summarized by David Kohn: “1. First there is an economical premise. A locality can support more life if occupied by diverse forms partitioning resources. This is the ecological division of labor. Thus specialization is an adaptive advantage to an organism. Hence natural selection, which explains the origin of all adaptation, favors the evolution of new specialized varieties. 2. The making of a new variety occurs sympatrically, that is, with parental and offspring forms inhabiting the same locale. Thus the making of varieties, which Darwin saw as incipient species, occurs by vigorous selection for specialization overcoming the swamping effects of crossing. 3. From the first fork of the branching phylogeny it is a matter or reiteration to generate all of classification. Simply put, niche within niche engenders group within group.” D. Kohn: “Darwin’s Principle of Divergence as Internal Dialogue,” pp. 245–257 of D. Kohn (n. 58 supra), esp. p. 245.
Darwin (n. 57 supra), p. 233.
C. Darwin: On the Origin of Species. A Facsimile of the First Edition, Intr. Ernst Mayr (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 115–116.
C. Limoges: “Darwin, Milne-Edwards et le principe de divergence”, Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences, Paris, 1968 (Paris: Librairie scientifique et technique Albert Blanchard, 1971), 8: 111–115; p. 114. Also: Limoges (n. 59 supra), pp. 134–136. Since my first article on Darwin’s principle of divergence, there has been a substantial literature devoted to the analysis of the genesis of this concept. See for instance: F.J. Sulloway: “Geographic Isolation in Darwin’s Thinking: The Vicissitudes of a Crucial Idea”, Studies in History of Biology, 1979, 3: 23–65; E.J. Browne: “Darwin’s Botanical Arithmetic and the “Principle of Divergence, 1854–1858”, Journal of the History of Biology, 1980, 13: 53–89; S.S. Schweber: “Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Characters”, ibid., 1980, 13: 195–289; D. Ospovat: The Development of Darwin’s Theory Natural History, Natural Theology and Natural Selection, 1838–1859 (Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), esp. pp. 146–209; D. Kohn: “On the Origin of the Principle of Divergence”, Science, 1981, 213: 1105–1108; J. Browne: The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), esp. pp. 206–218; S.S. Schweber: “Facteurs idéologiques et intellectuels dans la genèse de la théorie de la sélection naturelle”, pp. 123–142 of Y. Conry (ed.): De Darwin au Darwinisme, Science et idéologie (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1983); S.S. Schweber: “The Wider British Context in Darwin’s Theorizing”, pp. 35–69 of D. Kohn (in 58 supra); D. Kohn: “Darwin’s Principle of Divergence as Internal Dialogue”, ibid., pp. 245–257.
This is not the place to review this literature. It should however be emphasized that though some of these scholars have adopted different viewpoints on the precise timing and nature of the input provided by Darwin’s readings of Milne-Edwards, the connection itself as we will see, remains unquestionable.
…. at the time [the writing of the 1844 Essay] I overlooked one problem of great importance; and it is astonishing to me, except on the principle of Columbus and his egg, how I could have overlooked it and its solution. The problem is the tendency of organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as they become modified. That they have diverged greatly is obvious from the manner in which species of all kinds can be classed under genera, genera under families, families under suborders, and so forth; and I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occured to me; and this was long after I came to Down.” N. Barlow (ed.): The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882 (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 120–121.
“It is to me really laughable when I think of the years which elapsed before I saw what I believe to be the explanation of some parts of the case; I believe it was fifteen years after I began before I saw the meaning and cause of the divergence of the descendants of any one pair.” Letter to George Bentham, 19 June 1863, in Francis Darwin (ed.): The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (New York: Appleton, 1899), vol. 2, p. 211.
See Cambridge University Library, DAR 128: in this notebook on the books he read, the last entry for 1852 is: “M. Edwards. Introduction Zoolog. générale 1851.”
D. Ospovat: (n. 62 supra).
David Kohn: ibid., p. 250.
Cambridge University Library, DAR 205.9: 50; quoted in Ospovat (n. 62 supra), p. 267, n. 49.
Darwin (n. 61 supra), pp. 115–116.
Darwin’s manuscript comment in the margin of p. 126 of his copy of the Introduction à la zoologie générale.
Limoges (n. 62 supra), p. 114; and (n. 59 supra), p. 136.
The best and most complete study on Durkheim is Steven Lukes: Emile Durkheim. His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study (London: Penguin Books, 1975).
E. Durkheim: De la Division du Travail Social (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960), p. 1: “Sans doute, dès l’Antiquité, plusieurs penseurs en aperçurent l’importance; mais Adam Smith est le premier qui ait essayé d’en faire la théorie. C’est d’ailleurs lui qui créa ce mot, que la science sociale prêta plus tard à la biologie.” Moreover, he knew of course of the views of Comte, Spencer, Espinas and Tönnies and discussed them.
Ibid., preface to the first edition, pp. xliii—xliv.
Ibid., pp. 3, 260.
Ibid., p. 3. Durkheim mentions here the works of Wolff, von Baer and Milne-Edwards.
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 150.
Ibid., p. 149.
Ibid., p. 100.
Ibid., p. 154.
Ibid., p. 157.
Ibid., p. 212.
Ibid., pp. 236–244.
Ibid., pp. 248–250.
Ibid., p. 253.
Ibid., p. 259.
“Tout se passe mécaniquement. Une rupture d’équilibre dans la masse sociale suscite des conflits qui ne peuvent être résolus que par une division du travail plus développée: tel est le moteur du progrès.” Ibid., p. 253. Despite the physicalist language used here, it remains clear that the explanation had a biological foundation: there is no principle of divergence for inert objects.
Lukes (n. 72 supra), pp. 34–35.
Ibid., pp. 167–168. Lukes points out (p. 168, n. 51) that Durkheim in La division du travail social “takes material density to be an index of moral density, but renounces this procedure” in the Règles de la méthode sociologique (n. 92 infra).
Published in 1895. See E. Durkheim: Les règles de la méthode sociologique (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1973), p. 113, n. 1.
This is not to imply that Durkheim borrowed the entire theory of evolution by natural selection. Paul Hirst has pointed out that Durkheim paid no attention to Darwin’s concept of random variation, for instance. But this is not enough to assert that Durkheim “in fact did not adopt a simple Darwinist explanation”. Hirst ignores the fact that what Durkheim borrowed is the principle of divergence, which already embodied the concept of a division of ecological labour and implied random variations. Moreover Durkheim’s solution in no way denies the assumption of these random variations. More generally, the weakness of Hirst’s viewpoint comes mainly from the fact that he interprets the Division du travail social from the standpoint of a work published later, the Règles de la méthode sociologique. See P.Q. Hirst: “Morphology and pathology. Biological analogies and metaphors in Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method”, Economy and Society, 1973, 3: pp. 1–34.
R.A. Nisbet (ed.): Emile Durkheim (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 37.
Durkheim (n. 73 supra), p. 4.
Lukes (n. 72 supra), p. 171.
Hirst (n. 92 supra), p. 19.
See for instance David O. Edge: “Technological metaphor”, pp. 31–64 of D.O. Edge, and J.N. Wolfe (eds.): Meaning and Control. Essays in Social Aspects of Science and Technology (London: Tavistock Publications, 1973).
M. Ruse: “The Nature of Scientific Models: Formal v. Material Analogy”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1973, 3: 63–80.
C. Ménard: “La machine et le coeur. Essai sur les analogies dans le raisonnement économique”, pp. 137–161 of A. Lichnerowicz, F. Perroux, and G. Gadoffre, (eds.): Analogies et connaissance. Tome II. — De la poésie à la science (Paris: Maloine, 1981).
I.B. Cohen: The Newtonian Revolution, with illustrations of the transformation of scientific ideas (Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), esp. Chapter 4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Limoges, C. (1994). Milne-Edwards, Darwin, Durkheim and the Division of Labour: A Case Study in Reciprocal Conceptual Exchanges between the Social and the Natural Sciences. In: Cohen, I.B. (eds) The Natural Sciences and the Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 150. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3391-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3391-5_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4258-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3391-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive