Advertisement

The Transcendence of the Social: Durkheim, Weismann and the Purification of Sociology

  • Maurizio Meloni

Abstract

This chapter highlights a conceptual traffic from biological views of heredity as hard (closed to environmental signals) to sociology in Durkheim’s strategic usage of German biologist August Weismann. The transcendence of the social in Durkheim is entirely isomorphic to Weismann’s transcendence of the germplasm: in both cases, they aimed to construct objective realities, radically independent and exterior from individual tendencies and peculiarities. Weismann offered Durkheim an important scientific companion to make boundaries between sociology and biology. In conclusion, by taking Weismann as an anticipator of the genetics revolution a few years later, I argue for a profound complicity between twentieth-century non-biological sociology and genetics. They both made space for a neat distinction between biological heredity and sociocultural transmission, heredity and heritage. This may no longer be a viable option for 21st century postgenomic views.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The section on Weismann and hard heredity summarizes chapter 2 of my book Political Biology (2016). Thanks to Andrew Turner for kindly revising some passages of the text. An oral version of this text was presented at the ‘Future of the History of the Human Sciences workshop organized in York by Chris Renwick and Felicity Callard. Huge thanks to the two reviewers for their extremely helpful comments and insights.

Funding

I gratefully acknowledge funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a grant on epigenetics and public policy in Sheffield (PI Paul Martin).

References

  1. Allen, Garland. 2011. Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics 1910–1945. Annals of Human Genetics 3: 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell-Pearson, Keith. 2003. Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, William. 1890. Are the Effects of Use and Disuse Inherited? London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
  4. Bonduriansky, Richard. 2012. Rethinking Heredity, Again. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 330–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowler, Peter. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1989. The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2009. Evolution, the History of an Idea. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burrow, John. 1966. Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Churchill, Frederick. 2015. August Weismann: Development, Heredity, and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crook, D.P. 1994. Darwinism, War and History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davenport, Charles. 1915. Nomadism, or the Wandering Impulse, with Special Reference to Heredity. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durkheim, Émile. 1893/1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1895/1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1897/2002. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Translated by J. A. Spaulding and G. Simpson. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1915. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by G. A. Swain. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Fenton, Stephen. 1980. Race, Class and Politics in the Work of Emile Durkheim. In Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism, 43–82. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  17. Fournier, Marcel. 2005. Durkheim’s Life and Context: Something New about Durkheim? In The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim, ed. Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  18. Gieryn, Thomas. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gissis, Snait. 2003. Late Nineteenth Century Lamarckism and French sociology. Perspectives on Science 10: 69–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, Mike. 1999. Durkheim’s Sociology and Theories of Degeneration. Economy and Society 28: 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heilbron, John. 1995. The Rise of Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hirst, Paul. 1973. Morphology and Pathology: Biological Analogies and Metaphors in Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method. Economy and Society 2: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johannsen, Wilhelm. 1911. The Genotype Conception of Heredity. The American Naturalist 45 (531): 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2010. The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kroenfeldner, Maria. 2009. ‘If There is Nothing Beyond the Organic…’ Heredity and Culture at the Boundaries of Anthropology in the Work of Alfred L. Kroeber’s. NTM. Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 17: 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. La Capra, Dominick. 2001. Emile Durkheim Sociologist and Philosopher. Revised ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lehmann, Jennifer. 1995. The Question of Caste in Modern Society: Durkheim’s Contradictory Theories of Race, Class, and Sex. American Sociological Review 8: 566–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. López-Beltrán, Carlos. 2004. In the cradle of heredity; French Physicians and l’hérédité Naturelle in the Early 19th Century. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1): 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lukes, Steven. 1982. Introduction. In The Rules of Sociological Method, ed. Durkheim Emile. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1985. Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work, An Historical and Critical Study. Stanford, California: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  33. Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  35. Meloni, Maurizio. 2016a. Political Biology: Science and Social Values in Human Heredity from Eugenics to Epigenetics. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2016b. From Boundary-Work to Boundary Object: How Biology Left and Re-Entered the Social Sciences. In Biosocial Matters: Rethinking Sociology-Biology Nexus in the Twenty-First Century, ed. M. Meloni, S. Williams, and P. Martin. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Mucchielli, Laurent. 1998. La Découverte du Social: Naissance de la Sociologie en France, 1870–1914. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  38. Müller-Wille, Staffan, and Hans-Jorg Rheinberger, eds. 2007. Heredity Produced: At the Crossroads of Biology, Politics, and Culture, 1500–1870, 3–34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2012. A Cultural History of Heredity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Novak, Jakub. 2008. Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann’s Evolution: A Story Written on Butterfly’s Wings. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  41. Nye, Robert. 1982. Heredity, Pathology and Psychoneurosis in Durkheim’s Early Work. Knowledge and Society 4: 103–142.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1984. Crime, Madness and Politics in Modern France: The Medical Concept of National Decline. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Offer, John. 2010. Herbert Spencer and Social Theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paligot, Reynaud Carole. 2006. La République raciale. Paradigme racial et idéologie républicaine 1860–1930. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  45. Paul, Diane, and B. Day. 2008. John Stuart Mill, Innate Differences, and the Regulation of Reproduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39: 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peel, John. 1971. Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Romanes, George. 1899. An Examination of Weismannism. 2nd ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenberg, Charles. 1974. The Bitter Fruit: Heredity, Disease and Social Thought in Nineteenth Century America. Perspectives in American History 1: 189–235.Google Scholar
  49. Ross, Dorothy. 1993. The Development of the Social Sciences. In Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States, ed. J. Farr and R. Seidelman. Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  50. Spencer, Herbert. 1851/1883. Social Statics: Or, The Conditions Essential to Happiness Specified, and the First of them Developed. New York: Appleton and Co..Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1887. The Factors of Organic Evolution. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 1893a. The Inadequacy of “Natural Selection”. Contemporary Review 63: 152–166.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 1893b. A rejoinder to Prof. Weismann. Contemporary Review 64: 893–912.Google Scholar
  54. Wallace, Alfred Russel. 1889. Darwinism, an Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection with Some of Its Applications. London & New York: Macmillan & Co..Google Scholar
  55. ———. 1892. Human Progress: Past and Future. Arena 26: 145–159.Google Scholar
  56. Ward, Leister. 1891. Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Lamarckism. Washington: Press of Gedney & Roberts.Google Scholar
  57. Weindling, Paul. 1989a. Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism: 1870–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 1989b. Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism: 1870–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Weinstein, David. 1998. Equal Freedom and Utility: Herbert Spencer’s Liberal Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Weismann, August. 1893a. The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  61. ———, August. 1893b. The All-Sufficiency of Natural Selection. Contemporary Review 64: 309–338.Google Scholar
  62. ———, August. 1904. The Evolution Theory. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  63. West-Eberhard, M. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, Philip K. 2007. Erasmus Darwin and the ‘Noble’ Disease (Gout): Conceptualizing Heredity and Disease in Enlightenment England. In Heredity Produced, ed. S. Müller-Wille and H.-J. Rheinberger, 133–154. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Winther, Rasmus. 2001. August Weismann on Germ-Plasm Variation. Journal of the History of Biology 34: 517–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Meloni
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations