A Vital Rat ional ist

Selected Wri t ings f rom

Georg.t yngui lhem

Editcd b,v Frango is l )e lapo r te

Translatcd bv Arthur Goldhamnrer

lv i th an introduct icrn bv Paul R.rbinorv and

a cr i t ical b ib l i ographv bv Camil le Limoge s

ZONE BOOKS NE\v YORK

1994

O 1994 LIrTone, Inc.

ZONE BOOKS

6r r Broadrvry, Sui tc 608

Ne* York, NY toot z

Al l r ights rcscrved.

( t

,^t \ rr

[ '

9l-86r I

, i \ I Contents

Editor's Notc b.v Franqois Delaporte e

lntroduct ion: A Vi ta l Rat ional ist

by Paul Rabinow 1r

MEr oDor ocY

lhe Hrstorr o l 5cr(n(e 25

The Various Mode ls ar

The Historl of the Histor,v of Science

Eprs: l , t t o I o<;v

Epistemology of Biologv oz

Epistemologv of Phvsiologv

A Borogue Phvsiolog.t' er

An Erperimental Sciencc 7o3'fhe

Molor Problents oJ Nincteenth-Centur.r'

Ph.vsiolog.t' tts

Ilpistemologv ol N{cclicine

The Linits of Healinll ns

7hc Nev, Situation ol l letl icinc 13:

A lledical Revolution ras

No part o l th is book may be reproduced, stored in a

retr icval system, or t ransmit ted in any lbrm or by any

merns, including elcctronic, mechanical , photocopl-

ing, microl i lming, rccording, or otheru' ise (except

for that copying permit tcd by Sect ions ro7 and ro8 of

the U.S. Copyr ight Lat | and except by reviewers lor

the publ ic press)without wr i t ten permission f iom

the Publ isher.

Sources for the cxcerpts are l is ted on pp. 480-81.

Pr inted in the Uni ted States ofAmerica.

Distr ibuted by l he Ml l - Press,

Cambridgc, Massachusetts, and London. England

Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publ icat ion Data

Cangui lhem. Georges, reoa-

A vi ta l rat ional ist : selected rvr i t ings l iom Georges

Cangui lhem.r edi ted bv Franqois Delapone; t ranslated

bv Arthur Coldhamrner wi th an introduct ion br: Paul

Rabinos and r cr i t ical b ib l iographv by Cimi l lc L imogcs.

p cm.

Includes bibl iographical references.

rsBN o-94) ?99-72-8

r. Science- l I is torv.

t . Delaporte, f ranqois,

Qr) t .c l4 '991

z. Science-Phi losophy.

r9.1r l r . Ti t lc .

P,qnr ONr

I

I I

I I I

PARr T\\'()

IV

VI

Paer l l r t rer HtsronY

VII Ce l l fhcory rer

Vl l l The Conc ept of Rcf lex

lX BioJogical Obje cts 203

P,\RT FouR IN I FRFRETA r roNS

X Ren6 Descartes zrg

XI Auguste Comte 237

Xl l Claude Bernarcl zor

179

Pnonr r l rs

Knorvledge and the Living

Science and LiJe zet

The Conccpt oJ l.iJe zoz

The Norm.rl .rnd the Pathological

lnrrodttction to the Prohlcm szr

The ldcntitv ol the Two Statcs tzt

I mp I icati o ns a ntl Counterposi t io n s

Normalitv and Normativitv esr

321

Crit ical Bibf iographt b.y Canil le Linoges

N()tcs t55

P,ur l Frvr

XII I

Translotor's Note

Thc texts collected here are translated frorn thc French fbr thc

first t irne, but for trvo exceptions: I have included passages from

ml translation ofGcorges Canguilhem's Ideoloo.v and Rationality

(Cambrirlge, N{Ar NllT Press, 1988) and from Carolvn Farvcett 's

transfation of The Normo] on<l the Pathological (Ncu York: Zonc

Books, 1989 ) .

XIV

XV

3As

Editor 's Note

Frangois Dclaporte

The texts collccted in this volumc introduce English-language

readers to an especiallv diff icult and complex dimcnsion ofGeorge

Canguilhem's rvork, namcly his philosophv of biology and merli-

cine. Its primary purpose, then, is to chart the main themes of

Canguilhem's thought, l\hich is distinguished by minute atten-

tion to developments in biology and medicinc over the past f ifty

vears. To achieve this end, importance lvas givcn to questions of

methodology in the historv of science. This in itself u'as neces-

sary because the ob.tect of historical cliscourse is not scicntif ic dis-

course as such but the historicitv of scientif ic discourse insofar

as it represents the implementation of an epistemological proj-

e.ct (prcjet de savoir\. If the historv of science is the history of a

discoursc subiect to the norm ofcrit ical rectif ication, thcn it is

clearlv a branch of epistemologv. Canguilhcm recognires that thc

disciplines rvhose historv he rvritcs give the appearancc of a gen-

esis, that is, a process opposed to the divcrsity of the various fbrms

of pseudo-sciencc. This, in f)ct, is the sourcc of his interest in

cpistcmological breaks. Studving the historv of an act iv i tv i tsel f

defined by its ref'erence to truth as an cpistcmological value forces

one to focus attention on both thc failurcs and successes of that

act iv i ty. faking a macroscopicr v ic* ol the historv ol science,

Cangr-r i lhem undcrtook to studv the emcrgence of thrcc r l isc i -

plines: biologv. physiologv anrl medicinc. l)epencling on the sub-

ject o l studr. Carrgr i lhcm r l i l l somet imes plovide a histor l of

theorv. s()mctimcs a history ofconcepts antl sometimcs a historv

rr l b io logical objects. But thc object ive is alvravs thc same; to

describe ho* ideologv and scicnce Jre at once internvincd and

separatc. Furthcr, his studics of Ren(: I)escartes, Auguste Comte

and Claude Bernarcl c lear lv r<teal rvhy, as Ltruis Al thusser once

put it, Canguilhem is considered onc ofthe bcst "tcachers ofho*.

to rer(l * 'orks ol phi)osr4rhr' .rnd scit nce." The readcr. x e assunre,

* i l l not be surprised that the prcsent rvork cnds * ith a serics of

general questiolls conccrning the relation ol knowledgc to Jife

and ol the normal to the pathologic.rl. Canguilhem bcgan r. ith

error aDd on that basis posed the philosophic.rl problcm ol tr.uth

and l i i ! . For Nl ichel Foucaul t , th is approach c()nsr i ruted "onc of

the crucial events in thc historv of modern philosophv."

Introduct ion: A Vi ta l Rat ional ist

Prul R,rbinorv

Georges CaDgui lhem $' is born in Casteln.rudarv in southrvcst-

ern France on Junc 4, 1t)0,1. Al though his father r ,vas . r ta i lor ,

Cangui lhem l ikes to refer to hirnsr: l f , not rv i thout a certain

trv inkle in his eve, as bcing ofpcasant st i rck, rootcd in thc har-

monious, cvcl ical l i f 'e of the soi l and the seasons, his scnsibi l i t ics

I6nrrcd bl the I 'tarlr rorintl ol the lruit trecs. The storv ol his sen-

tinrental erlucation is a classic one. High rnarks on national cxam-

inat ions sent him on a iournev to Par is to studv; once therer, hc

lvas a grear success. Aftcr complcting his studies at the prestigious

lrc6e Henri IV he cntered thc most elitc educational institution

in France, the Ecole Normale Super ieute, in 1924. Anrong his

promotion, his cohort, rvcre lean-Paul Sartrc, R.almond Aron and

Paul Nizan; l\{aurice N{erlcau-PoDt\r ( 'ntered thc [:co]e a vcrr larcr.

Alr.eady at this tin1c, Canguilhem $as interestc(l in thenrcs that

hc rrould rcturn ro and de*elop rhroughout his intel lcctual l i fe:

in part icular, a p.rper on Auguste Comte's thcorr of order and

progrcss, u hich Cangui lhem strbmit ted fbr a diploma, displavs

rhc beginnings () l th is persistcnt interest in the relat ion ol rea-

son and socict \ ' * an intercst he sharcd with his other dist in-

guishtd c lassmates but \ i h ich Cangui lhcnr devel , rped in a highlr

original manner. The philosopher Alain's judgmenr oi Canguilhem

in 1924 as " l ivelv, resolutc and content" st i l l captures the man's

spirit almost three-quarters of a century Iatt 'r. l

Once he becanre agr igd in phi losophv in 1927, the young

Canguilhem began his tenching tour crf provincial lyc6es, as wirt

requircd ofall Ecole Normale graduates in rcpayment to the stare

tbr their cdqcat ion, l l is in i t ia l peregr inat ions ended in 1935 in

Toulouse, wherc he taught at the lyc6e, rvhi le beginning his

medical t ra in ing. In 19+0, he rcsigned from his teaching post,

because. as ht' rvrotc thc Rector of the Acad6mie de Tirulouse,

he hadn't becomc an agregd in philosophy in ordet to preach the

doctr ine of thc Vichv regime.2 He took advantage of h is newlv

lbund fiee time to complete his medical studies, prophcticallv,

in both a philosophic and polit ical sense, C.rnguilhem replacerl

.fean Cavail l is, the philosopher of mathematics - he had been

callerl to the Sorbonne - at the [. lniversity ol Strasbourg, rvhich

relocated to Clernront-Ferrand in 1941, when Strasbourg rl,asannexed bl the Reich. He part ic ipated in rhe f i r rmat i r_rn ofanrmportant resistance group to rl hich he made available his skil ls.Al l in al l , a l i fe in thc ccnturv, as the French say: l ike so manlof his compatriots, Canguilhem's l ifc vvas shaped by the conjunc-

ture of France's enduring institutions and the contingent evenrsol h is t ime.

In 1943, Cangrri lhem defended his rledical rhesis, ,,Essais sur

<luelques probldmcs concernanr lc normal et le pathologique., 'The continued timeliness and exceptional durabil it l .ofthis u<rrl iis attcsted to by the lact that he updated it t\!,entv years laterrl ith significant ncrv rc{lcctions, and that ir rvas rranslated int<rEnglish clecarles later as lie Normal and the patholog;cal,t Afterthc rvar, he resumed his posr lt rhe Llniversity of Strasbourg (inStrasbourg),

'r,herc hc remained unti l 1948. After l irst refusing

the inlpoltrnt admini51r.11lys port of inipccteur gdneral de phi-losophie at the Liberat ion, he f inal ly acceptcd i t in 194g, and

served unt i l 1955, * 'hen he accepted thc Chair of Historv and

Phi losophy of Sciences at the Sorbonne and succeeded Gaston

Bachelard as director of the Institut d'histoirc des sciences ct des

techniques. I I is reputat ion as a ferocious examiner l iv t 's on in

Paris today, as docs a deep rvell of affection for thc intellectual

and institutional support he providcd over the decrdes.a

History ond Philosophy of Science

Louis Althusser paid Canguilhem a complinrent rvhen he com-

parcd him (as rvel l as Cavai l l ts , 'Bachelard, Julcs Vui l lemin and

,\ ' l ichel Fouc.rult) to an anthropologist who !oes jnto the field

armed lvith "a scrupulous respect for the realitv ofrcal science."5

The comparison is re"eal ing i fnot r ;u i te an accuratc descr ipt ion

of Canguilhem's nlethod, More strictlv ethnographic studies of

laboratory l i fe, l ike thosc of Bruno Latour, u 'ould come later

and rvould aim not merely at corrccting a positivist and idealist

understanding of science as a s ingJe uni f lcd act iv i t r achieving a

cumulative understanding of nature, but also at dismantling the

verf idea ofscience - a position as far l iom Canguilhcm's as one

could imagine. Nonetheless, Althusscr's statcment captures the

mole, f irst init iatcd by' Bache]ard, anay from the static univer-

sal ism that the French universi ty svstem had enshr ined in i ts

rationalist and idealist approachcs to science. For Bachclard, phi,

losophy's ne\4, role was to analyze the historical development of

t r t r th-producing pracr iccs. The phi losophv of science bccame

the study of regional epistemologies, the historical reflection on

the elaborati<rn oftheories and concepts bv practicing scientisrs,

physicists, chemists, pathologists, anatomists and so on. Thc aim

\r'as not to.rttack sciencc but to shor,t it in action in irs speci-

flcity and plrrralitv.

Canguilhem is clear an<l aclrmant that evcn though philosopirv

had lost its sovcreigntv and its autonr)my, it sti l l had important

r l

\1ork to accorr lp l ish. Ltnl i l<e the task ol thc scicnt ist , thc cpiste-

mologist's problem is t() esrablish "the ordcr of conceptual prog-

ress that is ' isible

onlv rl i tr thc fact and of rvhich thc prcscnt

notion ofscicntjJic truth is thc provisional point of crrlmination."6

Truths arc fbund in the practiccs ofscience; philosophy analvzes

the plural i ty of thesc t ruths, their h istor ic i ty, and consequent ly

their provisionalitv, u hile afl irming - not legislating, as the oldcr

Frcnch philosophv of science sought to clo - their normativit)r.

Epistcmology is a rigorous description of the proccss by which

truth is elaborated, not a l is t of f inal resul ts. Al thusser 's enco-

mium takes for granted ttrit sciencc cxists and holds a privileged

status, but Canguilhem, l ike Foucault ancl Picrre Bourdieu, never

doubted this: "To take as onr"s object of inquirv norhing other

than sources, invcntions, inlluenccs, priorit ies, sintultaneities, and

successions is at bottcrm ro fail to distinquish betu'cen sciencc

and other aspccts ol cul ture." l This assunrpt ion - Latour has

cal led i t thc kev s lmbol of French phi losophy and historv of sci-

tnce - is tht 'cornerst()n( ol the rvholc archirecturc of the house

of rcason inhabj ted br Cangui lhem.i Scicnce, lor Cangtr i lhem, is

"a discourse ver i f j t ' r l in . r del imited sector of exper iencc."e Sci-

ence is an explor.rt iorr oftlre norm ofrationality at uork. But just

as l i rm as rhe bcl ie l iD scicnce is rhe bel ief in i ts histor ic i tv and

its pluralitv. There arc only divt'rse scienccs at rvork at particu-

lar historica] moments: phvsics is not biology; eighteenth-centurv

natural historv is not trvent ieth-centur.t- genetics.'fhus, fbr Canguilhem, "thc historv of scicnce is the historv of

an object - discourse - that l ' ' a history and las a historv, rvhereas

sciencc is the science oIan ob. jcct that is nota historv, that has

no historv."l i l Sciencc, thrcrugh its usc ofmethod, divirlcs nature

into objects. Thesc objects.rre secctndarv, in a sensc, but not

derivative; one coul<l sa\ that thel.arc both constructed and dis-

covcred. The historr <rf science pcrlbrnrs a similar sct of opera-

r+

t ions on scient i f ic o l r jccts. Thc obj(ct of h istor ical d iscourse is

" thc histor ic i tv ofscient i f ic d iscoursc, in so much ns that his-

tory effectuates a projcct guided bv its orvn intcrnal norms but

travcrsed by accidents interrupted bv cr iscs, that is to sa1 b1

moments ofjudgmcnt and truth."l l These trtrths are alwavs con-

testable and in proccss, as it were, but no less "real" on account

of their cont ingencl . The historv of sci t 'nce is not natural h is-

tory: it docs not identify the science with thc scicntist, the sci-

ent ists wi th their b iographies, or sciences rv i th their resul t r , nor

the results rvith their currcnt pedagogical use. fhe epistemolog-

ical and historical claims assumecl bv this notion of thc historv

of science arc magisterial and run countcr to t 'nuch ol contem-

porarv doro in the social studics o[ 5cien(e. The texts gathcred

in th is volume pror ide the cvidcnce for Crngui lhem's posi t ion.

Frangois Dclaportc has arranged them in a conccPttl,11 and peda-

gogic.r l fashion u- i th such clar i t - , - that ic tould bc l r t r i r less and

inappropr iare to burdcn them rvi th extended contnrcntarv. ln-

deed, thev provide a k ind of coht-rent "boo). ," r lh ich, cxccpt

lbr h is second doctoral d issertat ion,r l Cangui lhem himsel l 'never

wrote; he prelerred, af ter 1t)4l , tht ' ess.rr lorm crammcd rv i th

prccise, a lmost aphor ist ic, senteDcer, t 'Danv !r ' i th the c lensi tv

of kryptoni te.

The Normal ond the Pathologicol

Al though Cangui lhem publ ished in the late 1930s a phi losophi-

caf treatise on ethics and epistemologv, froitd de lol1ique et de

morale, intcnded as an unconventional textbook fbr advanced lvc6e

studcnts, thc *'ork fbr rvhich he is hest Lnotvn starts vvith lr is

medical thesisivhere he invcstigatcs thc verv tlefinit ion of thc

normal and the pathological . This nork s ignalc<l a nraior reversal

in th inking about hcal th, Prcviouslr , mecl ical t r . r in ing in Franct:

h.rd pr iv i lcged the normal; ( l isease or maltunct ion \1ts under-

r5

stood as the dcviation from a fixed norm, which rvas taken to be

a constant. Medical practicc rvas clirected torvard establishing sci-

entif ically thesc norms and, practice fbllorving theory, torvard

returning the pat ient to heal th, reestabl ishing the norm lrom

rvhich the patient had strayed.

As Frangois Dagognet, the philosopher of biologr', has crisplv

observed, Canguilhem launched a f 'rontal attack on "that edifice

of normalization" so essential to thc procedures of a positivist sci-

ence anrl medicine. 1l He did so bv re-posing the question of the

organism as a Iiving being that is in no prcestablishe(l harmony

with its environment. It is suffering, not normative measurements

and standard deviations, that establishes the state oI disease. Nor-

mativitv begins with the l iving being, and with that being comes

diversitv. Each patient rvhom a doctor treats presents a different

casei each case displavs its or" n particularity. One of Canguilhem's

famous aphorisms drives this point home: "An anomaly is not an

abnorrnal i ty. Diversi tv does not s igni fy s ickncss." With l iv ing

bcinqs, nornral i ty is an act iv i tv. not a stea<lv state, The resul t , i f

one lb l lorvs Cangui lhem's reasoning, is that "a nunrbrr , even a

constant number, translates a stvle, habits, a civjl ization, cven the

under ly ing v i ta l i ty of l i l 'e ."11 The recent discoven rhat huntan

bodv tempcrature has a much rvider range of normalit l than rras

previously assumed demonstrates this point. Normalitv - and this

is one of Canguilhem's constant themes - means the abil itr to

adapt to changing circumstances, to variable and varying envi-

ronments. I l lness is a reduction to constants, the yerv norms bv

rvhich we measure ourselves as normal, Normality equals acti\ '-

i ty and flexibil i ty. Hence thcrc is no purely oblective pathology;

rather, the basic unit is a l iving being that exists in shift ing rela-

tions with a changing environment. Arguing for a clramatic rever-

sal, Canguilhem maintained that i l lness ultimatcly is defined bv

the vcrv terms that had defincd health, namely stable norms,

unchanging values. l5 Li fe is not stasis, a f ixed sct of natural Jau,s,

set in advance and the same fbr all, to rvhich onc must adhere in

order to survive. Rather, l i fe is action, mobil ity and pathos, the

constant but only partially succcssfirl effort to resist death, to use

Bichat 's famous def in i t ion: "Li fe is thc col lect ion of f inct ions

th.rt resist death."

Canguilhem's *-ork has been a consistent and disciplined his-

torical demonstration, a laving-out of the consequences, of these

pr inciplcs. L i l ! has i ts speci f ic i tv: "L i fe, whatevcr fbrm i t may

rake, involves seltlpreservation by means of sclf-regulation."l6 This

specil icitv can - in l ict, must - be elaboratcd perpetuallv, but it

can never be evadcd. C.rngui lhem's punctuate, h istor ical essays

are not a phi losophv ot l i te, l ike those of Hans Jonas or Maurice

i\lerleau-Pontv, rvhich scck to fix an understanding of l i [e rvith

a s ingle set of concepts. Rather, C.rnqui lhem's t ight ly rvr i t ten

did.rct ic lbravs displav horv tht ' l i fe sciences, includinq the thcr-

apeut ic i )ne1, have sirnul taneouslv elaborated concepts of l i le and

the ways these concepts must be seen as an integrated part o[the

phenomenon under studv: l i fe and i ts normsl ' ' l

Although he has been carell l ncit to turn these cxplorations

into a pancgvr ic of v i ta l ism, Cangui lhem demonstrates thc con-

stant presence of evaluative notions l ike "prescrvation," "regula-

tion," "adaptation" and "normality," in both everydav and scientif ic

approaches to l i Ie. " l t is l i fe i tscl f , and not medical judgment,

that makes the biological normal a concept of value and not a con-

cepr ofsrarisrical reality."lt Humanity's specil icitv l ies not in the

fact that it is separate from thc rest of naturc but, rather, in the

licr that it has crcated svstematic knou,ledge and tools to help it

cope. This testing, parrying rvith pathologr., rhis active relation

to the enyironment, this normative mobil itv and projective abil-

it!, humanitv's conceptual career, is central to its health. "Bcing

healthy means being not onlv normal in a given situation but also

l6

normativc in this and othcr evcntual situations. What character-

izes hcal th is thc possibi l i ty of t ranscending the norm, rvhich

dellnes the momentarv normal, thc possibil i ty of tolerating in-

fractions of the habitual norm and instituting ncw norms in nerv

siruations."r8 t ifc is an activitv that fbllorvs a norm. But hcalth is

not heing norm.r l ; heal th is being n, ' rmat i re

In gcneral, reflections on the relationships betteen concepts

and Iif 'e require clarif ication ofthe fact that at least trvo distinct

orders are bcing investigated. First, there is l i fe as fbrm, l ife as

tlre "univcrsal organization of mattcr" (le vivantl, and second,

tlrere is l i fe as the experience of a singular l iving being rvho is

conscious of his or her l i fc (1e vLu). By "l ife" - in French - one

could mcan either 1e vivant, the present particiPle of the verb "to

livd' (r,n're), or thc past participle ./e recu. Canguilhcm is unequiv-

ocal on this point: the first level o{ l i fe, form, controls thc sec-

ond, cxpcrience. Although it is only the first level, the powcr ancl

for-rn-giving dimensions of l i fe, rvhich constitutes the explicit sub-

ject mattcr of his u'ork, the presence of the sccontl is f iequentlv

fi l t nonetheless.re For all i ts declarative claritv, the claim of pri-

ority only thinly masks the kecn a*areness of suffcring and search-

ing - in a rvord, pathos - rvhich is the expericntial double, the

constant companion, of Cangui lhem's insistent concePtual ism.

Thc pathos of cxistence is alrva,rs close at hand for this phvsician

cum philosopher cum pedagogue.

In fact, a not-so-latent existcntialism, albeit ol a distinctive

and idiosvncratic sort, shadows Canguilhem's conccption ofmed-

icine. ( )ne easilv hears echocs of Sartre and Merleau-Pontv's earlv

themes, transposed to a diffcrcnt register and played rvith a dis-

tincti 'e l lair. Canguilhem's variants of "to freedom condemncrl"

and "thc structurc ofcomportment" arc composecl in a dif lerent

kev. His individual is condemned to adapt to an environmcnt and

to act using conccpts and tools that have no preestablishec] affin-

r8

it ies r" ith his surrotrnding u,orld. "Lif 'e becomes a rvilv, supple

intell igence of the rvorld, v'hile reason, for its part, cmergcs as

something morc vital: it f inally develops a logic that is more than

a mere logic ol identity."20 Reason and life are intcrtu,incd, not

opposed, but neither legislatcs thc othcr,

A New U nderstonding of Life: Error

It has become a commonplace to say that Canguilhem's recogni-

tion bv an English-speak ing public, bcvond a fcrv specialists in

the history of thc l ifc sciences, fbllorvs in the q'ake of the suc-

cess ofone ofhis favor i te students and f i iends, Michcl Foucaul t .

While not exactlv false, such an appreciation remains insufl icient

unless rve also ask rvhat it rvas in Canguilhem's lvork u'hich so

intercstcd Foucault. And, even further, are these problems the

most pertinent lor an American auclience? panguilhem's rvork, it

is rvorth underlining, is relevant f irr diverse rt 'asols. The qucstion

to be asked then is, Why read him todav? Thc ansrver l ics par-

tiallv in anothcr frequent commonplace. Canguilhem's predeces-

sor, Bachelard, invented a method fbr a ne*.historv of the "hard

sciences" of chemistrv, phvsics and mathematics; h is student,

Foucault, worked on the "dubious sciences" ol Man; Canguilhem

himself has spcnt his l i fc t racing the l in iments ofa history of the

concepts ofthe sciences of l i fe. l-et us suggest that today it is thc

biosciences - rvith a rencrvcd claboration of such conccpts of

norms and life, dcath and information - that hold center stage

in the scientif ic and social arena; hcncc the rencrvcti rclcvance

ol Georges Canguilhem.

In his 1966 essay "Le Concept et la vie," Canguilhem analvzecl

the contemporary revolution under rvav in genetics ancl molecu-

lar biologv. The essay, a historical tour de lbrce, traces the con-

cept of l i lc as form (and cxperience) as rvell as knorvleclge of that

[or-n, f iom Aristotle to thc present. Canguilhem demonstrates the

continuitv of problematiTation and the discontinuitv of ansllcrs

in the history of thc concept of l i fe. This histor ical reconstruc-

tion provides the groundrvork for an analvsis ofour contemporary

conceptualization of l i fe, Canguilhem framcs James D, Watson

and Francis Crick's discoverv of the structure of the double helix

as an information svstemr one in which the codc and the (cellu-

lar) mil ir:u arc in constant interaction. There is no simple, uni-

directional causal relation between genetic infbrmation and its

ef'fccts. The ne* understanding ofl ifc I ies not in the structuring

of matter and the regulation of functions, but in a shift of scale

and location - f iom mechanics to infbrmation and communica-

tion theory.2r In an important sense, the new understanding ofl ife

as information rejoins Aristotle insofar as it posits l i fe as a logos

"inscribed, converted and transmitted" u,ithin l iving matter.22

Hou,evcr, rve have come a long way since Aristotle. Thc telos of

l ifc most commonly proposed today is more an ethological one,

seeing behavior as determined and humans more as animals,

than a contemplative one that assigns a special place to reflec-

tion and uncertainty. From sociobiologists to manv advocates of

the Human Genomc Project, the code is the central dogma.

Canguilhem rejects this telos.lf homo sapiens is as tightl l pro-

grammed as the ethologists (or many molecular biologists)think,

then hot', Canguilhcm asks, can rve explain error, the history of

errors and thr: history of our victories over error? Genetic crrors

are nou'understood as informational errors. Among such errors,

hou'ever, a large number arise from a maladaption to a milieu.

Oncc again hc rcintroduces the theme of normality as situated

act ion, not as a prcgivcn condi t ion. Mankind makes mistakes

uhen it places itself in the rvrong place, in the rvrong relation-

ship rvith the environment, in the vvrong place to receive the

infbrmation needed to survive, to act, to flourish, We must move,

crr, adapt to sunive. This condition of "crring or drift ing" is not

merely accidental or external to l i fe but its Iundamental lorm.

Knou.ledge, following this understanding of l i fe, is "an anxious

r;uest" (une recherche inquiite) fcrr thc right infbrmation. That

information is only partially to be fbund in the genes. Whv and

how the genetic code is activated and functions, and what the

results are, are questions that can bc adequatcly posed or anslvered

onlv in the contex t ol l i fe, le vivant, and cx perience, 1e ldcu,

Conclusion

Michel Foucault, in an essay dedicated to Canguilhem, "La Vic,

I 'exp6r ience et la science," character ized a div is ion in Frcnch

thought betu.een subject-oriented approaches, u'hich emphasize

meaning and experience, and those philosophies l lhich take as

their object knorvledge, rationality and concepts.2l The rhetori-

cal efl 'ect *,as marvelous. While everyone had heard of Sartre and

Merleau-Ponty, f 'ew people bevond a small circle of spccialists had

actuallv read the u,ork of Cavail lds on the philosophy of set thc-

orv in mathematics or Canguilhem on the historv of the reflex

arc.l i The irony rvas made more tantalizing by al)usions to the

unflinching and high-stakes activit ies in thc resistance of one side

of the pair (Cavail lds was kil lcd by the Nazis after forming the

rcsistance network that Cangui lhem . jo ined), whi le the others

livecl in Paris, n'rit ing pamphlets. Foucault u'as rcvealing to us

a hidden relat ionship of t ruth and pol i t ics, indicat ing anothcr

type of intellectual, one lbr whom totality and authenticitv bore

different forms and norms. Hou,ever, there is a ccrtain insi(ler's

humor involved; twenty vears earlier, Canguilhem had employcd

the samc distinctions, applving them to Cavail l is during the 1930s

lhile mocking thosc who deduced that a philosophv u'ithout a

subject must lead to passivity and inaction. Cavail l is, u'ho had

madc thc phi losophic journcv to Gcrmany dur ing the 1930s and

*.arned earlv on ofthe dangers brerving thcrc, did not, Canguilhem

tells us, hesitate u-hen the rvar finallv camc.2t Rather than lr.rit-

ing a nroral trcarisc to ground his actions, he .joincd thc rcsis-

tance \vhile finishing his rvork on logic as best he could_ Truth

and pol i t ics wcre dist inct domains fbr these thinkers of thc con-

ccpt; or)c $as ethical l r obl iqed ro nct in br) th dorrajns u,hj lc

ncver losing sight of rhe specificity of cach. Cavail lds's examplc

of rigorous thought and principlcd action, while sti l l compcll ing

todav (espccirl ly given thc misunderstanding and moralizing aboutFrench thought rampant across the Rhine, thc Channel and theAt lant ic) , r iould seem ro denrand a renervcd conceptual izat ion.

The rise and cphenreral glory of structuralism and Althusserianismhave sho'r'n rhat rcnror.ing th< humanisr subject in rhc social sci,cnces by itse lf guaranteos ncithcr an epistemoJogical jump fromideologv to science nor more elfictive polit ical action (anv morethnn reinsert ing a quasi- t ranscendcntal subject rv i l l provide suchguarantees). While Canguilhem's vrork enables one to think andrf th ink such problems, i t obviously docs not of l i , r an,- readr_made ans.wers lbr the ftrture. Dcploving readvmade solutions fronrthe past, r,hen historl has nrovcd on, concepts changed, milieusal tcred, rvould, Cangui lhem has taught us, c()nst j tute a maiorcrror - an crror nratchecl in its gral ity onlv bv thosc sceking toannul h istorv. b lur conccpts and homogenize environmenrs, L iv_ing beings arc capablc of correcting rheir errors, and Canguilhem.su ork ofl irs us tools to begin, once agar'n, the process ofdoing so.

Panr ONr

Methodology

CHaprrn C)Ne

The History of Science

The Object of Historical Discourse

[1 ] When one speaks of the "science of crvstals," the relat ion

bctwccn science and crystals is not a genitive, as vv hen one speaks

of the "mother of a kitten." The science of cr,vstals is a discourse

on the nature ofcrystal, the nature ofcrvstal being nothing other

than its identity: a mincral as opposcd to an animal or vegetable,

and independcnt of an,r'use to u,hich one may put it. When crvs-

talJography, crystal optics and inorganic chemistrv are constituted

as sciences, the "nature of crvstal" just is thc contcnt of the sci-

ence ofcrystals, bv which I mean an objective discourse consisting

ofcertain propositions that arise out ofa particular Lind oIrvork.

That work, the rvork of science, includes the fbrmulat ion and

testing ofhypotheses, which, once tested, are forgotten in favor

of their rcsults.

When H6ldne Metzger wrote Ld Genisc de la scicnce des ctistaux,

she composed a discoursc about discourscs on thc nature of crvs-

tal. l But these discourses u.crc not originallv the same as rvhat u,e

nou'takc to bc the correct discourse about crystals, thc discourse

that defines rvhat "crvstals" are as an object of science. Thus,

the historv of sciencc is the history of an object - discoursc -

that ir a historv and fios a historv, rlhereas science is the science

2t

ol'an objecr rhit is rt()t.r hisrorv, that has no historv'

The objcct "crvstal" is a given. Evcn i f the science ofcrystals

must take the historr',r1 the earth and the historv of mincrals into

account, that h iston's t inre is i tsel fa given. Because "crvstal" is

in somc scnse indcpenrJcnt of thc scientif ic discoursc that seeks

to obtain knou ledge atrout it, we call i t a "natural" object.2 Of

course, this natural object, cxternal to discourse, is not a scien-

ti l ic oblcct. Naturc is not t1iven to us as a set ofdiscrcte scientif ic

objccts and phcnomena.l.Science constitutcs its obiects bv invent-

ing a method of formulat ing, through proposi t ions capable of

being combined intcgrallv. i theory controlled by a concern rvith

proving itself * rong, Crystallography \ '\,as constitutcd as soon as

the crystall ine species could I 'e defined in tcrms of constancy of

fice anglcs, srstems ol symmetrr. and regular truncation ofvcr-

t ices. "The essrnt ia l point ," Ren( 'Just Hai iv \ \ , r i tcs, " is that the

theon and cnstall iTation rrlt inratclr come together and find com-

mon grorrnd." l

Thc objcct of the historv of scicncc has nothing in contmon

$ith the object ofscicncr. ' [he scient i f ic objcct , const i tuted bv

mcthodical rl iscourse. is secondaq to, although not clerived from,

the in i t ia l natural object , rvhich might rvel l be cal led ( in a dcl ib-

cratc plal on lr.or<ls) t lre pre-text. The historr, ofscicnce applies

itself to these sec.rndary. nonnatural, cultural objectsl but it is

not derived l iom them dny more than thcv are derived fiom nat-

ural objects. The object oI historical discoursc is, in ef]ect, the

historicitv ol scientif ic cliscourse. Bv "historicitv ofscientif lc dis-

course" I mean the progress ofthe discursive project as measurcd

against its orvn intcrnal norm. ' lhis progrcss ma\i moreover, meet

rvith accidents, be delaved or diverted bv obstacles, or be intcr-

rupted by cr iscs, that is , lnomcnts of j t rdgmcnt and truth.

The historv ol scicncc w.ts born as a l i tcrart 'genre in the

eightccnth centurv. I l ind that insuff ic ient at tent ion has bcen

pai<J to a significant f;ct about tht' crnt'rgcnce ol this genre: it

re<luired no ferver than two scientif ic.rnd trvo philosophical rev-

olut ions as i ts prccondi t ions. C)nc scient i l ic revolut ion c.rccurred

in mathematics, in rvhich Descartes's anallt ic geornetrv rvas lol-

lorved bv the infinitesimal calculus of Leibniz an(l Ne\vton; the

second revolution, in mechanics and cosmology, is svmbolized by

Descartes's Principles ol Philosoplr.y and Newton's Principia- ln phi-

losophy, and, more precisely, in the theorv of knovr' ledge, that

is, the foundations ofscience, Cartesian innatism was one revo-

lution and Lockeian sensualism the other. Without Descartes,

rvithout a rending oftradition, there $,ould be no history ofsci-

ence. IEtudes, pp. 16-17]

[2] Was Bernard I -e Bouvicr fontencl l t mistakt 'n uhcn hc

looked to Descartes fbr justif ication of a cerrain philosophv of

the history of science? From the denial that author i tv holds anv

val id i t l in sciencc, Fontencl le rcasoncr l , i r lb l lons that thc con-

di t ior . , , f t luth , r re subject to histor ic.r l ch,rngr. But d, ,e, , i r rh" l

make sensc to propose a histor ic ist re.rdinq ofa t i rndamental ly

antihistoricist philosophy? lf rve hold that rruth cornes onlv l iom

the evidence and the I ight of nature, then truth, i t u 'cruld seem,

has no historical dimcnsion, and scitncc cxists rub spccre oercrnr-

fdf i . r (hcncc thc Cartesian phi losophy is.rnr ih istor ic ist) . Bur per-

haps Fontcnel le deserves credi t for not ic ing nn important but

neglected aspect of the Cart t 's ian rcvolut ion: Cartcsian doubt

refused to comment on prior claims to knowlcdgc. lt not only

rejected the legacv ofancient and medicval physics but erected

nclv norms of truth in place of the old. Hence, it renclered all

previotrs scicncc obsolete ancl consigned it to the surpassed past

l le passd ddpass{. Fontenelle thus rcalizcd that rvhcn Cartesian phi,

losophv kil led tradition - that is, the unrellective continuitv of

past and present - it provided at the same time r rational lbun-

d.rtion fbr a possible historv, fbr an emergent consciousness that

the cvolution ol humankind has meaning lfthe past $.ls no longer

judgc of the prescnt. i t uas, in the fu l l sense of thc I 'ord, rv i r -

ness to a movelncnt tnar rranscended it, that dethroned the past

in favor of the prescnt. As Fontcnelle rvas well aware, before the

Moderns could speak about thc Ancients, even to praise thcm,

thev had to take their distance. IEtudcs, p. 55]

[3] According to Desc.rrtes, however, knowlcdge has no his-

torv. It took Newton, and the refutation ofCartesian cosmology,

fdr histon - that is, the ingratitude inherent in the claim to begin

anerv in repudiation of all orlgins - to aPPear as a dimension of

s.i"ncei Th" historv of science is the explicit, theoretical recog-

nition ofthe fact that the scicnces are crit ical, progressive dis-

courses fbr determining what aspects of cxperiencc must be taken

as rcal . The objcct of thc histot t ofscience is therefore a non-

given, an object wlrosc incomplcteness is tssential. ln no rvay can

the historv olscience be the natural h istorv ofa cul tural object .

All too oftcn. horvever, it is practicccl as though it uerc a lbrm

of natural historl ' , contlating sciencc rvith scientists and scicntists

u'ith their civil and ac.rdentic bicrgraphics, or else conflating sci-

encc rvith its results .rnd rcsults u ith the fbrm in *'hich they hap-

pcn to be expressed fbr pcdagogical PurPoses at a particular point

in t ime. IEtuder, pp. l7-18]

The Constitution of Historical Discourse

[4] The histor ian of science has no choice but to def ine his

object. lt is his decision alone that determines thc interest and

importance of his subject mrtter. This is essentiallv alrvavs the

case, evcn rvhen the historian's decision rcflccts nothing more

than an uncr i t ical rcspect for t tadi t ion.

Take, for example, thc appl jcnt ion of probabi l i tv to nine-

tcenth-centurv bio)ogy and social science.a The subject does

not fa l l * i th in the boundar ies ofanl r - ' f the niDetccnth centur) 's

28

nrature sciencest i t corresponds to no natural object , hence i ts

study cannot fall back on rrrerc dcscription or reproduction. 1'he

historian himself nrust create his subject mattcr, starting from the

current state of the biologic.rl .rnd social sciences at a given point

in t ime, a state that is nei ther the logical con5cquence nor the

historical culmination of any prior stnte of a dcveloped science -

not o[ thc mathematics o[ Pierre-Simon Laplace or the biologv

ofCharles Darwin, the psychophvsics of Gustav Fechner, the cth-

nologv of Frederick Taylor or the sociologv of Emile Durkheim.

Note, moreover, that Adolphe Qu!teJet, Sir Francis Galton,.lames

McKeon Catell and Alfred Binct coul(l develop biometrics and

psvchometrics onlv after various nonscientif lc practices had pro-

vided raw material suitable fbr mathem.rtical treatment. Qu!telet,

fbr example, studied data about hrrman size; the collection ofsuch

data presupposes a certain tvpc ol institution, namelv, a national

armv whose ranks arc to be l i l led bv conscr ipt ion. hence an

iDtcrcst in the standards for select i lg rccrui ts. l l inet 's stucly of

intel lectual apt i tudes presupposcs another t )pe of inst i tut ion,

compulsorv pr imarv educat iorr , an( l a concomitnnt interest in

measuring backwardness. Thus,l in order to study the particular

aspect of the history of sciencc deflnecl above, one must look not

only at a number of differcnt scicnces bearing no intrinsic rcla-

t ion to one another but also at "nonscience," that is , at ideologv

and polit ical and social praxisJOur subject, then, has no natural

theoretical locus in one or another ofthe sciences, any more than

it has a natural locus in polit ics or pedagogv. lts thcorctical locus

must be sought in the history ofscience i tsel fancl nowhere else,

fbr it is this historv and onlv this histor\,that constitutes the spc-

cif ic domain in w-hich thc thcoretical issues posed by the rlevel-

opment of scient i f ic pract icc f lnd their resolut ion.5 Qudtelet ,( i regor Mendel, Binet and Th6odort 'Simon estal>l ished neu,and

unforeseen rc lat ions between mathenrat ics and pract ices that

\\.ere originall! nonscicnti l ic, such as selection, hvbridization and

or ientat ion. Their d iscover ics were ans\1crs tcr quest ions thev

asked thcnrsel'es in a language they had to fbrge for thcmselres.

, Crit ical studv of those <luestions and thosc ansrvers is thc proper

I object of thc historv of science. Should anvone vvish to suggest

that the conccpt o[ h istorv proposed herc is "external ist , " the

firregoing tl iscussion shoultl suffice to dispose oIthc objection.

l-hc history of science can of course accommodate various

kinds of objects rvithin the specific theoretical domain that it

constitutes: t lrerc are alrvavs documents to bc classil ied, instru'

ments and techniques to be dcscribed, methods and questions to

be interprcted, and conccpts to be analvzed and crit icized. Only

the last of these tasks conlers the digni ty of h istorv of scienct '

upon the others. I t is easv to be i ronic about thc importanc<:

at tached to concepts, but more di f f icul t to understand rvhv,

u i thout concepts, therc is no science. The historv of science is

' interesred in, sar, the historv ol instmments or ol 'academies onlr

insofar as thcy are related, i r both their uscs ancl their intcn-

tions, to theories. Descartes needed David Ferrier to grind opti-

cal glass, but it rvas he rvho provided the theorv of the curves to

be obtained lrr srinding.

A history ol resul ts can nerer Lre anything more than a chron'

iclc. The historv of science concerns an ariological activin'. the

scarch for truth. This axiological activity appears only at the Ievel

ofquest ions, methods and concepts, but norvhere else. Hcnce,

t ime in the historv ofscienct ' is not the t ime o[cvcryday l i fe.

A chronicle of inventions or discovcrics can be peliodizcd in the

lame wiv as ordinary historv. The dates oI birrh and death l istcd

in scicntif ic biographics are dates fiom thc ordinarv calendar, but

the aclvent of truth fbllows a dif] irent t imetable in each discipline;

the chronoluqr ol r t r i l i , . . r t iotr l rar i ts o, tn \ i \ (o j i t \ , incompJt-

ible rvith onlinarv historv. Dmitrv Mendelevev's pcriodic tablc of

lo

the clt 'ments acceleratecl the pacc ol progress in chcnristrv, antl

eventual ly led to an upheaval in atornic physics, u 'h i le othcr sci-

enccs maintained a more measured pace. Thus, the historv of

science, a historv of the rclation of intell igence to ttuth, gcner-

atcs its own sense of t ime. Just how it does this dcpcn<ls on horv

tht' progress of scicnce permits this history to reconstitute thc

theoretic.rl discotrrse oI the past. A ne.r c]iscovcrl nrar rrakc it

possible to unclerstand a discourse that waj not untlerstood rvhen

it was first enunciated, such as Mcndel's thcory of hereditv, or

i t may demol ish thcor ies once considered author i tat ivc. (Jnlv

contnct wi th recent scicncc can give the histor ian a sense of h is-

tor ical rupture and cont inui t r . Such contact is t :stabl ished, as

Gaston Bachelard taught, through cpistemology, so long as i t

remains v ig i lant .

Thc history of scicncc is therefbre ahavs in flux. It must cor-

rcct itself constanth.'Ihe relation betrveen Aichimcrles' method

ol erhaust ion and modern calculus is not the same lbl todav's

m.lthcmatician .rs it u as for Jean Etienne Montucl.r, the fir it great

histor ian of mathematics. I -h is is l recausc no def in i t ion ol math-

ematics was possible belore thcre rvas mathematics, that is, belorc

mathematics had b,.-en constituted through a series o1 rl iscoveries

antl decisions. "Nlatht'matics is a devclopmental proct,ss lun do'c-

nir]," said Jean C.rvail l is. lhe historian oI mathem.rtics rnu\t take

his provisional dcfinit ion of$'hat m.lthematics is f iom contempo-

rarv mathematicjans. Manv rvorks once releyant to nlathematics

in an earlicr pcriod Dray therefbre crase to be relcvant in historical

pfrsp('ctive; f iom a ne$lv rigorous standpoint, previouslr impor-

tant works nr.rr ' lrecomc trivi.rl .rpplications. IFruJcr, pp. I8-20]

Rccursion ond R uptu res

[5] In establ ishing such a c losc connect ion bctu,eerr epistemol-

, rgv and thc historr o l 'sc i t 'nce I am, of course, c l r r rv ing on thc

l l

MEIFTOD

inspirational teachings o[ Gaston Bachelard 6 The fundamental

concepts of Bachclard's epistcmologv arc bv no\4' *'ell knort n' so

well knou'n, perhaps, that thev have been disseminated and dis-

cussed, especially outside France, in a vulgarized, not to saY sani-

tized, lbmr, devoid of the pc-,lemical fbrct'ol the original- Among

them are the not ions of new scient i f ic spir i t , epistemological

obstac)e, epistemological brcak lrupture), and obsolete or "ofl i-

c ia l" science . ' .

To my mind, the best summarv of Bachelard's research and

teaching can be l irund in the concluding pages of his last episte-

mologicaf work, Le Mati alisme rationnel.l I{erc the notion ot

epistemologica) discontittuity in scientif ic pro-qress is supported

' by argumcnts based on the history and teaching of science in

the twentieth century. Bachelard concludcs with this statement:

"Contemporarr science is based trn the search for true lviritablel

facts and the synthesis oftruthful lvd digue) larvs'" Bv "truth-

lu l" Bachelard docs not mean that scient i f ic larvs s implv te l l a

tiuth pcnnanently inscribed in objects or intcllect. Truth is sim-

pl} \\ 'hat science speaks, Horv, then, do rve recognize that a state-

nrent is scientif ic? By the fact that scicntiI ic truth never sPrings

fully blorvn from the head ofits creator' A scicncc is a discourse

qouerned by cr i t ical correct ion. I f th is discourse has a historv

*hose course the historian believes he can reconstruct, it is be-

causc it i .r a historr r,rhose meaning the cPistemologist must reac-

tivate. "Everv historian of scicncc is necessarily a historiograPher

of truth, The events of sciencc arc l inked togethcr in a steadilv

gr<-,rving truth. . . . At various moments in the historv of thought,

thc past of thought and expcrience can be scen in a neu' l ight'"8

Guided br this ne\1 l ight, thc historian should not make tlre error

of thinking that persistcnt use o[ a particular term indicates an

irvar ianr undcr ly ing concePt, or that persistent al lusion to s imi-

lar cxpcr imcntal observat ions connotes ai l in i t ies ofnlethod or

\

t? t l

approach, Br- observing thcsc rules hc rvil l avoid the error of, fbr

instance, seeing Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis as a prcm;rture

transfornrist or geneticist," [/dcologr ond Rationalit.r, pp. l0-12]

[6] When Bachelard speaks ofa nom or value, it is bccausc in

thinkjng ol h is f )vor i te science, mathematical phvsics, he idert i -

f ies theorv with mathemati< s. I I is rationalism is built on a lrame-

rvork of mathematism. In nrathematics one speaks not ol thc

"normal" but ol rhc "normed." ln contrasr to orthodox logical

posi t iv ists, Bachelard holds that mathematics has epistemologi-

ca] content, nhether actual or potent i l l . and that plogress inmathematics adds to that content. On this point he agrccs rvith

Jean CavaiJlts. r",hosc crit ique of logical positjvism ltJs lost norh-

ing ofits vigor or rigor. Cav.ri l l is refutes Rudolph Carnap bv shorv-

ing that "mathematical reasoning is internal lv coherent in a lav

that cannot be rushecl. lr is by nature progt'ess ivc." r) As to thcnature of th is progress, he concludcs,

(Jne of rlrc lundamental problems r,r ith the docrrinc ol scicncc isprcciscll that proglcss is in no way comparablc to increasing a givcnlolumc br adding I smali addition.ri .rmounr rrr whar i\ nlrea(lr rhere,

the old subsisting rvith tlre nerr'. Rather, it ir perpetual revision, inu hich sonre rhings ar.e eliminrtetl rnd others chboratrd. \\rhar corrrcs

rlrer is greatcr than r,r 'hat r,r,cnt bclbrc, nor bccause the prescnr con-tains or supcrsedcs thc past Irut bccausc thc onc ncccss.rri ly cmcrgesliom the other and in its c()ntent cnrries the nrrrk o1 its suprri()rity,rvhich is in cach case uniqut. l l

Ncvcrtheless, the use of cpistemologicai recursion as a historicalmethod is not universal lv val id. I t best f i ts the discipl incs f i r r thcstudy ol rvhich i t rvas or ig inal lv dcvcloped: mathcmat ical phvs_ics and nuclcar chemistr\ ' . C)fcourse. therc is no reason rvhv oncr ann,, l r r r rdr a p,rr t icrr l , r r l r . rdran<.. ,1 .1r , ,< i . r l t r anr l t l t - . rhst r . r . t

rules for the production ofknowledge l 'hich may, with caution,

be extrapolated to other disciplines. In this scnse, the method

cannot be generalized so much as it can be broadened. Yet it can-

not bc extended to other areas of the history of science without

a good deal of reflection about the specific nature of the area to

be studied. Considcr, fbr cxample, eighteenth-century natural

history. Before applving Bachelardian norms and procedures to

the study of this subject, one must ask when a conceptual cleav-

age12 occurrcd whose effects were as revolutionary as were those

of the introduct ion of re lat iv i ty and quantum mechanics into

physics. Such a cleavage is barelv perceptible in the early Danvin-

ian vears,l l and, to the extent that it is visible at all, i t is only

as a resul t of subsequent cataclysms: the r ise ofgenet ics and

molccu lar biology

Hence, the recurrencc mcthod must be used judiciously, and

u,e must learn more about the nature of epistemological breaks.

Ofien, the historian in search of a major watershed is tempted

to follorv Kant in assuming that science begins w,ith a flash of

insight, a rvork ofgenius. Frequently the effects ofthat f lash are

said to be all-embracing, aflecting the whole of a scientist 's *.ork.

But the reality is different. Even within one man's u'ork $'e often

fincl a serics of fundamental or partial insights rather than a single

dramatic break. A theory is r.r'oven of many strands, some of which

mav be quite new rvhile others are borrorved fiom older fabrics.

The Copernican and Gali lean revolutions did not sweep away tra-

dition in one fell srvoop. Alexandre Koyre has located what he

considers to bc the decisive "mutation" in Gali leo's work, the

decis ive change in th inking that made him unable ro accept

medieval mechanics and astronomy.ra For Koyr6, the elevation

of mathematics - arithmetic and geometry - to the status of key

to intel l ig ib i l i tv in physics indicated a reject ion of Ar istot le in

favor of Plato. Koyr6's argument is sufl iciently r+ell knorvn that I

need not discuss it in detail. But in painting a quite accurate pic-

ture of Gali leo as an Archimcdean as much as a Platonist, is not

Koyr6 abusing the fieedom of the recurrence method?rs And is

he not somewhat overstating the case in saying that the change

in Gali leo's thinking marked a total repudiation of Aristotelian-

ism? Is not Ludovico Geymonat right to point out that Koyr6's

interpretation neglects all that Gali leo preserued from Aristote-

l ian tradition even as he was proposing that mathematics be used

to bolster logic?16 Thus, Koyr6 is him self challenged on the very

point on which he chal lenged Pierre l )uhem when he wrote,

"The apparent continuity in the development oIphysics fiom the

Middle Ages to the prescnt [a continuitv that Jean-Paul Caverni

and Pierre Maurice Duhem have so assiduously stressed] is i l lu-

sory.... No matter how well the groundrvork has been laid, a rcv-

olution is sti l l a revolution."rT l ldeologr ond Rationalitr, pp. l3-15]

Science ond Scientific Ideologies

Whot is scientific ideology?

[7] Scientif ic ideology, unlikc a polit ical class ideology, is not

lalse consciousness. Nor is it falsc science. l-he essencc of f i lse

science is that it never encounters lalsehood, never renounces anY-

thing, and never has to change its languagc, For a lhlse sciencc

there is no prescientif ic state. The asscrtions of a falsc science

can ncver be fals i f ied. Hence, fa lse science has no historv. Bv

contrast, a scientif ic ideology does have a historv. A scicntif ic ide-

ologv comes to an end when thc place that it occupied in the

encyclopedia of knou4edge is taken over by a discipline that oper-

ationallv demonstrates the validitv of its own claim to scientif ic

status, its ou'n "norms of scientif icity." At that point, a ccrtain

lorm ofnonscience is cxcluded fiom the domain ofscience. I sa!

"nonscience" rathcr than use Bogdan Suchodolski's term "anti-

\

I t

scicnce" simplv in ordcr to take note of the fact that,\n a scicn-

t i f ic idcology, therc is an expl ic i t ambit ion to be science. in

imitat ion of somr alreaclv const i tuted rrodel ofu,hat science is. l

Thjs is a crucial point . The existence olscient i f ic ideo)ogies

implics the par.rl lel and prior existence oI scienti l lc discourses.

Hencc, i t a lso ptesupposes that a dist incr ion has alrcadl bccn

made bctvvecn science and rc l ig ion.

Consider thc casc of atomism. Democri tus, Epicurus and

Lucrctius claimerl scientif ic status for thcir physics and psychol-

ogv. To the anriscience ofreligion they oppost'd the antireligion of

science. Scierrtif ic ideologv neglects the nrethodoiogicai require-

mcnts and operat ional possibi l i t ies of science in thar realm of

cxperience it chooses to cxplorc; btrt it is not therebv ignorance,

and it cloes not scorn or repudiatc the firnction ofscience. Hence,

scicntif lc idcologr is by no means the same thing as supcrsrit ion,

fbr ideologv has its place, possibly usurperl, in the realm ol knorvl-

t ' r lgc. not in the realm ol ' re l ig ious bel ic l . Nor is i t supersr i t ion

in the str ict et1 'mological sensc. A supcrst i t ion is a bel ief f rom

an olc l re l ig ion that pcrsists despi te i ts prohibi t ion by a ncu rc l i -

gion. Scientif ic ideologv docs indccd stand over fsuperrtorel a sitc

that u ' i l l eventual lv be occupicd b,v scicnce. But science is not

merelv ovcrlain; it is pushed aside fdcporrore] bv idcology. There-

lc,re, lr.hen science crt 'ntuallv supplanrs ideologv, it is not in the

sitc expecte<1. l ldeolog.v and Rationalit.r, pp. 32-31)

Ilow scientiJic idcologies disappear and appear

[8] For another, I hope convincing, example of the u'av in l l .hich

scientif ic ideologies are supplanted bv science, consicler thc Nlcn-

dcl ian theory of hcrcdi tv. Mosr hisror i rns of b io logv bel ieve rhat

Nlnupertuis lvas rhe folerunner ol modcrn gcnetics because in his

Vdnus phvsique he considercd thc mcchanisms bv r,,,hich normal

and abnormal traits are transmittecl. l-{c also uscd thc calculus of

probabi l i t ies to decide u 'hethcr the l requencv ol a part icular

abnormalitv rvithin a particular lamilv rva,i or $as not fbrtuitous,

and explaincd hvbr id izat ion bl assuming thc cxistence of scmi-

nal atoms. herecl i tarv c lcments that combined dur ing copula-

tion. But it is enough to conlparc the writ in(s crf l\ ' laupertuis and

It4endel to see thc magnitudc oI the gap betu'ccn a sciencc and

the ideologv that it replaccs. fhe f:acts that Mcnclel studics are

not thosc glcaned bv a casual obsen,er; thcv are obl ained through

systematic research - rescarch (l ictated by thc nature of Mendcl's

problcm, lbr *"hich thcre is no precedcnt in the pre-trlendelian

iiteraturc. lUcndel invented the iclea of a ch.tructet, bv rvhich he

me.rnt not thc clementar\' .r! lcnt of hereditarl transmission but

thc element ofhcrcditv itself. A Mcndelian char.rcccr coulcl enter

into cornbination rvith n other characters, ancl one could mea-

sure thc l icquencv of i ts appearance in successive gencrat ions.

Mcnrlel rras not intcreste(l in stmcturc, ferti l ization or (levelop-

ment. For hinr. hvbr id izat ion \ r 'as not a wal o l cstabl ishing thr

constancv or inconstancv ol a glcrbal tvpe; i t u ' ls a *ay of dccom-

posing.r tvpe, an instrumcnt r-rt analysis, a tool fbr separating char-

acters that madc it necessarl 'to work \\ ' i th large samples. Hencc,

Mcndcl rvas interestcd in hvbrids despitc his repudi.rt ion ol an age-

old t radi t ion ol hybr id rcsearch. He $as not interested in scxual-

itv or in thc controversv ovcr innate versus acquired traits or ovcr

prtf irrmation versus cpigenelis. He rvas inrerested onlr in verih-

ing f i is hrpothesis v ia the calculat ion ol combin.r t ions.r8 Menclel

ncglectecl eventhing that interested thosc *ho in rtalitv rvere not

his predecessors at all. The seventeenth-centurv idcologv ofhered-

itarv transmission is replete u ith obscn'ations of animal and plant

hlbr ids and monstcrs. Such cur iosi tv scrvcd severnl purposes. I t

supported one side or thc other in the dcbatcs l. lt ' trveen prcfirr

nrar ionir ts and epigenesists, ovists anr l animalcul ists. As a resul t ,

it rr,as usefi l in rcsolving lc-gal questions conccrning the subor-

\

36 l7

dination ofthe sc.\-es, paternitv, the purit l ofbloodlines and the

legitimacy ofthe aristocracy. fhese concerns were not unrelated

to thc controversv between innatism and sensualism. The tech-

nology of hvbridization r,vas perfected by agronomists in search

of advantageous varieties, as well as by botanists interested in the

relations betrveen species. On)y by isolating Maupertuis's [dnus

phvsique lrom its context can that work be compared with the

Versuche iber Pllanzenhvbriden. Mendel's science is not the end

point ofa trail that can be traced back to the ideology it replaced,

for the simpie reason that that ideologv followed not one but sel-

eral trails, and none r\.as a course set by science itself. All were,

rather, legacies ofvarious traditions, some old, others more re-

cent. Orism and animalculisnr u,ere not of the same agc as the

empirical and mythological .rrguments advanced in favor ofaris-

tocracy. Thc ideology of hercditvre u,'as excessively and naively

ambitious. It sought to reso]ve a number of important theoreti-

cal and practr'cal legal problems rvithout having examined their

fbundations. l l t 're the ideology simply rvithered au,ay by attri-

t ion, But the elimination of its scientif ic underpinnings brought

it into focus as an ideologv. The characterization ofa ccrtain set

ofobservations and deductions as an ideology came alter the dis-

qualif ication ofits claim to be a science. This was accomplishcd

by the developmcnt of a new discourse, which c i rcrrmscr ibed

its field of validity and proved itself through the consistency of

i ts rcsul ts.

l9l Instructive as it is to study the wav in which scicntif ic ide-

ologies disappear, it is even more instructive to studv how they

appear, Consider brieflv the genesis of a niDeteenth-century sci-

ent i f ic ideologv, evolut ionism. The *ork of Herbert Spencer

makes an intercsting case studv. Spencer believed that he could

state a universally ralid larv ofprogrcss in terms ofevolution from

the simpie tcr tht'conrplex thrriugh successive diff!rentiations.

l8

\

l9

Everything, in other u,ords, evolves fiom more to less homoge-

neity and from lesser to greater individuation: the solar svstem,

the aninral organisnr, l iving specitrs, man, society, and tht'prod-

ucts ofhuman thought and activity, including language. Spencer

explicit ly states that he derived this law of evolution by gcneral-

izing the principlcs of enrbryologr; contained in Karl-Ernst 'on

Bacr's Ubcr Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere (1828). The publica-

tion of the Origin of Species in 185 9 confirmcd Spencer's convic-

tion that his generalized theory of evolution shared thc scientif ic

validity o[ Darwin's biol<.rg1'. But he also claimed for his larv of

evolution the support of a science more finnlv established than

the new biology: hc claimed to have deduced the phenomenon

of evolution from the lau' of conservation ol energy, which he

maintained could be used to prove that honrogeneous st.rtcs are

unstable. If one follons the development of Spencer's work, it

seems clear that he used von Baer's and, later, Darrvin's biology

to lend scient i f ic support to his v iervs on social engineer ing in

nineteenth-cen tu ry Engl ish industr ia l socict \ ' , in part icular, h is

advocacy offree enterprise, polit ical individualism and competi-

t ion. From the larv ol differentiation, he deduccd that the indi-

v idual must be supported against the state. But perhaps this

"deduction" was containcd in the principles of the Spcncerian

svstem fiom the very bcginning.

Thc larr 's of mechanics, embrrologv and evolut ion cannot

validly bc extended berond thc <lomain proper to each of these

sciences. -fo $'hat end are specific thcoretical conclusions sevcred

fiom their premises and applied out ofcontext to human expcri-

ence in general , part icular ly social exper ience? To a pract ical

end. Evolut ionist ideology u,as used to just i tv industr ia l societv

as against traditional societv, on the one hand, and the demands

of workcrs, on the other. It $,as in part an tith eological, in part

aDt isocial ist . Thus, elolut ionist idcology rvas an ideo]ouy in the

Nlarxist scnse: a rcpresentation of nature or society lvhosc truth

lay not in rvhat it said but in n'hat it hid. Ofcoursc, cvolutionism

rvas l ir broadcr than Spencer's idcologv. But Spenccr's views had

a lasting influence on l inguists and anthropologists. I l is ideology

gave meaning to the t 'tord P mitive and salved the conscience of

colonial ists. A rcmnant of i ts lcgacy can st i l l be found in the

lrchavior of advanced societies tor",ard so-called underdeveloped

countrics, even though anthropologv has long sincc recognized

thc plural i tv of cul tures, presumably making i t i l legi t imatc for

any one culture to set itself up as the vardstick bv which all oth-

ers are mcasured. In freeing themselves lrom their evolutionist

origins, contemporarv l inguistics, ethnology and sociology have

shown that an ideologt disappears rvhen histor ical condi t ions

cease to be compatible u.ith its existencc, The theorv of evolu-

tion has changed since Danvin, but l)arrvinism is an intcgral part

ofthe historl ofthe scicncc ofevolution. Bv contrast, cvolution-

ist idcology is merelv an inopcrative residue in the historv of the

human scicnces. l ldcolog.v and Rationalit.r, pp.31-111

\

,1o

CHapr rn l tvo

The Var ious Models

T h e Pos i t i v i st Trad i ti on

110] Events complctelv extr insic to science and logic, portravcd

conventionall) i l at all in standarcl histories ofscientit lc rescarch,

vield an account that claims, if onlv in r-itual f.rshion, to tracc the

logical development of a scientif ic idca. This l 'ould bc surPris-

ing onlv if there rvcre no distinction benveen scicnce and thc his-

tory ofscicncc. In that casc, a biologist coul<l wr i te a histor l o l

his rvork in exactly thc samc \\ 'av as he vloulcl rvrite a scicntif ic

paper, relving on exactlv the samc criteria he rvould use in evalu-

ating the truth of a hvpothesis or thc Potcntial ol a particular I int:

of rcscarch. But to procecd in this rvav is to treat h,vpothcses and

rescarch programs not as projects but as obiects. When a scien-

t i l ic proposi t ion is judged to be true, i t takes on a retroact ivc

validitv. It ceases to be part ofthe endless strcam ol lbrgottcn

dreams, discarded projects, failcd procedures and erroneous con-

clusions - things, in short, fbr u hich somcone must shoultlcr the

responsibi l i tv . Thc cl iminat ion of the f i lsc bv the t ruc - that is ,

the ver i l led - appears, oncc i t is accompl ished, to be the quasi-

mechanical eff 'ect of ineluctablc, impersonal necessity. Importing

such norms ofjuclgment into the historical domain is, thercfbre,

an inevitablc sourcc of misundcrstancling. The retroactive efl 'ect

ofthe truth inf luences cven one's assessnlcnt of the respect ive

contributions of various investigators to a scientif ic discovery (an

assessmcnt that onlv a special ist is competent to make), because

thc tcndencv is to see the historv of thc subject in the l ight of

today's truth, n,hich is easily confuscd \a'ith eternal truth. But if

truth is eternal, i l i t nevel changes, then there is no history: the

historical content ofscience is reduced ro zero. It should come

as no surprise that it $'as positivism, a philosophy ofhistory brsed

on a gencralization ol'the notion that theor) inelrrctably succceds

theory as the true supplants the false, that led to science's con-

tempt lbr historv. Over rime, a research laboratory's l ibrarv tcnds

to divide into two parts:.t muscunl and a uorking reference library.

The museum scction contains books rvhose pages one turns as one

might examine a l l int ax, rvhereas the reference section contains

books that one explores in minutc detai l , as wi th a microtome.

lFormotion du rdJlexe, pp. 155-56]

If l ] Eduard Jan Dijkstcrhuis, thc author of Die ,l lechonisi.r-

un61 des Weltbildes, thinki that thc historv of science is not only

science's memory but also cpistcmology's Iaboratory. This phrase

has been quored flerluently. The idea, u,hich has been accepted

bv numerous specialists, has a less well knor+n antecedent. pierre

Flourcns, refi:rring in his eulogv of Georges Cuvier to the Hisroire

des sLienccs naturalles published by Nlagdelaine <ie Saint-Agy, states

that the history of science "subjects the human mind to experi-

ment . , , makes nn experinrental thcory of thc human spirit." Such

a conception is tantanlount to nrodeling thc rclation bctrveen the

history of science and the science of which it is the history on

the relation betr"een the sciences and the objects of rvhich thev

are scirnccs. But cxperimentation is onlv one ofthe rvays in rvhich

science relates to objects, and it is not self-evident that rhis is

the relevant analogv for understanding historv's relation to its ob,jcct. Furthcrmorc, in drc hands of its recent champion, the meth-

odological statement has an epistemological corollary, namelv,

that there exists an eternal scientif lc method. ln some periods

this method remains dormant, r+ hilc in others it is vigorous and

active. Gerd Buchdahl has characterized this corollary as naive,z0

and onc would be inclined to agree if he u.erc rvil l ing to apply

the same descr ipt ion to the empir ic ism or posi t iv ism under lv ing

his own vierv. It is no accident that I attack positivism ar this point

in the argument: for after Flourens but before Dijksterhuis, Picrre

Lafitte, a confirmcd disciple ot Auguste Comre, compared the

history of science to a "mental microscope."l l The use of such

an instrument, Lafitte suggests. reveals hidden truths: thc under-

standing of science is decpt'ned through cliscussion ol the diff l-

culties scientists faced in making thcir discoveries and propngaring

their results. -fhe imagc of the microscope defincs the contcxt

as the laboratorv, and there is, I think, a positivisr bias in the idea

that historv is simply an injection of duration into the exposition

of scient i l ic resul ts. A microscopc mereJv magni l ies orherwise

invisible objccts; the objects exist w'hether or not one uses the

instrument to look fbr them. l 'he implicit assumption is that the

historian's objcct is l l ing thcrc u'ait ing fbr him. All hc has to do

is look lbr it, just as a scientist might look fbr something rvith a

microscopc. [ f tudes, pp. l2-1] ]

Hi storical Epi stcmol oBy

[12] -fo undcrstand the function and nrcaning of thc historv of

science, one can contrast thc image of thc laboratory u ' i th thar

of a school or t r ibunal , that is , an inst i tut ion nhere judgment is

passed on either the p.rst of kno', ' ledge or knorvledge of the past.

But i f iudgnrcnt is to be passcd, a juclge is essenr ia l . Epistemol- '

ogy provides a pr inciple on rvhich jur lgment can be based: i r i

tt 'aches the historian the lantuage spolien at sonre point in thc

evolution of a particular scienti l ic discipline, sav, chcmistry. -l he

t

\

1!4l

histor ian then takes that knouJt 'dge and searchcs backlrarr l in

t ime unt i l thc later r tc.rbularv ceases to be intc l l ig ib ie, or unt i i

i t c.rn no longer bc transl.rtt 'd into the less rigorous lt 'xicon oIan

ear l i . : r pcr iod. Antoinc- l -aurent Lavois ier , fbr cxanrple, intro-

rluced a nelr. nomcnclature inlo chemistry. I lcnce, the language

spokcn bl chemists af tcr Lavois ier points up semant i ( : gaps in

the )anguage ol ear l ier pract i t ioncrs. l t has not been suff ic ient ly

notice(l or admirc(l that Lavoisier, in the "Discours preliminaire"

tohis frotti i l imentaire de chimie, rssunrecl full responsibiJitr lbr

t rvo dccis ions that let t h im open to cr i t ic ism: "revis ing the lan-

gu.rqc spoken by our teachers" and fail ing to provide ".rnv histori-,

cal .r,.:count ofthe opinions ofmy predcccssors." It r"as,rs though

he understood the lesson of l]escartes, that to institute a ne\r'

branch of knorvledge is in efl i 'ct to sever one's ties to $'hatever

had plesumptivelv usurpcd its place.

Thcrc are in fact trvo versions ofthe histon ofscicnce: thc his-

tor l o1'obsolete knou lcdge and thc historv ofsanct ioned knou l -

edge, bv which I mcan knon le<lge that plavs an rctive Idtirrdnr]role in its o\1.n time. Without epistemologv it is intpossible to

distinguish betrveen the two. Gaston Bachclarri was the first to

make this distinction.22 His dccision to recount the historv ofsci-

ent i f ic exper iments and concepts in the l ight of the latest scien-

ti l ic plinciples has long since denonstrated its u.orth.

AIe>,anclre Kovre's idea of the history ofsciencc rvas basical lv

simil.rr to Bachelard's. True, Kol re's epistemologv rr'as closer to

Emile Meverson's than to Bachclard's, and morc kecnlr attunecl

to the continuitv ofthe raticrnal function than to rhe dialcctics

of rationalist activitv. Yet it uas because he recognized the role

of epistemologv in doing historv ofscicncc that he cast his Etuder

5lalildennes ancl The Astronomical Rcvolution in the lbrm that he did.

ls tht 'dat ing 3l ,an "episremoJogical break" a cont ingent or

subject ive judgmcnt? To see th.r t the ansuer is no, one leed onlv

note that Krrrr! and Bachelard rvere intcrcsted in dif lcrent periods

in tht ' h iston ot t l re e\act scicnct 's. Furthcrmore, these pcr i ( ) ( ls

rvere nor cquallv equippcd to deal ntathcmaticallv rvith the prob-

lems ol physics. Kovre began rvith Copernicus and ended 11ith

Nervton, u here Bachelard began. Kcrvri: 's cpistemological obser-

vations tcnd to confirm Bachelard's vieu, that a "continuist" his-

torv of scienct ' is the histor l of a young science. Kovrc bel iever l .

for instance, that science is theorv and that theor l is f i rnclamen-

tal lv mathcnr,r t iz . r t ion. (Gal i leo, lbr exanrpJe, is more Arcl t i -

m( ' ( lean than Platonist . ) He alsc ' helc l that crror is inel i tablc in

the pursui t ofscient i f lc t ruth. To srud\ the historv ofa theorv is

to studv the historv of thc theorist's doubts. "Copernicus. . . ttas

not a Copernican,"

The historv of science thus claims thc r ight to makc judg-

mcnts ol 'scientif ic value. Bv ".iudgmcnt," horvcvcr, I do not mcan

purgc or execut ion. I l is torv is not an in 'er ted imagc ofscient i f ic

progrcss, l t is not . r portrai t in perspect ive. tv i th t ranscended

doctrines in the lc,reground lntl todav's truth u,av olfar thc "van-

ishing point ." I t is , rather, an ef t i r r t to c l iscovcr and expl . r in to

'w'hat extent discrcdited notions, attitudes or mcthods rvere, in

their day, uscd to discredit othcr notions, attitudes or method5 -

and therclbre an ef-fort to discover in \\ 'hat rcspects the discredited

past rcmains the past (]1 an activitr that sti l l desenes to be callcd

scient i l ic . l t is as important to understaD(l uhat the past taught

as it is to fin<l out rr h\' \r 'e no longer belielc in its )essons. IFru,/cr,

PP. l l - l+ l

Empiricist Logicism

[13] I t is easr ' to dist inguish betwcen \ lhat Bachelarcl cal ls "nor-

mal i tv" ] l and rvhat Thomas Kuhn cal ls "normal scicnce."ra lhc

tvro epistrrrrolul i t . ,1. , .har, r r r ta in l ' r i int . in .ommon: in l i r -

t icular, tht ' otrscrrat ion that scicnt i f ic ter tbooks overemphasiue

4t

the continuit\ of scientif ic research. Both stress the discontinu-

ous naturc of progress. Nevertheless, while the fundamental con-

cepts share a l.rmily resenrblance, they do not really belong to

the same branch. This has been notcd by Father Franqois Russo,

who, despite reservations about the claims ofsuperiority to which

epistemological historians are somerimes pronc. argues that Kuhn

is mistaken about the nature ofscient i f ic rar ional i tv as such.25

Though ostensiblv conccrned to preserve Karl Popper's empha-

sis on the necessity of theory and its prioritv over experiment,

Kuhn is unablt ' to shake off the legacv of logical positivism and

join the rationalist camp, w-here his kev concepts of"paradigm"

and "normal science" rvould seem to place him. These concepts

Presuppose intentionality and regulation, and as such they imply

the possibi i i ty ofa break with establ ished rules and procedures.

Kuhn *'ould have them play this role r".ithout granting them thc

means to do so, fbr he regards them as simple cultural f)cts. For

hinr, a paradignr is thc result of a choice bI its users. Nornral sci-

encc is dcfincd by the practice in a given petiod of a group of'

specialists in a university research setting. Instead ofconccpts of'

phi losophical cr i t iquc, r r t 'are deal ing rv i th mere social psvchol-

ogv. This accounts for the embarrassment evident in the appen-

dix to the second edition ofthe Srrucrure of Scienti l ic Revolutions

when it comes to answering the question of hou' the truth of a

tlreory is to br undcrstocrd. l ldeolog.r ond Rotionality, pp. l2-l3l

Internalism ond Externolism

[]41 How does one r lo thc historv ol science. and how should

one do it? This question raises anorher: wlat is the histon of sci-

, ncc a,hist . ry of r" , \ny arr thon apparcnr l l rakc rhe answer ro rhis

second qucrt ion lor 'grantrd, to judge hv rhe fact Ihar ther rrever

cxpl ic i t ly ask i t . Take, fbr examplc, the debates betrveen what

English-spcaking u,riters call internalists and extemalists.26 Exter-

nalism is a rvav of writ ing the historv of science bv describing a

set of events, which are called "scientif ic" fbr reasons having more

to do u,ith tradition than with crit ical analysis, in terms of their

relation to econolnic and social interests. technological nceds and

practices, and religious or polit ical idcologies. In short, this is

an attenuated or, rather, impoverished version of l\ ' larxism, one

rather conrmoD toda) in the ruorld's more plosperous societit 's.17fint"r.rulism (rvhich extcrnalists characterize as "i<Jealism") is the

vier.l ' that there is no history of scicnce unless onc places oncsclf

wi th in the scient i f ic endeavor i tsel f in order to analvze the pro-

cedures by rvhich it seeks to satisfly the specific norms that allou,

it to be defined as science rather than as technologt or ideologv.

In th is perspect ive. the histor ian of sciencc is supposed to adopt

a theoret icdl at t i tude toward his specimen theor ies; he therelbrc

has as much right to formulate modcls and hvpothcses as scicn-

tists thcmselves.

Clearlv, both the internalist and erternalist posirions conflate

the object of thc historv of science n' i th the object oI a scien(e.

The extemalist sees the historv ofsciencc as a mattcr of explaining

cul tural phenomena 'n

terms of the cul tural mi l ieu; he thcrelore

confuses the histor l of science rv i th the natural ist sociologt of

institutions and f; i ls to intcrpret the truth claims intrinsic to sci-

ent i f ic d iscourse, The internal ist sees thc facts of thc historv of

science, such as instanccs ofs inrul tancous discovcr l (o l 'modcrn

calculus, lbr examplc, or the law ofconservation oIenergv), as

facts rvhose historv cannot be urittcn without a theorv. -fhus,

a f ic t in the historr ofscience is t rcated as a f ic t ofscicnce, a

procedure perf'ectlv compatible with an epistcmology according

to r"hich theory r ight fu l lv takes pr ior i tv over cnpir ical data.

IErudcs, pp. l4-15]

4{' 47

\

C n r pr l n - f u n r r

The History of the History of Science

A History of Precursors

[15] Every theorv is rightlv expected to providc proofi ol prac-

tical cff icacv. What, then, is thc practical eflect lbr thc historian

ofscicnce of a theorv whosc cf ' ct is t ( ) make hisdiscipl inc the

place u.hcrc the theoretical qucstions raist'd bv scienti l ic prac-

tice are studied in an cssentiallv autonomous mannt'r? C)ne impor-

tant practical elfect is the climinati()n of \\ 'hat J.T. Clark has calle'd

"the precursor v i rus."rs Str jct ly speaking, i l precursors cxisted,

the historv ol science rvould losc all meaning, sincc scicncc itsclf

uould mcrelv appear to have a histor ical c l imension.

Consi<icr the u'ork of Alexarrdrc Kovre. Kovre contrasted, on

epistemological grounds, thc "closed world" ofantiquitv u ith the

"infinite universe" of modcrn times. l l i t h.rd bccn possible lbr

some ancient precursor to have conceived of " thc in l in i te uni-

vcrse" before its t imc, then Kovr6's r 't 'holc approach to the his-

torv ofscience anrl idcas rroulcl make no scnsc.t ')

A precursor, rvc arc told, is a thinker or rcscarcher uho pro-

ceeded some distance along a path later crplortd all the \\ 'av to

its cnd br someone else. To lotrk lbr, f ind and cclebrate precur-

sors is a s ign of cornplacencv and an unmistak.rblc s lmptom of

incompctcncc fbr epistemological crit icism. Trvo it ineraries can-

not be compared unless the paths lolloned are truly the same.

In a coherent sYstcm of thought, ever) concept is related to

every other conccpt. Just because Aristarchus ol Samos aduanced

the hypothesis ol a heliocentric universe, it does not follow that

he rvas a precursor of Copernicus, even ifCopernicus invokcd his

authorit l ' . To change the center of reterence of celesti.r l nrotions

is to relativize high and lo*r', to change the dinensions of the uni-

verse - in short, to constitutc a system, But Copernicus crit icized

all astrononrical thr:orics prior to his ou'n on rhe grounds that thev

were not iat ional systcms. l0 A prccursor, i t is said, belongs to

more than one age: he is, of course, a man of his own time, but

he is simult.rneously a contemporarY of' later in!estigators credited

rvith conrpieting his unfinished project. A precursor, theretbre, is

a thinker \1hom thc historian belicvcs can be extracted l iom his

cul tural mi l ieu and inserted into others. 1 'h is procedure assumcs

that concepts, d iscourscs. spcculat iorrs and e\per iments can be

shifted fioru one intellectual environmcnt to another. Such adapt-

abil ity, of course, is odhned at the cost of ncglccting the ,,his-

tor ic i tv" o l the object under studv. Horv manv histor ians, fbr

example, have looked lirr precursors of D,rrrvinian transfbrmism

among eighteenth-cenrury naturalists, philosophers anrl evt n jour-

nal ists?lr The l is t is long.

Louis Dutens's Rcchcrches sur I 'orinine rjes dicouvertes attribudes

ou\ modernes (1176) nr.ry be taken as an (admirtedlv extreme) case

in point. When Dutens \r 'r ites that Hippocrates knerv about the

circulation of the Lrlood, and that thc Ancients possessed the sys-

tem of Copcrnicus, rvc smiler he has lbrgotten all that Wiil ia[r

Harvey orvcd to Rcnaissance anatomv and mechanical models, and

he fails to credit Copcrnicus's originality in exploring the math-

ematical possibil i ty of the earth's movemenr. We ought to srri le

iust as much at the nlorc rcccnt lvriters who hail Ren6 Ancoine

,i

Ferchault de R6aumur and Maupertuis as precursors of Mendel

rvithout noticing that the prob)em that Mendel set himself rvas

ofhis or.r.n devising. or that he solved it bv inventing an unprc'ce-

dented concept, the independcnt hereditarv character.l l

So long as texts and other *'orks yoked rogether by the heu-

ristic compression of t ime have not been subjected ro crit ical

analysis for the purpose of expl ic i t ly demonstrat ing thar r$ 'o

researchers sought to answ'er ident ical quest ions for ident ical

reasons, using ident ical guiding concepts, def ined b,r ident ical

s lstems, then, insolar as an authcnt ic hisrory ofscience is con-

cerned, it is completelv artif icial, arbitrary and unsatisfactorv ro

say that one man finished what the other started or anricipated

rvhat the other achieved. Bv subsrituting the Jogical t ime oftruth

relations for thc historical t ime of these relations' invention, one

trcats the history of science as rhough it wcre a copy ol science

and its object a copv of the object of science. The resuit is the

creation o[an artif;ct, a countcrfeit historical objrct - the pre-

cursor. In Koyr!'s rvtrrdsr

Thc notion ol a "l irrerunncr" is.r.r 'ery dangerous onc for thc histo-

rian. lt is no doubt frue thar idcas havc .r gucri independcnt dcvel

opmenl, that is to say, they are born in onc mind, and reach maturity

to bear l iuit in anothcr; consequentlvt the history ol prolrlems and

their solut ions can bc t raced. l t is cqual)v rrue thar thc hisror icnl

importance ofa doctrine is measurcd by its lruitfulness, and chat later

gcncrations are not concerned rvith those that prcccdc them except

in so far ls thev see in thcm their "ancestors" or "forerunners." It is

quite obvious 1or should be) that ncr-one has cvcr regarded himsell

as the "firrerunner" ofsomeone clse, nor been ablc to do so. Consc-

qucntlv. to regard anyone in this l ight is the best wav of prcventing

oneself from undcrstanding him. Ji

to

A precursor is a man of science rvho, one linorvs onlv much later,

ran aheacl ofall his contemporaries but before the person \{hom

one takes to bc the winner ol the race. To ignore the l ict that he

is the creaturc ol a certain historv ofscience, and not an agent of

scientif lc progress, is to accept as real the condition ofhis possi-

bil i tv, namcly, the imaginarv simultaneity of "belbre" an<i "afier"

in a sort of logical spacc.

In making this cr i t ique of a fa lse histor ical object , I have

sought to justifv by countcrcxamplc thc conccpt I havc proposed

accorcling to rvhich thc historl of science dcflncs its object in

i ts o$n intr insic terms. Thc historv ol scicncc is not a scicncc,

anr l i t r c,bicct is nor a.c i lq i l i r , 'h iect . To Jo historv oIsciencc

( in th. m,rr t uprrrr ive seniF, ' f rh. vrrb " to rJo"1 is one ol ' rhe

lLnct ions (and not thc easiest) of phi losophical epistemologv.

[Etudes, pp. 20-2 3]

A History in the Service ol Polit ics

[16] I t rvas in 1858 that a neu polemic, in i t iated this t ime by

Ceorge Prochaska's grovling rcnoun, resulte<J in l)escartes's namc

being brought into the history of thc reflex fbr the first t ime. Thc

occasion rvas an article bv A.L. Jcittr: lcs, a prof'essor of medicine

at Olmiitz, cntit led l4lho ls the Fountler ol the Theorr ol Rellet

,Movement?)a leittclcs summarized Marshall t lall 's f irst paper, said

a flrv uorcls about Hall 's prioritv ovcr Johannes Mril lcr, ackno$ l-

edgc<l thc grcat value of both men's nork, vct claimed that the

impetus for research into ref lex act ion came l rom else.rvhcrc,

l iom an carlicr t imc, and fiom another source. "lt uas none other

than our cminent, and todav insull icientlv honorcd, compatriot,

Georgc Prochaska, lho richlv deserves to be prcscrvcd in the

eternally gratcfLl mcmory of our Czcch fatherlancl, so rich in supc-

rior men of cvcry kind." feitteles asserted that Prochaska rvas thc

true lbuncler of thc thcor_v ofreflex movemcnt, quoted excerpts

52 t l

lrom De functionibus s,ystematis ne.vo.ri, and concltrdcd that thc

cntirc theory of thc reflex action inherent in the spinal cord rr.as

there "prefbnlred and preestablished" ( pniforn;rt und pnisLab;lirt ).

Although not interested in investig.it ing u hether Hall and Mril lcr,

rvho may not have kno$,n Prochaska's rvork dircctlv, might havc

been inlluenccd bv rvorcl of it f i l terecl through "the scientif ic

milieu ofhis contcmporarics and cpigoncs" (rn die gleichzeitige und

epillonische wissenschaJtliche l\blt trcnspitittc), leitteles asks horv this

lork could have been ignorcd for so long. [{is ansrver, u.hich

seems judic ious to mc, is that Albrecht von Hal ler 's author i tv is

a sufficient explanation. Thc theory of irritabil i t), of a strcngth

inherent in the muscle, diverted attention from the intrinsic func-

tions ofthe spinal cord.' l-his onlv makes f 'rochaska's merit a]l the

more apparent: rather than rchcarsc the ideas of thc pcriod, his

rvork contradicted them. The f inal l incs of thc art ic lc arc an

appeal to some generous historian to revive the great Prochaska

as a model for f irture generations. Jeitteles thought that the man

to do this $as the current occupant of Prochaska's cllajr at thc

vcncrablc and celebratcd Univcrsi tv of Praguc, thc " i ] lustr ious

forerunner ofall German universit ies." That man \l 'as the distin-

guishecl physiologist Jan Purkinje ( 1787-1869).

The impctuosi ty of th is plca, rvhich natural ly and pathct ical lv

combincs a claim for thc originalitv of a scholar u.ith an afl lrma-

tion of the cultural values ol an oppressed nationality, is equaled

only bv the brutalitv ancl insolence ofthe replv it received fl.om an

oll icial representative, not to sav high priest, ol German phvsiol-

ogy. Emi le Du Bois-Revmond (1818-1896), N{r i l ler 's student and

successor in thc chair ofphvsiologv at the Universi tv of Bcr l in -

u,ho became a member ofthe Berlin Academy ol Sciences in 1851

ancl rvho rvas already cclcbratcd not onlv lbr his work in neuro-

muscular electrophysiology but also lbr his numerous professions

of phi losophical l i i th in thc univcrsal val id i t l of mcchanist ic

determinism and the inanity ofmetaphysical questionsls - sum-

marilv disrnissed Prochaska and gave l)escartes credit fbr har'-

ing had the qenius to anticipate both thc ovord and the idea of

"ref lex." In a commemorat ive address del iuered at thc t ime of

Mi i l lcr 's death in 1858, f iBols-Reymon<J statcd that he had

{bun<f (wie ich gelunden fiabe) that Descartes, roughly a century

and a hal[befbre Prochaska, had correctly descritred ref]ex rtove-

meDt (er.rfcnr beschrieb... Descartes... dic Rcllexbc$,egungcn vbll ig

fichtig\: he had used thc same analogr' (u ith reflection) to de-

scribe the phenomenon; and he also deserved credit {br thc Iaw

of periphera) manifestation of sense impressions. l6 The passages

that precede and follow these lines on Descartes give a clear indi-

cation of Du Bois-Reymond's intention. It lvas, f irst ofall, to pro-

tect Miil ler's "copvright," as it n'ere: Mril ler mav not havc know'n

about Desclrtes, but Prochaska rvas another matter. If Prochaska

lr, 'as not thc t)ther of the notion of rcflex, then he himself f 'el l

under the shadorv of rhc judgment proposed in his name.rgainst

his successors. Furthermore, Descartes \1ns, according to Du Bois-

Revnrond, a sell lconscious mechanist phvsiol,rgist, a theorist of

the aninr.rl-machine , and therefbre deserr ing ol the same admi-

ration erten(lcd to Julien Offrav de La Mr:ttrie, the theorist of

the man-machine,lT By contrast, Prochaska lvas a vague and incon-

sistent thinkcr in whose mind the notion ofrellex rvas associated

rvith that crf consensus nervorum, an anatomical myth of animist

inspirat ion.r i Indeed, i f Prochaska had fbrmulatcd the pr inciple

of the reflection of scnse impressions in 1784, he f)i led to men-

tion it in his Phrsiolo<tic oder Lehre von der Natur des ,ltenschen in

l820,t t Final ly, Prochaska did not knou what hc rvas doing the

first t inre he had the opportunity to descrilre corrcctly thc reflec-

t ion of sense impressions. As for Mi] ler 's contcmporar ies, the

onlv author rvho might justly bc credited u'ith prir.rritv over Mril lcr

rvas Hall, and that $.as a prioritv of tu'o months.r0 lt mav be that

I

in diminishing Prochaska, Du Bois-Revmond lr 'as reallv trving to

discredit a group ofbiologists manifcstly guilty in his eyes ofthc

sin of metaphysics, n.rmelv, the Na turphilosophie school.

Du Bois-Reymond's 1858 text rvas published in 1887 in thc

sccond volume of his Rerlen along with explanatory notes. The

notcs concerning tlre passages of Descartes on u,hich Du Bois-

Reymond based his comments are particularlv r '; luable lbr our

purposes;al sonrc ol the relevant passages are fronr Arriclt 1J of

The Possions ol the Soul, rvhere thc palpebral reflex is described.

I must point out that Du Bois-Reymond makes no dist inct ion

between a description and a definit ion, and that it is rather dis-

ingenuous of him to reproach Prochaska, as he does in one note,

for having used the same example as Descartes. It would be laugh-

able to maintain that Charles Scott Sherrington sh,.ruld not harrc

studied the "scratch reller" because it meant borrorving from

Thomas Wil l is . In anv c.rse, Prochaska rvas an ophthalmologist

and, str ict lv speaking. had no nccd oI Dcscartes to knorv that

there is such.r th ing as involuntary occlusion ol thc cyc) ids.al

The second text of Descartes's cited bv Du Bois-Revrnond is Ar-

ticfe 16 of l le Possions ol the Sou1. Although it does contain the

expression "espri* riJly'chis" (reflcctcd spirits), this expression,

unique in Descartes's work, is used to explain the mechanism of a

form ofbehavior that is not a reflex in the strict sense of the word.

lf, in fhct, Du Bois-Revmond is right to contend that Prochaska

did not knorv rvhat hc rvas doing whcn he devoted pagt'.rtter page

ofhis Comnrcntdfion o1 178-l to thc "rcflcction" ofsensorv into

motor impressions, rvhat are Ke to say, applying thc sanl('ci iter-

ion of judgnr('r ')t, about an author who uses a pair of rvords only

once? lFormation du ft l lcxc, pp. 138-a0]

[17] We therelbrc impute to Du Bois-Revmoncl , at h is re-

quest, fu l l responsi l> i l i tv for h is histor ical d iscovely. l l - I have

du,elt on the details of this controversv, it is because it enables

t5

us at last to establish the prccise origin of the rvidelv acceptecl

vicrv that paternitv ol-both the rvorcl "reflcx" and some rudimen-

tarv vcrsion ol thc idea can bc traced back to Derscartes, a vierv

that Franklin Fearing, as we have seen, rrpcats scveral t imes, but

u.hosr' origins hc never examines.+l Along rvith thc origin of the

assert ion, r , r 'c have discovered i ts meaning. As fbr the c i rcum-

stanccs. I)u Bois-Revmond's address was mcant as a rebuke to a

Czech profcssor insuf l ic ient ly persuaded o1 the supcr ior i tv of

( icrman civ i l izat ion. But as far as i ts scient i { ic impl icat ions arc

concerned, this address can bc attributcd to a concern - a con-

cern, that is, on the part of a phvsiologist fbr rvhom "scicntism"

did dutv lbr philosophy - to discover, in Descartes's allcgul antici-

pation ol a discovcrv that u'as beginning to justify a mcchanistic

intcrpretation of a u hole rangc o{ psvchophvsiological phenom-

ena, a guarantcc and, in a sense, an authcntication ol the use that

people nou proposcd to make ofit. l t was not so much for rea-

sons of purc phvsiologv as for reasons of philosophv that Descartcs

rvas anointed a grcat phvsiologist and il lustrious precursor. IIor-mation du if lc\e, pp. l,+1-42]

[18] In the historv of the conccpt of the rel lex, verv di f f r : r -

ent circumstanccs and moti\.ations account fbr the appearancc of

I)cscartes, Will is, Jean Astruc and Prochaska, rvith Johann August

Unzer gcncrally being left shroudcd in shadou. I 'rochaska's namt:

came up in the course of a polemic bctu'een Marshall I lall and

ccrtain of h is contemporar ics, a polemic that gradual lv turned

into rvhat is conrmonlv called a settl ing ofscores. The storv bc-

Iongs, along with count less other ta les ofr ivalry betrveen scicn-

t i f ic coter ies, to the anecdotal h istory ofsciencc. Descartes's

namc came up in the course of a diatr ibc against one dcad man

lor the apparcnt purpose ofhonoring anothcr. In fact, it u.as a

matter of l iquidat ing an opposi t ion, or even - r l ,hen one looks at

i t c loselv - tuo opposi t ions. One cul ture, speaking rhrough the

voice ofone of its official representativcs, dcfentled its polit ical

supcr ior i ty of the moment against another cul ture. Onc phi loso-

phy ol l i fe, constraincd rv i th in the t ramcrvork of a biological

research metho(1, treated anothcr philosophv as a mvthologl allcg-

edly incapable of fbstering ef'fective scientif lc rcsearch. It was

mechanism against vitalism. l lormation du rdflerc, p. 155]

A Cononical History

[19] An cmpcror's rvish to glorifv and justi lv nerv acaclernic insti-

tut ions lcd to a new departure in thc historv of science. ln 1807

Napoleon I ordered a report on the progress that had becn madc

in science since 1789. Gcorges Cuvier, as permancnt sccrctarv ol

the Inst i tut pour les Sciences Phvsiques ct Naturcl les s ince 1801,

was assigncd rcsponsibi l i tv lbr the Acporr that r r .as eventual lv

published in 1810, r,v'hile.lcan Baptiste Joseph Delambrc \l 'as made

rcsponsible lbr a similar report on thc mathematical scienccs. Thc

authorit ies coulcl pride themselvcs on having fbund a nerv Bemard

Le Bouvicr Fontenelle, a man capable of strpplcmcnting the vearlv

analvses of the rvork of thc aca(lemv \rith eulogies of<lcccased

academicians. But antonc *ho *oulc l examine thc historv of a

lif 'e devoted to research must consider othcr, similar research con-

tcmporary rvith, or prior to, that of his subject. Ancl rvhen onc

has received a Germanic c(luc.-rt ion - an education that rvas, in

Flenry l )ucrotay de Blainvi l lc 's wor( ls, "encyclopedic and phi lo-

logical"rl - one could conceive ofgiving a "course in the history

of natural sciencc." And u.hcn one had chosen, as Cuvier had

toward the end of his studies at thc C.rroline -'\cademv in Stutt-

gart , to studr- "cameral ist ics," or the science of administrat ion

and economics,45 it rvas onlv natural to dcvotc space to technol-

ogy in onc's rcport to thc empcror and to adumbrate a thtorv cll

the social status ofmodcrn scicncc in tlrc l8l6 R/f. le.rions rrr /a

morche actuelle tles t.ien(c\ et r leurs ropports avec la sociiti, as ucll

57

as in thc Discouru Jur l'(itat de I'histoite naturelle ct sur ses accroisse'

ments depuis le retour de la pdix maitime (1824). The reader of

volume three of the Histoire des sciences noturelles is not surprised,

then, to f ind that thc f i rst lecture is devoted to a reminder,

inspired by the Marquis de Condorcet in the Esgursse of 1794, of

the debt that modern scicncc owes to the technological innova-

t ions of the fburteenth and f i f teenth centur ies: a lcohol , c lear

glass, papcr, arti l lery, printing, the compass. In the same lecture,

Cuvier, a Protestant and the official within the ministry of the

interior responsible for overseeing non-Catholic religious wor-

ship, could not help not ic ing thc cncouragement and support

that men of learning had fbund in the Relbrnationr freedom of

thought and the gradual emancipation of philosophy from sub-

servience to theological doctrine,

Blainvil lc and Franqois l-ouis Michel Maupied's Histoirc des

sciences de I'organisation et de leurc progris, conme base de Ia philo-

sophie is constructed on the basis of diametrically opposed judg-

ments. To bc sure, thc chaptcr dcvotcd to Conrad Gesner recalls

the positive contributions of technology to Renaissance science

(vol. 2, pp. 134-35), but immediately thereafter the Reformation

is denounced lbr "reviving the unfortunate reactions that we have

previously seen arising out ofvarious struggles ofthe human spirit,

applying method rvithout authority to the explication ofdogma"

(p. 136). Because ofthe friendship betu'een the principal author

and those trvo cultural agitators, Biainvil lc and Maupied, the work

contains numerous passagcs conccrning thc rclation o[ the sci-

ences and their teaching to the ne\v social needs of an emcrging

industrial societv, but these excurses almost always end in sermons.

t . . .1Blainvil le ancl Maupied's Histoire is also different from, even

cliametricallv opposed to, that of Cuvier l lhen it comes both to

cletermining the method, or ways and means, of the science of

58

living things, and to appreciating the cflects of seventeenth-cen-

tury phi losophies on the development of that science. Cuvier

thinks that philosophy encourages the scienccs if i t disposes minds

toward observation but discourages the sciences if i t disposcs

minds toward speculation.16 Wherever Aristotle's method, based

on experience, was adopted, the sciences progressed, rvhereas

Descartes chose the opposite path, and the regrettable conse-

quences of that choice lasted unti l the middle of thc eighteenth

centurv, *'hen the sciences were countered by "another philoso-

phy that was a copv of the true Peripateticism and that has been

called the philosophl' ol the eighteenth centqv <tr of the slepdcr."

A rather sweeping judgment, it might seem, although it was cur-

rent at the time in one form or another. Blainvil le and Maupied's

judgment is equally broad, as well as considerably more prolix:

Descartes, Bacon and all the others (src), they say, are merelv

the logical consequence, the elaboration, of Aristotleia? Bacon's

philosophy is nothing but Aristotle's;a8 Descartcs rvorked in an

Aristotelian direction;ae Descartes built on the u.ork of the great

Stagirite;t0 and so on. What is the significance of our tu-o his-

torians' f iscination n ith Aristotle? The ansrver to this question,

I think, determines what view thc history of science ought tcr

take of Blainvil le and Maupied's project. The first step to\4ard

answering it, moreover, must come from a final comparison rvith

Cuvier's Histoire.

The third lecture in Cuvier's third volume is clevoted to Leib-

niz, and Cuvier drvells at length on thc grcat chain of being and

on Charles Bonnet's development of this [.eibnizian theme. Cuvier

states that "physiologv does not fbllovu mathematics in admitting

unlimited combinations," and that, in ordcr to accept the notion

that there exists a continuous chain of beings, as Bonnet and oth-

ers do, or that beings can be arrangcd along a single l ine, one must

have a very incomplete view ofnature's organization,5l "l hope,"

Cuvicr says, "to have provcn that this ststcm is false,"tr alluding

to rvhat hc knou's hc has clemonstrated through comparative anat-

omv and paleontologv, namclv, that thcre is no unitv of organic

graclat ion, n() uni tv ofstructural p lan, no uni ty of composi t ion

and no uni tv of tvpe,

Norv, if Blainvil le, fbr his part, acknolr,ledges five distinct tvpes

of crcat ion, he neverthclcss argues that thcv are arrangecl in a

scrics, r.:ach one trcing the distinct exprcssion of a general plan

u,hosc progressive or regressivc order, i l one Iooks at the level of

thc specics for graclations and degradations that ought to applv

only to gcncra, does not procccd $' i rhout apparenr hiatus. I f the

numerous papers, rcports and dissertations published bl Blainvil le

can bc seen as the a postcriori of his zoological system, then thc

a prioi is described in his Hisroirc des sciences de l'organisation as

an a ptioti not of rational intuit ion but ofdivine rcvclation. This

afflrmation can bc read in the Introduction, signed bv Blainvil le

himselfi "l conccived and carricd out m\ l l istoirc de I 'otganisation

as a possiblc founclation lbr philosophv, whilc at the same timc

clcmonstrating that philosophv is one and the same thing as the

Christian religion, rvhich is so to speak onlv an a prtori, rcvcaled

to man bv God himself rvhcn the state of socictv required it."eJ

And flrther: "Scicncc in general is knorlledge a posteriori of the

existcnce ol God through his,w,orks."5q

llorv, then, does kno*lcdge proceed? Through readtng, The

preliminary analysis ofzoological notions at thc bcginning ofvol-

ume thrce conflrms this unambiguously: "C)ne does not crcate

in scicnce, one reads l lhat is created. Thc pretension to create is

absurd, even in thc greatest geniuscs." ;5 In v i r tuc of th is heur is-

tic imperative, thc scicnccs oforganization shoulcl be atrlc to dis-

cover - that is, to read in thc structures and functions of l iving

beings - onlv u hat the Book of Genesis all irms about the orclcr

of those beings'crcat ion, in thc \ \ 'aters, in the air and on earth,

tending finally rvith man, proclaimed to be the "master" of all that

$.ent befbre. Norv, it so happens that therc is a Wcstern philoso-

pher ofGreek antiquity rvho rvas able to rcacl that orcler, r 'hich

was unknown to Eastern mvthoJogvr that philosophcr u'as Aris-

tot le, "u.ho understood that thcrc is in nature a col lect ion of

groups, anrl that each group fbrms a veritable series rvhose degrees

pass imperceptiblv fiom onc to thc other, f iom the most imper-

fi:ct to thc ont: in rvhich l ife achieved its highest perfection.";6 1

Af!:tqtl-C_i-S9S!, clearlr ', rvas to achioe Inorvlrdgr,,f man r.ganl- ].uz

ing al l thosc aspccts that make him super ior to the animals, a Ibeing possessing a touch of the div ine. t l

This kev to reading thc forms of l i f i : gives us the kev to rea<Jing

tslainvil le and Maupied's Histoirc. That kcv is thc notion of "mca-

surc," an absolutc tcrm of rcference and comparison. "l\ ' leasure"

is a rvord that rccurs ficqucntly in the Il isroirc. The measure of

organized beings in their ser ia l c l isposi t ion is man.58 Anr l i t *as

bccausc Ar istot l t 'madr man the measure of animal i tv that Ar is-

totle himself is thc mcasure of truth fbr thc scries of investiga-

t ions that took animals as their object . Through thc ccntrrr ics

Ar istot le is the measure of t l re sciences oforganizat ion. [ . . . ]

Norv that we possess thc kcv to the Histoire des stienccs de

I'orSTonisation, wc can un(lcrstan(l *hv ccrtain authors were in-

c luded in the book rvhi le others nere excludecl . Unl ike eclcc-

t ics such as Cuvier (rvho u.as f rer ;uent lv character ized as such,

both scicnt i f ical ly and pol i t ical lv5e), Blainvi l le basecl h is choices

on an explicit critcrionr "ln this historv a numbcr of cminent men

stand as landmarks ol scientif ic progrcss. I chosc them because

thcir orvn nork and the u.ork of thcir legi t imate predecessors

ptrshed sciencc in the right direction and rvith an impctus appro-

pr iate to the age" (voi . 1, pp. v i i i - ix) .

Conse<1uent lv, thc historv of thc scicnce ol organizat ion is

governcd bv the firndamental, rvhich is to sav, divine, larr o{ the

organization of organisms - the ascending series. Blainvil le, bv

always taking thc idea of the animal series (u'hich fbr him was

mcrcly thc reading of an ontological fact) as the measure of the

importance of men and their u'orks, composed his Hrsroire in

the image of God creat ing the ser ies. [ "De Blainvi l le," Rerue

d'h;*oire, pp.15-821

[20] All history ofsciencc that is not strictly descriptive mav

be said to be implicit ly normative insofar as its author, owing to

his culture at that moment, can do nothing to prevent himsclf

f iom reacting, as would a chemical reagent, with the meanings he

thinks he sees emerging on their own from the past. But Blainvil le

and Maupied's H8foir! is more than normative in this strong sense:

it is a canonical history in thc strict sense ofthe word. How else

can one characterize a work in rvhich a man ofscience, such as

Blainvi l le, could lvr i te in his s igned Introduct ion that he took

account "only of those steps that fell on the straight l ine between

the starting point and the end or goal," and thar he neglected "the

rvorks ol individuals rvho, voluntarily or involuntarilv, veered, as

it \a'ere, to the leftrr60 - a \r.ork, moreover, in u,hich Jean-BaptisteLamarck and Lorenz Oken are called "errant naturalists,"6l a *'ork

that claims to profess the viervs of the "Christian Aristotlc"?62 In

virtue ofthis, the authors rl.r ite, "As for those lost children nho

appear in nearly every era ofscience, .rvho have struck a bold but

misplaced blorv, or u ho fired befbre bcing ordered to do so, their

cfforts have almost always been r," ithout effcct when not positivcly

harmful. We must not speak of them."6l lf the expression "canoni-

cal history" seems too severe for characterizing a work u,ritten

joint ly by a scholar * ho u 'as a legi t imist in pol i t ics and a pr iest

rlho *,ould one day serve as a consultant to thc Inder, one can

neverthelcss say, having noticed that thc authors took sevcral quo-

tations from Franqois-Ren6 Vicomtc dc Chateaubriand's Erudes

historiques,6l that their Histoire is, in its orvn way and for the nat-

OF IHE H

uraf sciences, a complement to that author's Gdnie du christianisme.

["De Blainvil le," Revue d'histoire, pp. 90-91]

6l

l l

Pn n r Trvo

Epistemology

2

Crt,rrrr .n Foun

Epistemology of Biology

Origi ns of the Concept

f 21] Ar isrot le rvas the f i rst to at tempt a general dcl in i t ion of l i f i :

"Of natural bodies Ithat is, thosc not f)bricatcd by man], some

posseis vitalit\., others do not. We morn try'possessing vitalitv'that

.r thing can nourish itselfand gro" and clecav."1 Larer he savs that

l ife is u hat distinguishes the aninrate trodv fiom the inaninrate. But

the term " l i fe," l ikc "soul ," can bc understoo<l in several s<rnses.

I t is enough that one of thcm should accord r l i rh sonre object of

our exper ience " fbr us to af l i rm that [ that object ] i r a l ive."r The

vegetal statc is the minimal cxpression of the soul's f irnctions. Lcss

than this and there is no l i lc ; rnv r ichcr f i r rm of l i i t ' l resupposcs

i l t lcast th is mtrch.r L i f 'e, idcnt i l iecl rv i th animat ion, thur di f lers

l rom mattcr ; the l i f 'e-soul is the fbrrr , or act , of u 'h ich the l iv ing

natural body is the content: :uch rvas Ar istot lc 's conccpt ion of '

l i fe, anrl it remained as vigorous throughout the ctnturies as Aris-

totel ian phi losophv i tscl fd i<1. Al l the medical phi losophies that

held, dou n tofe beginning of thc nineteenth ccnturv, that l i f 'e

u'as eit lrt 'r a unique principle or somchorv associated u ith the soul,

essent ia l l I d i f lcrcnt f iom matter,rnd nn cxccpt ioD to i ts laws,

rvere directlv or indirccrlr inrlelrted to that part ol 'Aristot)e's sr,s-

tcnr u hich can e<luallv rrell lre called biologv ,rt psvchol<-rgv.

67

But rhrough the end of thc cightccnth ccnturri Aristotle's phi-

losoph'r' rr ' .rs also responsiblc firr a mcthod of studling the nature

an<l properries of l iving things, especiall l animals.lLife forms rvere

classi l ied.rc<orr l ing to s imi lar i t ics and di f lcrenccs in their parts

(or organs), rctions, I lnctions ancl modcs of l i f i :J Aristotle gave

naturalists rcason to look at l i fc fbrms in a particular rvav. The

method sidestcpped thc question of l i fe as such. Its aim was to

exhibit, rvithout gaps or reclundancies, thc obscrvablc products

of what Ar istot lc had no di f f icul tv imagining as a plast ic porvcr.

l lence eightccnth-ccntury natural ists such as Comte Buf lbn and

Carolus Linnaeus could r lcscr i t rc and classi fv l i fe forms ui thout

cvc r r ie l in ing l hat thev meant by "al ive." In thc scvcnteenth and

i : ightecnth ccntur je\ . the studv ol ' l i f 'e as such rvas pursucd bv

phvsic ians rJthcr thaD nnturnl ists, and i t \1.as natural fbr thcm to

associate l i f r : r r i th i ts normal nrorJc, "hcal th." From the mid sev

cntcenth ceDtur ' \ onrr . r rc l , then, thc studv of l i fc became the srr l>-

Icct ol 'phrsiologr (narrox l l construed). Thc pLrrpose ol this sturlr

rvas to determine thr ' < l is t in< t ivc features of the l iv ing. nor ro

d i r ine tht < srcncc of th is remarkable pou cr of nature, [ . . . ]I t r ras a ( i<:rman phrsic ian, Ceorg Ernst Stahl (1660- l7 l . t ) ,

rvho ntoro than anlrrn<. c lsc insisted that a theclrv of l i fe u.as . r

necess.lrv prcrcquisite ol medical thought and practice. No phv-

sic i . rn usecl th( t ( : rm " l i f i " 'more of ten. l f a doctor has no ic lea

u,h.rt the purpose of thc vital lunctions is, horv can he explain

*.hv hc d,rcs uhat he does? Novr', uhat confers l i l 'e * Jif 'e being

the directed, purposefi.rl movcmcnr without \ ihich thc corporeal

machine uould dccompose - is the soul . L iv ing bodies are com,

positc sulrstances u'ith the lacultv to impcde or resist thc cvcr-

prcscnt th lcat of d issoiut ion and corrupt ion. This pr inciple of

consrirvation. of the autocracl of l iving nature, cannot bc passive,

hencc i t must not bc nater ia l . The facul ty ol sel f lprcservat ion is

the l>asis of Stlhl 's I lcoriri mctlica lcra (170t1). Certain carelir l read-

68

ers * ho rvould later c lenv his ident i l icat i r rn oi l i le r t i rh the srr t r l

s t i l l nevcr fbrgot his fbrccf i r l def in i t iorr of l i fc as the Po\rcr tem-

porar i l ) to suspcn( l a c lest inv of corrupt ib i l i tv .

In rerms less freightcd rvith metaphvsics, Xavicr Bichat b<gan

his Rcc,hercfics ph-r's iologiqucs sur lo vic ct /o mort (1800) rvith this

cclcbrated maxim: "Li fe is thc col lect ion o1 l inct ions lhr t resist

dcath." In defining l if 'e in tcrms of a conflict bet*'een, on the onc

hancl , a bodv composed of t issues of spcci f ic st t .ucture,rnd proJr-

cr t ies (elast ic i t \ , contract i l i tv , sensi t iv i tv) and, on the other, an

environment, or mi l icu, as Augustc Comte rvould latel cal l i t ,

governed bv lau.s incliffcrcnt to the intrintic needs ol l iving things,

Bichat cast h imscl f as a Stahl purged of thcologt.1. . ]

In the very vcar of Bichat 's dcath, 1802, the term "Lr io logr"

rr',rs used fbr the first t imc in (lermanr' l. l '- Clottf i i t r l Reinholtl

l ier ir;nus and simultancouslv in France [>r' Jean-Baptiste Lrnr.rrck

\h Hr<lroolologlie); thev therebr stiked a claim trr indtpcnrlence

on behal fo l the l i l 'e scicnccs. Lamarck had long planned to gir<

thc t i t le l l io lo{ i r t ( ) one of h is rT 'orks, h.rv ing l t r , rposerJ. t theor\ 'of

l i fe rcrv carly in his tcaching .rt thc r\1usa'um d'l l istoirt Nattrrelle

in Par is. Bv studving the simplest orqanisnl , i , l re . r rgued, <tne

c,rul<l c leterminr: rvhat uas "csscnt ia l t ( ) rhe c\ istence () [ l i le i t r

a bodv." [ . . . ]

Lamarck conceivcd ol l i f i 'as a cont inu(,us, stc i ( |1 'nccumLl la-

t ion ancl assimi lat ion ol ' l lu ids bv sol ic ls, in i t ia l l r in the fbrm ol a

ccl lu lar t isstre, " the matr ix of a l l organizat ion." I i le or ig inates

in matter and mot ion, but i ts uni<1ue porvcr is evidctr t onlv in

the ordcrly pattel+?of it5 cfl i :cts, the series of l i le fbrms, u hich

qraduall l increasc in complexity ancl acquirc nerv l iculties.+ [-ife

begins rvith an "act of vitalization," an effect of heat, "that matc-

r ia l soul of l iv ing bodies."5 lndiv ic luals must ( l ie, vct l i le, Part ic-

ularly in its most advanccrl .rnimal lbrms, comes, ovcl t ime, to

bear evcr- lcrs rcscmblancc to thc inert passiv i tv ol inanimatc

objccts, To cal l I amarck's theorv of l i fe "marerial ist" is to lbrget

that lbr hinr "al l the crLrde or inorganic.ompo.rfuc mrtter rhat one

obscrvcs in nJture" is thc rcsidue oforganic <lecomposi t ion. for

onlv I iv ing th ings arc capablc of chemical svnthesis.

Ceorges Cuvier 's conccpt ion rvas verv di f ferent. Unl ike

l-amarck, Bichat and Stahl , Cuvier sarv l i le and death not as op-

posir<s but as elenrents o{ rvhat ht 'cal lcd "modes of I i fe." This

concepr \r,as intended to capturc the wav in uhich highlv spe-

cial ized internal organizations could entertain compatible rela-

t ions rvith the "general condit ions of existcncc." "Life," Cuvjer

argucd,

is a cont inual turbulen<r, . r f lo* whose dircct ion, though complrx,

remains constant. This f iux is composetl oi molcculcs, rvhich ch.rnge

individual lv vtr remain al| \ , tvs the same tvpe. IndecrJ, the aciual mit,

tcr thit consti tutes a l iving bodv rvi l l soon hare cl ispersed, yct that

mit ter scncs.rs thc rcposi t r ) r \ ofa fbrce that $i l l compcl lutulc

mart(r t ( ) move in thc samc dircct ion. Thus, thc fbrm o1 a l i r . ing

body is rnore essent' .r l than i ts mattcr, since rhe lattcr changcs con-

stantlv rvhi lc the lormcr is preserved.6

I . i fc thus bcars a c lear relat ion to death.

It is a nristnke to look upon l i fc] as a mcrc bond holding togrrhcr

thc various elements of a l iving bodv, rvhen i t is actual lv a spring

that keeps thore clemcnts in constant motion rnd shi l ts them aborrt.' I 'hc rclat ions ancl connections trmong thc clcrnents;rre not thc sanc

lrot}r onc m()mrnt tcr fhc na\f; in other ' ;rrrrr lr , thc statc or compo_

sit ion rr1 the l iving bodv changes from m(,m(nt to momcnt. Thc

morc active i ts l i le is, the more i ts cxchanges and metamorphores

arc ncvcr-encl ing. And thc iDstant ofabsolute rest, u,hich ir cal led

toral dcath, is but the prccursor of lur thcr morrcnts of putrefac-

7o 7t

t ion. From tlris point on it makcs scnse. thcrefbre, to lrsc the term

"vital fbrcrs."7

Thus, death is present in l i f-e, as both universal armaturc and in-

elrrctable [atc of individual components organized into compat-

ible vct f iagile svstcnrs.

The ' r 'ork

ol nr tural ists l ike Lanrarck nnd Cuvier led, a lbei t

in different \r 'ays, to a conceptual an(l methodologicnl rcvolution

in the representation ol the $,orld of l iving things. 'fheories

ol

l i le subsequently f irund a Iogical place in the teachings of phvsi-

ologists rvho, neverthelcss, believcd that thcir cxperimental meth-

c,ds had exorciscd the specter of mttaphrsics. Thus, fbl example,

Iohannes Mi i l ler d iscussed " l i fc" and thc "v i ta l organizat ion" of

tlre organism in the introduction to his l landbuclr <1,:r Ph.vsiologie

tles Menschens (1833-34). And Claude Bernard, rvho rccorcled his

intellectual progrcss during thc most ferti le period ol his carcer

(1850-60) in hi\ Cohis (le notet, alrvals regarded the n.rttrre ol l i f!

.rs the fundamental qucstion ofgent'ral biologv. The carc[ul con-

< lusions hc reached are set lbrth in I cgons sur les phinominer de Io

vic communs du\ dnimau\ et aux iplitaux (1878, espccially the first

three lcctures) morc systematicallv than thcv are in lntroduction d

la ntirlecine expitimearolc (1t365). f)l course, thc Bernarrl ian tlreorl

of l i [e involved rel . r t<rd explan.r t ions of tuo rJcl iberatc l r opposc<i

nraxims: l i f 'e is creat ion (1865) an<l l i fe is dcath (1875).

Having gained cmincnt ly scient i f lc status in the nincteenth

ccnturv, the question "What is l i fc?" becamc one that even phvsi-

cists did not disrLf to ask: Eru,in Schrr;dinger publisht'd a book

bcaring that t it le in I947. At lcast one biochenrist l irund che ques-

tion meaningfcss. hcrwever - Ernest Kahane, La I ' ic n'e.riste pas,

1962. 1n ,ntr histolical r6sum6 of hou the conccpt of l i fc has been

uscd in various donrains ofscicncc, I orve a great deal to the rvork

ol i\ l ichel Foucault.$ ["Vie," Enrlclopricdio, pp. 764a-66.r]

Obstqcles to Scientific Knowledge of Life

[22] Contemporarv french cpistcmology is indebted to thc $'ork

6f Gaston Bach. ' lard f i r r i ts interest in u.hat mav be descr ibed,

in gencral tcrms, as obstaclcs to knon,ledgc. In sketching out a

psvchoanalrs is of object ive knou. ledge, I lachclard, i l he himscl f '

cl id not Propose, at Ieasr hinted at the idca that obiccts crt knorvl-

edge are not intr insic.rLlv conrplex but rathcr arr ennreshe<l in

psvcholo{ ical complexes. Thc quest ion ol cpistemological ob-

stacles (Jocs not ar isc lbr e i ther c lassical enrpir ic ism or c lassical

rat ional ism. For empir ic ists, the senscs are s i rDplc receptors; thc

lact that qual i t ies arc associated rv i th scnsat ions is ignored. For

rationalists, knol' ledge pennancntlv devalucs the senses; thc intel-

lcct, its purity rcstored, must ncver again be sull ied. But contcm-

porarv anthropologv, infbr-med bv psvchoanalvsis and ethnographv,

takr.:s a vcrv different vierv: primitive psvchic mechanisns impose

certain otrrest ional constraints on the cur ious yet ( loci le mind,

thereb\ crcdting certain gencralize<i o priori olrstacles to untJer

st . rncl ing. In the l i le scicnces, then, uh.r t ue hope ro c l iscovcr

is thc obsessivc prcsence of ccrtain unscient i f ic valut s at the

very inccption ol scientif ic inrluirv. Even ifobjcctire knowlcdgc,

bcing a human eDrerprisci is in the cn<l the u.ork of l iving human

beings, the postulate that srrch knorvledgc exists - rvhich is the

first condition of its possibil i ty - l ics in the systematic ncgation,

in anv objr :ct to rrhich i t mav bc appl ied, of the re,r l i tv of the

qual i t ies rvhich huntans, knouing u.hat l iv ing mcanr to them,

idcnt i fv rv i th l i fc . Ttr l ive is to at tach value to l i fc 's purposes anr l

cxper iences; i t is to prt ' l t r certain nrcthocls, c i rcuntstances .rnd

direct ions to othefs. I i lc is rhe opposi te ol indi f fercncc to oDe's

surrounr l ings. f . . . ]

Scicncc, houevcr, denies the values that l i l i inrputcs to di f l

l i rcnt objects, l t del ines objects in relat ion to oDe anr)rher - in

other \ords, it l 'ucnsurcs u'ithout ascribing value. lts l irst major

histor ical succcss was nrechanics, based on the pr inciple ol incr-

t ia, a concept that comcs into being $hen onc considers t l re

movement of matter i tsel f abstracted f iom the abi l i tv o l l iv ing

things to impart movem('nr. Incrti.r is inactivitv and indiIference.

I t should comc as no surpr ise, then, that cf ' fbr ts to extcn( l thc

nrethods of matcr ia l is t sciencc to l i f i 'havc repeatecl l l becn ntct

! r i rh rcsistanct. t ight uP to tht pr tst 'nt drr ' l1 s l rch rrs istnl lcc

oftcn rcf lects enrot ioD.t l host i l i tv , i t mav also stenl l ronr, l rea-

soncd judgment: n.rrnelr', t lrat it mav be paradoxic.rl t() attcmPt

to cxplain a pou,er such ls l i lc in terms ofconccpts ancl Iaus l>aserl

on thc negat ion of that ;>orvcr.1. . .1Persistcnt quest ions.rbout thc or ig ins ol l i le ancl theor ics of

spontaneous gencration nlav \\ 'ell Point to another latent over-

detcrmination. Norvadals it sccnrs to be taken fbr-grantc(l thit

our fascinat ion rv i th reproduct ion is al l the greatcr bc(.ru5c soci '

ctv shuns and indccd <t nsors out-cLlr-iositv about thtr subject. Chil-

dren's bcl ie l l r at)out sexu.r l i rv rcf lecr bot l r the imPortancc .rn( l

n)vstcr iousness ol-bi I th. Whi l t manr histor ians ol b i t ' logr ' , rscr i l>e

bc) ief in spontaneous gcDcrat ion to the lack of evidcntt 'or unPer-

suasiveness of argunrents to lhe contrarY, the theorY trat rvt l l

point to a nostalgic dcsilt ' l irr spontaneotrs gr:ncration - n D)\'th, in

short. Freud's dissidcnt disciple Otto Rank argutrl in The Trouma

of Birth 11929) that thc <hild's suclden separation fi-om thc pla-

cental environment is the source ol, or ntorlcl fbr, all subse<lucnt

anxicty.e His ,Myth ol thc Birrh ol the Hero, rvhich deals rvith nrcrr

rvho somchorv avcricl the fearl st. l1lc, \\ 'as supposecl to Iend strppcrrr

ro th is v ic* b,r <lemonstr$r l rhe prevalcncc r ,1 t r i r th-c lenving

Drvrhs. l0 \ \ ' i thout going so l i r a\ to c l i i rn t i r . r t . i l l ProPoncDts ol '

r lhat has been r , r l lLr l "L ' r lu ivoca) gcncrat ion" or "hcterog,rnl , "

u'hether materialists or crt 'atiolrists, havc done nothing molf thnl)

give shape to a lantasl originrting in the traumatized uncoDscinus,

one can st i l l arguc that thc thcorv of spont. lncous gener,) t ion

72 73

stems f iom aD overest imat ion ol the value of l i fe. Thc idea of

procreat ion.rnd bir th is in one sense an idea ofsequencc and pr i -

ority, and avcrsion to thar iclea must be seen as a consequcnce of

the prestige attached to uhat is original or primordial. lf cvcrv

l iv ing th ing must be born, and i f i t can be born onlv to another

l iv ing th in{, then l i fc is . r fbrm ofservi tude. tsut i f the l iv ing c.rn

rise to perfection through an ascendantlcss ascension, l i fe is a form

ol domination. l"Yie," Entvclopaedia, pp.7 66a-66t>l

Li[e as Animotion

[23] We conrplctcly forget that r.hen rve speak of animals, ani-

malitv or inanimate bodies, the terms \1e use are vcstigcs of thc

nDcicnt metaphls ical ident i f icat ion . , f l i le u ' i rh the soul and of

the soul rn'ith breath (dnrmd = anernos). Thus whcrr man, the onlv

living creature capablc of <liscourse on l i le, discussed his orvn l ife

in terms of rcspiration (\. i thout rvhich there is not only no l if 'e

but no speech), he thought he * 'as discussing l i l i in general . l l '

Creek philosophers prior to Aristode, cspccially Plato, spcculatcd

about the essence and clestiny ofthe soul, it rvas Aristotle's De

onima that f irst proposed rhe rraditional distinction between the

vegetative or nutrit ive soul, the facultl of gro\a'th and rcproduc-

t ion; the Jnimal or sensi t ive soul , the facul ty to feel , desire and

move; and the reasonable or thinking soul, the facultv ofhuman-

itv. In this contexr, ir maters l itt le r"hether Aristotle thought of

thest ' three souls as dist inct ent i r ies or as mere)y hierarchical lev-

els, the lesser of rvhich could exist u ithout the greater, where.rs

the greater crruld neither exist nor function lvithout the lesser.'Ihc

important thing is to remember that lbr the Grecks the u'ord

plche meant cool breath. The Jels, moreover, had ideas of l i fe

and the soul qui te s imi lar to those of rhe Creeks: 'And the Lord

Ciod formed man of the dust of the ground and breathcd into his

nostri ls the breath ofl ife; and the man becamc a l iving soul" (Gen.

I

2r7). This is not the place to retracc thc historv of the schools ol-

Alcxandr ia - thc. lerv ish school rv i th Phi lo, the Platonjc school

*,ith Plotinus - rvhosc teachings, coupled rvith the preaching ot

Paul ( l Cor. 15), inspired thc f i rndamental themes ofear ly Chr is-

t ian doctr ine concerning ] i f 'e, death, salrat ion anr l resurrect ion.

Indeed, the cultural cclecticism of Nlediterrane.rn civil izations is

even responsible for thc polvsemic connotations (another u a,v ol '

saying "ambiguitv") ofthe term "spirit," l iom .rpirdre - an ambi-

guitv that pennitted it to sene cquallr rlell in tht'ologv, to dt'nott '

the th i rd perron ol the Tr in i tv, and in medicine, r l 'hcrc. in t l rc

phrases "v i ta l spir i t " and "animal spi t i t , " i t bccanre an ant ic ipr-

tory trope lir the so-called nervous inllux.

After 1600, the conccpt ion of l i { i ' , rs an animat ion of matter

lost ground to mater ia l is t or merel \ mechanist ic conccpt ions ol

thc intrinsic l i fc f irnctions, and it uas no longer acceptcd as an

objectivc ans\l,er to the cluestion "What is l i le?" \ct it survivcrl

rvcl l into the nineteenth centurv in the lbrm ci{ a nredical-phi lo-

sophical ideologv. [ :or evidencc ol th is, onc has onlv to glance

at a l i t t le-kno$'n text , the prcf ;ce to thc th i r teent l r edi t ion o1'

the Dict ionndire de midccine (187i) , publ ished bv Jean-Bapt istc

Bai l l idrc rrnr ler the edi t , r rship ol lmr posi t iv ist phvsir i rns, Emi lc

t . i t t r6, thc author ol . r ccl t :brated dict ionarv ol the Frt 'nch l . rn-

guage, and Charles Robi;;g profbssor ol histologv at I 'aris's [:acult!

dc Nltdccine. f . . .1' l 'he Dictionnoire dc miLlccine in qucstion \\ 'as a r( cJsting of thc

1855 rer.isecl edition of Pierre Hubcrr N\sten's Dicrionnorrc (l8l{),

i tsc l f the revised and crpanded successor ofJoseph Capuron's

Dictionnairc cle mddecinc (1806), I 'he cditors $'crc keen to point

out the di l lerence l )ct \vccn the mater ia l is t idcas thcr.*ere ac-

cused of championing.rncl the posi t iv ist doctr ine thev prolessed

to tcach.-lcr that encl, thev commented on thc varioLls dcfinit ions

of the terms "soul ," "spir i t , " "man" an<l "c leath" rhat Capuron

71 7t

had proposer l in 1806 and thev ( l - i t t re and Robin)had themselves

pur fbru ard in 1855.

In 1806, "soul" rvas <lef ined as the " interDrl pr inciple ofal l

operati.ns t, l l ir ing bodies; more particularlv, the principle of l i fc

in the regctal i l , r ( l in the animal. The soul is s i r rp l r \egetat ive in

p)ants anr l scnsi t ive in Lreasts; but i t is s imple and act i re, reason-

.rblc an<l inrmortal in mrn."

ln 1855, onc f i rund a di f lcrcnt dcl in i r icrn:

Tcrnr s hich, in biologv, cxprcsscs, consiclcrcd analornically, thc col-

lcction of [unctions ol rhe brain and spinal cord and, consiclcrcd

phvsiologicall l, the collcction of f irrctions of rhe cnccphalic scnsi-

bi l i ty , th i t is , thc pcrccpt ion oIboth external , rb jects and internal

objccts; thc sum total ol the neetls antl penchants that serve in the

pre\en.it i{)n ol the individual anrl spccics anrl in rt l.rt ions s irlr other

beingsl rhc apt i tur les rhat const i tute rhe imnginnr i r )n. language and

t\prc\s i ( )n: Ibc l . rcul t ics that form thc unr lcrst , rnding: thc s i l l , and

l inal l ! the l ) ( ' \ \ ' ( r t ( r set the rnuscul . r r s\ j tcm in ntol ion. tn( l co act

thr,rugh i t on thc cxt t rnal norkl .

In 1861, th is del in i t ion *as subjccted t() \ 'chcmcnt cr i t ic ism bv

Anatolc l\t.r l ic Emile Chaullard, .rvho attackcrl not onlv Littra and

Robin but afso l.uclrvig Biichncr (( ralt untl StolJ, 185 5 ), the high

pricst of Cerman materialism ar rhc timc. ln Dc la Ph;losoph;e d;te

Positive dans scs rdpports .ryec I.t midccinc, Chaull;rrl cclcbratcd "thc

indissolublr : nrarr iagc of mcdic ine and phi losophv" ancl yearned

to ldund "thc notion of thc rcal and living being" on "human rea-

son a\ \are ol i tse] l - , rs cause and { i r rce." l ivo vcars later, Claude

Eern.rr(l !\ 'r-ote, "For the experimental phvsiologist, thcre can bc

no such thing ai ip i r i tu.r l ism or matcr i . r l isnr. . . . Thc physiologist

.rnd the phlsici.rn shoulcl not think that their role is to discover

the cause o i le or the t 'sscnce ofcliseases."rL ["Vie," Lnc,vclopae-

dia, 1tp. 167 a-67b1

Life os Mechanisnt

[2,1] At thc cnd ol thc Trcatise on ' l ' lan

(cornpleted in l6ll but

not publ ishcd unt i l 1662-64), l )cscartes \ \ ' r ( ) tc:

I should l ikc \ou to coDsider that thesc l t rnct ionr | , l lorr l r r rnr thc

mcre arrangcmcnt ol thc nrarbinc's orgins c\rrr ! b i t ;s n.r tural l r rs

t l re In.)r 'cmcnt\ , r i . r c locl r ) r { ) thtr aut()n) l t { rn I t l lor t l r r 'nr thc

rrrangcnrrnc ol i t r count(r- \ \ ( ' ights and s ht . ls . ln rrrdcr ro <rplain

thcsc firncrions. thcn, it i : i not neccssarv t() concaivt' ol this mac hinc

as having anv r,cqctit i\( ()r scnsitive ' ioul or othcr principle <rl rnovc

mcnt and l i ic , ap.rr t l rom irs blood and i t \ sPir i rs, r rh ich.rre agi-

tated bl the be;rt ol thc l ire burning continuou\ll in i ls he.rrt - a

l i re nhich has thc samo nature.rs al l thc l i rcs th.r t ( )acur in in.rni

matc bodies. l l

I t is fa i r lv nel l knolr n that Dcscartcs 's ident i l ic . r t ion ol the . rn i -

mai ( including phvsical . r phvsiological nran) rr i r l r a nrcchanizct l

or mechanic.r l autonraton is rht , rbversc of [xr th his i t lcnt i f icat icrn

of thc soul n ' i th rhought ("For. thcrc is r l i t l r in t rs hut onc soul ,

and this soul h.rs rvithin it no <livcrsitv ol parts"r l) an<l his substan-

t ia l d ist inct ion betrTeen thc indiv is ib le souland extendtd matter.

l l the Treatise on ,tr|.rn surpastlcvcn the summary of its contents

given in the fifth part of the 1631 Discourse on ,, l,Iethorl as a mani-

fisto supporting an animal phvsiologv purif iul of all lef 'erenccs

to a pr inciple ofaninrr t ion ofanv kind, i t r 'as bccatrse \Vi l l ian' t

l larvev's discovrrv ol thr circulation of thc blorxl and Ptrl ' l ication

ol thc Ercrritatro onLlto i.o (lc notu cot(l it et sontluinit in dDitnctl ihut

( i628) had, in t l re nrcant inre, presentc<l a hrdrodrrr . tnr ic ex;r la-

nat ion of . r l i fe t i rnct ion - an explanat ion th.r t t ] t inv phrsic ianr,

part icular ly in l ta lv and Cermanl, had tr ied to imitate, ot tcr ing

a var ietv of ar t i l ic i . r l moclels to cxplain such othcr t r rnct ions as

muscular contract ion or thc equi l ibr ium of l ish in uater. In f ic t ,

7t) 77

r

Gali leo's studcnts and disciples at the Accademia del Cimento,

Giovanni Af fbnso Borcll i (De motu dnimalium, 1680-81), Fran-

cesco Rcdi and Marccl lo Malpighi , had actual lv t r ied to applv

Gal i leo's teaching in mechanics and hydraul ics to phvsiologv;

Descartes, though, rvas satisfied to set forth a heuristic program

that was morc intentional than operational.

C)ne uav of explaining ho*' organs l ikc thc cvc or organ sys-

tcms like the heart and vessels work is to build what rvc l 'ould

nou call "mcchanical modcls." This is precisely r'"hat the iatro-

mechanics (or iatromathcmat ic ians) of the seventeenth and

cighteenth centur ies t r ied to do in order to explain muscular

contraction, digestion and glandular secretion. Yet the Iaws of

Cal i lean or Cartesian mechanics cannot by thcmsclvcs cxplain

thc origin of coordinatcd organ systcms, and such coordinatcd

svstems are preciselv v',hat one means by "l ife." ln other rvords,

mechanism is a theorv that tells us hou machines (l iving or not)

rvork once thev are built, but it tells us nothing about how to

bui ld them.

In practice, mechanism contributed Iitt le to subjects such as

embrvologv. The use of the microscope, rvhich bccame common

in the seconcl half of the scventecnth ccnturv, made it possiblc

to obscrvc thc "sccds" of l iving things, l iving things in the earli-

cst stages of rlcvclopmcnt. But Jan Swammerdam's observations

of insect metamorphoses and Anthonic van l-ccurvcnhock's dis-

coverv of the spermatazoid u'ere init iallv understoocl to confirm a

speculative conception of plant or animal generation, according

to which the seed or cgg or spcrmatic animalcule contains, pre-

fbrmed in a miniature that optical magnil ication reveals, a being

u.hose evolution rvil l proceed unti l i t attains its adult dimensions.

The microscopic observation that did most to validate this the-

ory was undoubtedly Malpighi 's examinat ion of thc _vcl iow of '

a chickcn's egg falsely assumed not to have been incubated.ra

There is reason to th ink that Malpighi 's bel ief in mcchanism

unconsciously structured his perccption of phenomena.

Intentionally or not, behind everv machine Ioomed a mechanic

or, to usc the languagc of the dav, a bui lder. L iv ing machines

impl ied a mechanic of thcir ou'n, and that impl icat ion Pointed

toward a Summu.r opilex, Go<1. It rvas thcrefbre logical to assumtr

that all l iving machincs had been constructed in a single init ial

operation, and thencc that all the gcrms of all thc prcfbrmed liv-

ing things - past, prescnt or luturc - u'ere, from the moment

of creat ion, contained one inside the other. Under these conr l i -

t ions, the succession of l iving thingr onlv appears to be a histor,v,

because a birth is in reality onlv an unpacking. When lcss biased

or more ingcnious observat ions led to thc revival , in a revised

lbrm, of the old vieu that the embrvo grorvs through epigencsis

(thc successive appcarance ol anatomical formations not geomct-

rically derivable from anteccdcnt lbrmationsl; ), modcrn embrv-

ologv rvas institutcd as a science capable ofencouraging phvsiologl

to frec itselffrom its f;scination \\ ' i th mechanism

Meanrrhi l , , gtorr ing nt tml ' , r . o l oh.( r \a l i . lns br micr, t .co-

1, i . r . , nar ural i " r . . phur i . ion' i l?. ,h.r t . ur ioLrr r l rou t n.r t t t rc helPeJ

to cliscrcdit mechanism in a dil l irent but Parallel u'ar'. The hidden

inncr structure ofplant and animal parts graduallv came to sccm

prodigiouslv complicated comparecl n'ith thc macroscopic struc-

tures v is ib le through disscct ion. The discovcr l of animalcules,

hencefbrth cal led Prot ista, opcncd up previouslv unsusPccte( l

r lcpths in the empire of thc l iv ing. Whercas seventecnth-centurv

mechanics u'as a theorv ofmovcmcnts and impulses, that is, a sci-

ence based on data accessible to s ight and touch, microscopic

anatomv $as concerned with objects bevond the manifcst ancl

tangiblc. Avai l ing onesel{ of that structural microcosm, that

"other rvorlcl" rvithin, one could conceile of evcr more minute

microcosms cmbcddcd onc w. i th in the other. Thc microscopt:

76

cnabled the im.rginat ion to conceivc of structural complcxi tv on

a scale never befbrt ' inragincd, much as modern calculus extcnded

thc porver of Descartes's analytical gcomerr\ '. As a result, pascal

and I cibniz, unbeknon nst to each othcr, both fbund mechanism

uanting. But I.ci l 'niz's crit ique, unlike Pascal's, prorided the fbun-

clat ion l i r r J Dcw conccpt ion ol i iv ing rhings - l r ioJogv rvould

hcncclorrh picture l i f i . in ternts oforganisnr and organizat ion:

Thus each <rrganic boclv ofa l iving cre.rrurc is a kind o1 divine ma,chinc or nntural automaton surpassing inlinitclv evcrv kind ol artif l-

cial .rLltorn.rton. For a machinc made bv hunr.rn art is not a machine incvcrv part ol it... . lSut Nature's machines, l iving bcxlier, arc machines

cven iD thcir minutcst parts ancl to inlinitv. fhis is r!hat constittrtcs

thc ri i l l i rencc bct.neen naturt ' and art, l>enrcen the rl ivine art andorrr hum,rn art . l6

l"Vie," fncr c/rpocrlro, pp. 7671>-68a]

Lifc as Orgo n ization

[25] C)nce again, it \1as Aristotlc .who coincd the term ,,organ-

ized brrrlr ' ." A bo<lv is organized if i t providt,r the soul $.irh instru-ments or organs inclispcnsable to tlre exercise ol its pou.ers. Untilthe scvcnteenth cerrtury, then, thc paradigm ol thc organizcd boclvrvas thc animal (bccause i t possesscd a soul) . ( ) fcourse, Ar istot lcsaid that p lants too have organs, al though ol an cxtremclv s implckind, anr l pcople dir l rvoncler lbout rhc organizat ion of the plantkingdom. , \ l icroscopic cxaminar ion ol p lar t prcparat ions led togerrer.rl izations ofrhe concept ol org.rnitation, an<l ir even inspiredi.rnt.rstic analogies bctv|een plant.rnd anint.rl structures ancl fLnc-t ions- Robert l looke ( .4 l icrographia, l ( ,6 i ) , Nlarcel lo Malpighi(Anatontt p lantarum, f675)and Nchcmi.rh Crc; ( l 'he Anatoml,oJ

Plants, 1682) discovered thc structurc of b.rrk, rvood and cortcx,

8o a

dist inguished tubulcs, vcsscls and l ibers, and comparct l roots,

tv ' , igs, leavcs and f iu i ts in terms of thc mcmbranes or t issucs

thcv contained.

The Greek u'ord or.Tonon relerred to both a musician's instru-

ment and an art is i tn ' r tool . The human bodv n'as comprrer l to a

musical r ) rgan in nrore than onc scvcnteenth-centulv tc\ t . iDclu( l

ing rtorks br Dcsc.rrtes, Pascal, J.rcq ucs- Bin i{tnc lJossuel {Irdils

elc la connoisrancc <tc Dieu ct <!e roi-mdme) and Lcibniz. "()rganiza-

t ion," "organic".rnd "oronnize" st i l l carr icd bcrth biological and

musical connot.r t ions as recent lv as thc nineteenth centurv (scc

Emile Littr6's Dictionnaire tlc la langue t'ranqoise). l-<rr [)escartes,

the organic "organ" l irs an instrument th.rt nccdcd tro organist,

but Ie ibniz bel ievei l ,hat vr , i thout.rn organist therc c 'u ld bc no

structural or lunction;rl rnit\ of the "organ" it-rstrument. \\r ith-

out an organizcr, th,r t is , rv i thout a soul , nothing is otg.rnizecl or

org.rnic: "[W le rr ould nevcr reach .rnvthing about rt hiclr ' '*r ' c,l: ld

sav, here is t r r r lv a l rc ing. l rn lcss \ !e f i rLrnd animat, r l nrrchints

rvhosc soul or strtrstantial lbrnr producrl .r suhstanti.rl unin in<]c-

pcndcnt of the e\ tern.r l union ar is ing l iom c() l1t . tct . ' rL i Less cclc-

blated but more of a tcaclrcr, the phvsician Danicl L)rrncan urote:

" lhe soul is a ski l led org.rnist , rvhich fbrms i ts orq.rnr bcfort :

p] . ry ing thcm.. . . l t is a remar.kable th ing that in inanimatc or-

gans, thc organist is d i f lerent f rom thc air that he causes to f lou,

*hereas in animate organs thc organist ancl t l re air thr t causes

them to plav are onc and thc s.rme thing, bv lh ich I nrcrn that

the soul is extremel\ s imi lar to thc.r i r or to brearh." l r' Ihc concept ol organisnr rleveloped in thc cighteerrth c('ntur\ '.

as natural ists, phvsic ianr an<l phi l<-rsophers sought srniant ic sub-

stitutes or ( '( luivllcnts krr th< rvord "soul" in ordcr to cxplain h<"t

svstems compose( l o l d ist inct components nevcrtheless rrrrrk in

a uni f iecl manner to per lbrm a l inct ion. The parts oi srrch a svs-

tenr mutuallv influence onc another in (l irect or nrt '<li.rted l ish-

*-r-$iI

ion. The rvord "part" secmed il l-suited to dcnote the "organs"

of rvhich thc organism could be seen as thc " total i ty" but not

the "sum."

Reading Leibniz inspirecl Charles Bonnct, rvhose hosti l i tr to

mechanism had been confirmed by Abraham Trembley's obser-

vations on the reproduction of polyps by propagation, and bv his

clrvn obscrvations on the parthcnogenesis of plant I ice.

I am not i-ct making the difl iculty plain enough: it l ics not only in

how to form mechonicall.v an organ that is itscl{ composed of so manr

dilfcrcnt picces but primariiy in explaining, by thc Iaws of mechan-

ics alone, thc host ol various reldfioDr that so closelv bind all the

orgaoic parts, and in virtuc of which thev all conspire torn,ard the

samc gcncral goal - bv which I mean, thel form that unity vr,hich

one calls an animal, that organizcd wholc lvhich l ives, grorvs, feels,

moves, presc'rves and rcproduccs itsel[. le

In Gcrmanv the text that dicl most to place "organism" at the

top ol the late eightet 'nth ccntury 's l is t of b ioJogical concepts

$,as Kant's Crit iquc of Judgnent (1790). Kant analvzed the con-

cept ofan organized being rvithout using the rvords "l if 'e" or "l iv-

ing thing." An organized being is in onr: sensc a machine, but a

machine that rcquircs a fbrmativc cncrgy, something more than

mere motor cncrgy and capable of organizing otherw ise inert mat-

tcr. lhe organic bodv is not only organized, it is self:organizing:

"ln such a natural product as this every part is thought as ow irfrf

its presence to the ogencl of all the rcmaining parts, and also as

cxisting for the sahe of the others and ofthe wholc, that is, as an

instrument or organ. But th is is not cnough.. , . On the contrary

the part must be an organ producing thc other parts - each, con-

secluently, reciprocallv producing thc others. No instrument of

art can ans\r,er to this description, but onlv the instrumcnt of

t1

that nature fcan]. , , , " : t . t In the same per iod, the physic ian Car l

Friedrich von Kiclmcver, rvhom Georges Cuvicr had mct as a fel-

low studcnt at the Carol ine Academl in Stut tgart , dcl ivered a

celebrated lecture on thc main ideas of an influential approach

to zoology and botanv, the Rappott des lorces organiques dans Io

sirie des dil ldrentes organisations (179 )). The organism is delincd

as a systcm oforgans in a rc lat ion ofc i rcular rcciproci tv. ' fhese

organs are determinglbv thcir actions in such a wav that thc

organism is a svstcm of fbrces rather than a svstem ol organs.

Kiclmcycr scems to bc copving Kant rvhen he savs, "Each of th<:

organs, in the modifications that it undcrgocs at caclr moment,

is to such a degree a function of those that its neighbors undergo

that it seems to be both a cause and an ef' lect." It is easv to sec

u'hv images of thc circle and sphere enjoved such prestiger among

Romant ic natural istsr the c i rc le rcprcscnts the reciproci tv ol

means and ends at the organ level, thc sphcrc rcprcsents the total-

itv, individual or universal, oforganic forms and fbrccs.

In France at thc beginning ol the nineteenth centurv i t was

Auguste Comte's biological phi losophy, dist inct f rom but not

unrelated to Cuvier's biology, that sct fbrth in svstematic f;sh-

ion the elements ofa thcorv of l iving organization.lr Arguing that

" the idea of l i fe is real l l inseparable f rom that of organizat ion,"

Comtc dcfined the organism as a consensus of functions "in regu-

lar ancl permanent associat ion u. i th a col lect ion of other func-

tions." Consensus is a Latin translation ol the Greek s.vmPatheia.

Svmpathv, rvherein the states and act ions of the var ious parts

determine one another through sensi t ive communici t ion, is a

notion that Comtc borrorvcd, along rvith that of svncrg\', from

PaulJoseph Barthez, * ho * rote:

' [ 'he preservat ion of l i le is ; rsrociater l wi th the svmpathics o1 thc

organs, as *ell ar lvith thc organism ol their l irnctions.... Br the

u2

\\ '()r(l 'r lncr!\, ' i I mun .r <oncotttsc oi simultaneous rrr str<.<cssilt

. l(t i(r)s ,)t rhe l irrrcr oi rl irrrsr rrrg,rDs. rhir corlcoursc being rLrt h

thnt thr \c , rct i ( )ns c()nst i tutr , br thcir ordcr ol harnlon\ ol sua(:c\

s j r rn. thr ' intr insic lbrrn oi a l r rnct ion ol hc,r l th or ol a tenus tr l

Comtc, of coursc, impor- ted the conccpt ol consensus into the

thcorr oi rhe social organism, an(l he l.rtcr rcviscd and generll i ,/e(l

i t in his * ' r r rk on social stat ics. "Consensus" then bccamt svnon-

\l l lou' u ith solidarity in orgaDic svstems, and Conrtc skctched out

a s( riL's ()l ( legrees ol organic (onsensDs, l lhose efl i:cts lrccome

increasirgl l str ingent as one r ises l iom plants to aninrals and

man,2) Oncc conscnsus is identif led rr ith solidaritv, one no l()nger

knorvs r* hich of thc trvo, organisnt or society, is thc model or, at

anv rat{, rhc metaphor lbr the othcr.

Ic nv,rrr l< l [ .c a mistake to ascr ibt ' rhc.rmbigui tv of the r< lat ion

[rct.r 'ccn orq.rnisnr and soci< tv solclv to the la\ity of philosophical

languagc. lr the background, onc cnn see the pcrsistence of tech-

noiogical imagerv, r ' ividlv present l iom Aristotle's dar onrvarrl.

At thc bcginning ol thc nineteenth centurv, a concept imlx)rted

from pol i t ical economv, thc div is ion ol ' labor, cnr iched the con-

cept of organism. The first account of this metaphorical transcrip-

t ion is <luc to the compat 'at ive phrsiologist I lcnr i Mi lne- l :< ln l rds,

who \r 'r 'otc rhe articfe on "Organization" Ior the Dictionnare clas-

ti( iuc dcs rircra.,-r naturcllcr (1827). Since the organirm rv.rs con-

ccirer l as l srrr t 6f 11.61151ep or l , rctorr , i t *as onlr logicr) to

measure thc pcrfection of l ivin{I Lreings in tcrms of the incrcas-

ing structural differentiation and firnctional specialization ol rheir

parts, anr l thus in te lms of r r : lat ivc complexi tv. But that com-

plexi tv r tquirecl , in turn, an assurJnce of uni tv and i t td iv idual i -

z. . t t ion. Tht ' introcluct ion of cel l rhcorv in the biologv f i rst of

plants (aroun<l 1825) and l . r fcr o[ . rn imals (around 1t i40) incvi-

tablv turned at tent ion toward the problcnr ol int t 'grat ing ( l ( -

mcntarv indiv idual i t ies and parr i . t l l i le l i r rms into the total iz ing

indiv ic lual i ty ol an organism in i ts gt-ncr l l l i le lorm.

Such problerrs ofgeneral phvsiologr rlould increasinglv clainr

the at tent ion ol-Claude Bernarr l over the course of h is career as a

researcher ancl professor. For proof one need onlv consul t thc

ninth ofhis Legont sur les phinominct t le Ia vi,: communt du\ animdu\

et aux v,lp1ttour. The organism is a societl ol cclls nr clemcntnrv

organisms, at once. lutonomous ancl su[ ,ot-dinate. The special iza-

r ion of thc conrponrnts is a f int t ion ol rhc complexi tv , r l the

rvholc. Thc cl l t 'c t o l th is coordinated special izat ion is the crer '

- t ion, at the le 'e l oI the elements, o l a l iqLr ic l interst i t ia l mi] icu

\ut B. .nur, l dubbed the " intcrnal cnvironmcnt," $ 'h ich is thc

sum of the phvsical and chemical conr l i t ions of a l l cel lu lar l i fe.

"Onc might dcscribc this condition o{ org.rnic perfection bv sar'

ing that i t con5isrs in an cvcr-morc not iccatr l r '< l i f l i rcnt iat ion ol

the labor of prepar ing the const i tut ion oI the int t ' rna] environ

mcnt," As is r.ell knoun, Bernard uirs one ol the l irst to cliscover

thc constancr oJ th is intcrnal enviroDnreDt, . r long r ,v i th a mecha-

nism, rvhich he cal led " internal sccrt : t ion," l i r r rcgulat ing and

controll ing that constancv, u.hich has bccn knou'n cvcr sincc .rs

homcostasis. This rvas thc original, ancl c.rpital, contribution ol

Brrnardian phvsiologv to the moclern c.,nception ol l iving organi-

zat ion: thc c\ iStcnce of ln intcrnal cnvir()nntcnr. of a constanc!

obtained hv colrpcnsat ing for t lo iat jons lnt l pt r turbl t ions, prr>

vides regulrterl organisms rvith an assuranct ol rclativc indcpcnrl-

encc f iom var int ions stemming l iom tht 'extcrnal condi t ions ol-

their cxistence. Bernard was lirnd ofusing the tenn "elasticitv" to

convev his idea c,forganic Iifc. Pcrhaps he had fbrgottcn th.1t thc

paratl igmatic machinc of his era, the stearn engine, was equipped

rvith a rcgulator rlhen he rvrotr:

8t

C)ne treats thc organism as a machine, and this is correct, but one

conridcrs i t as a l i red, immutrble, mcthanirol moc/lnr, confined

rr i th in rhr l inr i ts cr l mathcmat ical precis ion. and thir is a ser ious

nristakc. The organism is ar otBdnic moclr ine, that is, a machine

equipped rvith a l lcxible, elasl ic mcchanisnr, ou.ing to thc special

orgnnic proccs\cs i t cmplors, \et wi thout v io lat ing the generai

l ;r ls of mechanics, physics or chcmistrv.2{

lYie," F,ncvclopacd;o, p. 768a-69a]

Life as I nfornation

[26] Cvbcrnetics is thc gcneral theon- of se rvomechani sms, that

is, o l machines constructe( l so ns to maintnin certain outputs

(pro<lucts or ef lects) rv i th in f lxc<l or var iablc l imi ts. SLrch ma-

chines form the heart of selflregulating svstems, and it is hardlv

surpr is ing that sel f - regulat ing organic svstems, especial lv those

mediated bv the nerrous system, became models fbr thc t,ntirc

class. ()fcourse, the analogl betrveen scrvomcchanisms and organ-

isms runs both *avs, In a regulated svstem, not onlv do the parts

interact u'ith one another but a feedback loop connects one or

more monitored outputs to ()ne r)r morc rcgulator l , inprr ts. Thus

cybernet ic machincs, rvhether natural or man-made, are of tcn

described in terms of communications or information theory. A

sensor nronitors an output fbr (lcviations fronr a fixed or optimum

level . Whcn such .r dcviat ion is detecred, the fecdback loop sig-

nals the control input so as to convev an instruction from sensor

to ef lector. I t is the infbrmat ion content of th is s ignaJ that is

important, not i rs intr insic force or magnitude. l 'hc {ccdback

infornr.r t ion embodies an order in t rvo dist inct senses: a cohcr-

ent structure as .rvcll as a command.

An organism caD thus be understood as a biological svstem,

an open clrnamical systcm fhar secks to prcsrrvt ' i ts cr lu i lJbr i r rm

and counteract perturbations. Such a svstem is capable ofaltering

its rclation to the en\ironment l l 'om which it drarvs its cnergv

in order to maintain thc lcvcl of some paranreter or to perlbrm

Somc activity.

Claude Shannon's rvork on communicat ion and informat ion

theorv and i ts relat ion to thermod\namics ( l9.1l i ) appealed to

offer a partial ans\1er to an age-old question .rbout l i f 'e. The sec-

ond la*' of thermodvnamics, which states that translbrmations of

an isolated system are irreversible, owing to rhe degradation of

energv in the system or, put another u?\', to tlre increase ol thc

system's entropy, appl ies to objects indi f lerent to rhe qual i rv of

their statc, that is, to objccts that are either inert or deacl- Yet an

organism, rvhich feeds, grows, regcDeratcs mutilatcd parts, rcacts

to aggrcssion, spontaneously heals certain diseases - is not such

an organism engaged in a struggle against the l ite ofuniversal dis-

organizat ion proclained by Carnot 's pr inciplc? Is organizat ion

order amidst disordcri Is it the maintenance ol'a quantirv of iDfbr-

mation proportional to the conrplexity ol the structure? Does not

information theory have more to say, in its orvn algorithmic lan-

guage, about l iv ing th ings than l lcnr i Bcrgson did in tbe th i rd

r olume ol'his Ivo./otion udott;cc (1907)?

In fact , there is a great gul l . an i r reducible di f ference, be-

tween currcnt theories of organir.ation through inlbrmation and

Bernard's ideas abour indil idual development or Bergson's ir lcas

about the evolution ofspecies and the e/an l itol. Bcrnard had no

cxplanat ion for the evolut ion of species, and Bcrgson had no

cxplanation fbr the stabil ity or rcliabil iry of l iving structurcs. But

the combinat ion of molecular biologv u i th g( 'net ics has Ied ro a

unified theory of biochcmistry, phvsiological regulation.rnd heri-

tabil itv oI specific variations through natural selection, ro which

information theorv has addcd a rigor comparable to thar of rhe

phvsical scicnces.

\

86 t\7

Onc qucst ion remains, hoscvcr, rv i th in thc thcorv i tscJf , to

rvhich no ansrver is yct in s ight : Where does biological infbrma-

t ion or ig inate? Andrt I . rvof l maintains that b ioJogical orc lcr can

ar ise onl l out of b io logical order, a fbrmuJat ion contemporary

rvith tlre aphcrrisrns omne vivum cx vivo, omniJ cellulo et cellulo.

l lorv did thc l i rst scl f -organizat ion comc about i f communica-

tion depends on a prior source of information? One philosopher,

l lavmond Ruyer, puts the problem this rvav: "Chance cannot

account fbr antichancc. Thc mcchanical communication of infor-

mation bt a machinc cannot account fbr infbrmation itself, since

the machine can onlv dcgradc or, at bcst, prcscrvc infbrmation."

Biologists do not regard th is c luest ion as meaningless: contem-

porarv thcor ics o[ the or ig ins of l i fe on earth look to a pr ior

chcmical cvoltrt ion to cstablish the conditions necessarv fbr bio-

logical evolut ion. Within the str ict conf incs of infbrmat ion the-

or\, one young biophvsicist, Llenri Atlan, has rcccntlv proposed

an ingenious and compl icatc<l rcsponsc to thc quest ion in the

fbrm of u hat hc calls a "noisc-based principle oforder," accord-

ing to u.hich self:organizing svstems evolvc bv taking advantage

ol "noise," or random pcrturbat ions in the environmcnt. , \ l ight

the meaning of organizat ion l ic in the abi l i t ) to rnake use of d is-

organization? But rvhv alrvays two opposite tcrms? ["Vie," Encr,-

clopaedia, pp. 769a-69b]

Life and Dcath

127] Paradoxical l l , * .hai charactcr izes l i le is not so much thc

cxistcncc ofthe l ife functions tlremselves as thcir gradual dctcri-

orat ion and ul t imate cessat ion. l )eath is rvhat dist inguishes l iv-

ing individuals in the rvorlcl, and thc inevitabil ity of death points

up thc apparcnt exception to the larvs of thermodvnamics rvhich

living things constitute. Thus, the search lor signs ofdeath is f irn-

damcntally.r scarch fbr an irrefutablc sign of l i fc,

August Weismnnn's theory of the cont inui tv of thc gcrmina-

t ive plasma as opposed to the mortal i ty of i ts somat ic support

(1885 ) , Alexis Carrel 's technic lucs fbr cul tur ing embrvonic t issuc

(1912), and thc do'elopment ofpure bactcrial cultures established

the potential immortalitv of thc singlc-cell organism, rvhich .rvas

| l r r . r l onlv br . rct idrnt . . rn, l th, . r l , nt t r td.nce to rhc i , lc , r rhar.!

th i pht nom, na , ,1 . rg ing.rn, l n.r tur l l t l , ath af ier . r , er t , l in . f r , rn , ,1

vears are conscqucnces of the complexi tv of h ighlv integrated

organisms. In such organisms, the potcnt ia l i t ies ofeach compo-

nent are l imited by thc lact that other componcnts perfbnn inde-

pendent fhnctions. Dying is the privilegc, or rhe ransorn - in anv

case, the <Jestinv - of the most highlv regul.rtcd, mosr homcosraric

natural machines.

From thc standpoint o l the cvolut ion of species, c leath marks

an end to the reprieve that thc pressure of natural sclcction grants

to mutants temporarilv morc l lt than their compctitors to occupv

a certain ecological context. Death opens up avcnues, lrees up

spaces and clcars the rvav lbr novt' l l i fe forms - but this opening is

il lusorv, for one dav the bcll * i l l toll lbr todar' 's sur.r ' ivors as rvell.

From the standpoint of thc indiv idual , rhe genet ic hcr i tage is

l ike a loan, and death is the t luc datc uhen that loan must bc

rep:r id. I t is as i f , af tcr a certain t ime, i t nerc thc dutv ol ' indiv id-

uals to disappear, to rcvcrt to the status ol incrt matter.

Whv, then, did I r rcud's theor"- of the "dcath inst inct ," pre-

sentcd in Be,yond fhe Plcasure Prineiple (1920), mect u.ith so much

rcsistance? In Freucl's mind this iclea rvas associatcd uith encr-

gct ic ist concepts of l i fc and ol ' the psvchic processes, I f a l iv ing

thing i! an unstablc svstem constantly lblced to borrorv energv

from the external environment in ordcr to survive, ancl if l i l 'e is

in tcnsion rv i th i ts nonl iv ing en.r ' i ronmcnt, uhat is so strange

.rbout hvpothesiz ing the existcnce ol in inst inct to reduce that

tension to zcro, or , put d i l f 'erent lv, a str iv ing torvard death? " l f

l{ ',1

\\ 'e grant that the existence ofa l iving thing dcpencls on the prior

t 'xistence of the inanimate objects h'oln rvhich it arises. it tbllows

that the death instinct is in accord rvith thc fbrmula statcd ear-

l ier according to rvhich everY inst inct tends to restore a pr ior

state." Perhaps Frcud's theory u'i l l nou'bc reexaminerl in l ight

of the conclusions of At lan's rvork: " ln fact , the onlv ident i l i -

ablc project in l iving organisms is death. But o\r' ing to the init ial

complexity of those organisms. Perturbations capable ot disrupt-

ing their t '< lu i l ibr ium give r ise (o st i l l greater complexi tv in rht :

\erv procesJ ofrestor ing equ i l ibr ium."zl

Final ly, one might also r l ish to understand the reason fbr,

ancl meaning o1, the reactional desire for immortalit\ ' , the dream

ol survival - uhich Bcrgson calls a "useful theme ol mvthifica-

t ion" - fbund in certain cul tures. A dead tree, a dead bird, a

carcass - indiv idual I ives abol ished without consciousness of

their dest iny in death. ls not the value of l i fe, a long rv i th the

acknolv ledgnrent of l i fe as a value. tooted in kncrn' ledqe ot i ts

csrential precariousness/

l)eath (or thc i l lusion of dclth) makes men precious rnri pathetic

-fheir ghostlv condition is noving. l lverv act mav be thcir last. Not

a {acc thel makc is not on rhe point of vanishing l ikc a facc in a

dream. Evcrvthing in mortals h.rs thc value of *hat is irrerrievable

antl unprcc!ictable.26

l"\ ' ie," F,nc.vclopaedro, pp. 769b-69c]

I' l

1I

CH,rprrs Frvr

Epistemology

A B.rrocl Lrc

\

of Physiology

Phvsiologv

Objectives ond Methods

[28] In 155a, when the celebrated Jean l rerncl (1.197-1558)col-

lccted his previouslv published treatises under the tit lc Univcrsa

medicino, hc providcd a prcface detail ing his conception of me<l-

ic ine's const i rucnt elements and i ts rel . r t ion to other discipl ines.

Thc first ofthose elements he called Pllrinlo11io, an<l uncler that

head lre placed his 1542 treatise Dc noturali parte medicinioe,fhe

object ol phvsiologv *,as described as "the nature of the healthv

man, of a l l h is fbrces and al l h is f inct ions." l t scarcely matters

here that Fernel's idea of human nature is more metaphvsical than

posi t ive. The point to be noted is that physic ' logy *as born in

1542 as a studr distinct f iom, and prior to, pathoJogv, u hich itsell

u as pr ior to the . r r ts of prognosis, hvgiene and therapeut ics.

Since then the tenr "phvsiologv" grarluallv acqtrircd its current

meaning: the scicncc of the l i rnct ions and lunct ional constaDts

of l iving organisms. The seventeenth centurv sa\4, the appearJDce

of, among other works, Ph.vsiologia metlico (Bascl, l6l0)bv Thcorlor

Zu.inger (155 3-1588\, Medicino phvsiololl ica (Amstcrdam, 165 ))

bv J.A. Vander-Linden ( 1 609-1664 ) a nd E r erci to tiones ph.vsi olo11 i co a

(Leipzig. 1668)bv lohannes Bohn (16.+0-1718). ln the c ighteenrh

centur\, if Fre(lcri(k I bf-fmann ( 1660-17+2) published his Fundtr-

9o

ment.r Ph)'siologiae as earl\ as 1718, it *as undeniablv Albrecht

von Hallr:r (t708-1777) uho made phvsiologv an indcpcndcnt dis-

c ip l ine of rescarch and spccial ized teaching. I l is c ight-volume

l:lemento ph.rsiologiac (1757-66\ remained a classic fbr half .r cen-

tur\ '. But it *as evcn car]ier, in 17'17, that von Ilallcr, afier hav-

ing used his teacher Ilerman Boerhaave's lnstitutiones medicinae in

his courses fbr nearly twenty years. dccidcd to publish his tirst

textbook, Primac lineoe phvsiologioc, in the introduction to rvhich

he dcf inccl physiologv in a rT'av that cstabl ishecl the spir i t and

method of the cliscipline fbr a long timc to come: "Someone may

object that th is rvork is purclv anatomical , bLrt is not phvsiologl

anatomy in motion?" lF.tutles, pp.226-21)

129] It is easv to unclerstand whv anatomy took prioritv over

thc studv ol organ functions. In manv cascs pcople felt that the

best wav to undcrstand thc functions of the organs was to inspcct

their shapcs and structures. Structures uere macroscopic, and

l lnct ions, no matter horv complex the under lv ing processes,

coulc l be understood b,v analogies rv i th man-made instruments

suggcstc<l bl superficial structural similarit ies. From thc struc-

ture ol the eve, lbr example, it l .as possiblc to dcduce a feu'crude

notions about the phvsiologv ofvision basecl on knon ledge ol'the

construction and usc of optical instruments. But the structure of

the brain as revealed bv clissection implied nothing about its ftrnc-

tion, because there was no man-made technology or instrumcnt to

uiich it could bc compared. When von Haller clescribecl the pan-

creas as "the largest salivar,v gland," its sccretory function coulcl

perhaps bc compared to that ofthe parotid, but it $'as impossiblc

to go further. In his Elogc ol'the surgeon Jean M6rv (d. 1722\,

Fontcnclle rcmcmbcrecl one of N{6rv's lrequentlv quotcd statc-

ments: "\Ve anatomists are l ike thc dclivcrvmcn of [ 'aris, r\ 'ho

knorv cvcn the smallest, most out-of-thc-rvav strcets but have no

iclea u hat goes on inside people's homcs."

To find out u.hat l lcnt on insidc, scvcral options rvere avail-

ablc: one could monitor comings and goings, introrlucc spies intcr

the household, or smash thc rval ls par. t lv or total lv in orcler to

catch a glimpse ofthe interior. l\16rv's statement not* ithstanding,

physicians hacl long used such procerlurcs to find out rvhat uas

going on inside the animal org.rnism. Expcr imcntat ion through

organ ablation rvas a natural extension ol rurgical cxcision. Andreas

Vcsalius (151,{-1564), the founder ol modern anatomv, concludcd

his ccfcbrated Humani corporis labrico (15.13)rvith rcm.rrks on the

uscfirlncss ofvivisection and a discussion of its tcchniqucs, in thc

course of u,hich he rcported on experiments u ith ablation of thc

spleen and kidnev in dogs. In thc sevcntcenth centur\ ', the mech-

anist concept ion ol organic structurcs cncouragcd this pract ice,

at oncc premeclitatecl ancl blind. If thc bo<lv is a machine, one

shoulc l be able to c l iscovcr thc f i rnct ions ol part icular parts, of

the mechanism's cogs and springs, bv destroving parts ancl observ-

ing thc disturbancc or breakdorvn ol ' the machinc's opcrat ion.

f"Phvsiologie," Enc.vlopaedia, pp. 1075 b-c]

[]01 Il) ' 1780, phvsiology had finallv outgrown iatromechani

cal theories thanks to thc rvork ol Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier ancl

l-uigi Galvani. Chemistrv and phvsics rvould supplv the nerv mod-

els. Laws, in the Neu,tonian sense, rvoulcl replacc mcch.rnical thc-

orems. ' l he Nc* tonian spir i t , u hich had breathecl neu l i fe into

eighteenth-ccnturv scicnce, transformed phvsiologv bv supplving

i t not so much lv i th nert concepts as ui th ncu mcthods. l ' i rcd

ofrhetor ical conf l ic t , phvsiologists focused on speci f ic p loper-

t ies ol thc v i ta l f lnct ions. But the verv in l l r rence ol 'Ne\r toni in

sciencc st i l l fbstered dogm.rt ic at t i tudcs in lnanv min( ls of phi lo-

sophical bcnt.

Vi ta l ism rvas one react ion to th is dogmatism. Far too much

i l ] has been spokcn ol v i ta l ism. I t ( l id nor hindcr expcr imcnta-

t ion or the formulat ion ofneu conccpts in neurophvsiologv; on

92 9l

rhe contran, i t encrruragcd progrcss. Vi ta l is ts, emtr lat ing thc

Nervtonian stvle, fbcused on thc details of biological f lnctions

\1,ithout spcculating as to their causes. Thc so-called Montpell icr

Schoof o[vitalists was led bv Theophile dt' Bordeu (1722-1116)

and P.lrl-Joseph Barrhez (1734-1806). Thele \r 'as no more mcta-

phvsics in 'vhat

thev called "vital moventcnt" c-rr the "vital prin-

ciple" than therc u.as in what Haller called "irritabil i tv." Barthez's

Nouveaux dliments de la science de I'homme (l77tl)r,r'as in many tays

a svstcm of empir ical phvsiologv: "The r i ta l pr inciple in man,"

Barthez argued, "should be conccived in t r rms of ideas dist inct

lnrm our idcas ol ' the at t r ibutes ofbody and soul ."

Antoine Augustin (lournot seems to have grasped thc origi-

nalirv of vitalist phvsiologv: "Vitalism brings out thc analogies that

al l manifestat ions of l i fc exhibi t in such astonishing var icty, and

takes them fbr its guide, but does not prctend that it can pene-

rrarc the essencc of l i fe."27 To study this "astonishing var icty,"

cighteenth-centurv phrsioJogists looked at thc uhole animal l ing-

donr, lrom polyp to nran, from thc lrog to thc orangutan - that

strange missing Iink that cighteenth-centurv lvritcrs referred lo

as "jungle man," and * hose Iinguistic abil itv and intell igence thev

studicd bv comparison u i th thc human.

Il 'cl.rssicism in biologl means rigorous classification combined

rvith mathcmatical !cr<'ralization. thcn the term does not apply

to eightccnth-centuw phvsiologv, * hich tcrok all l iving rnatter fbr

its subject. It tolerated "in-betrveen" catcgories, as Lcibniz called

them, and i f i t gencral ized at a l l , i t $as in imitat ion of l i fe i tsel f ,

uorking endlcss var iat ions on a smal l number of themes. I t uas a

picturesr;ue scicnce, curior:s about minutiae .rnd about nature's

ln rncate wa)s.

Eighteenth-centun phvsiologv stands poiscd betrveen the doc-

trinaire dignity of the prcvious century's medical svstems, u'hich

bore the rvcight ofear)icr dogmas, ancl thc rather frenetic cxper-

inrcntalism ofthe nineteenth ccntury. lt rvas a fiuitful pericrd, as

old ideas were explodt'd by nerv experierrce. Bold speculrtion

$'as the order ofthe day, and traditional methods gave l\ 'ay to intu-

it ion. It would not bc long before new techniques, many discov-

cred trv chance, revealed u hich innovative intuit ions u'erc sound

and rvhich lvere not.

The per iod's phvsiology nas as v i ta l as l i te i tsel f , as men l ike

Lazzaro Spallanzani and Armand S6guin experimentcd on them-

selves, while Robert Whvtt, Ren6 Antoine Ferchault de R6aumur

and Stephen I lales per{bnned similar tests on fiogs, buzzards and

horses. It rvas, in cvcrv sense ofthe \r 'ord, a bdrogue phvsiologr.

["Phvsiologie anirn ale." Hstoire gdnerctlc, vol. 2, pp. 618-19]

[31] The eighteenth centur,v was an age not onlv ofenlighrcn-

ment but also ofprogress, and ol technological progress first.rnd

foremost, [. . .] Inventiveness and applications werc the watchwords

governing cxper imentat ion in physics and chcmistrv especial l r .

Researchers investigatcd heat, electricitv, changes of physical state,

chentical all init ies, the dccomposition ol matter, combustion an<l

oxidation, and their results often spil led ovcr into phvsiologv, rais-

ing ncu problems for further investigation. Flectriciry joined light

and heat in suggest ing analogies that coulr l be used to exp)ain

"vi ta l lbrces." The analvsis of d i f ferent k inds of"airs," or gascs,

gave positive content to the idea ofexchanges bctlreen or-qanisms

.rnd their environment. This "pneurnat ic" chcmistry resolved

the once purely speculativc rivalry betu.een iatromechanists and

iatrochcmists in fivor of the latter. New instruments such as rhe

themrometer and calorinreter made it possible to measure impor-

tant biological parameters. I t was in 171.5 that Daniel Fahrcnhej t

solved the technical problenrs that ha<l delared the consrruction

of sensitivc, reliablt ' thcrmometers, and R!aumur followt'd r,r ' i th

lur ther improvements in l7 lJ. In 1780, I .avois ier and Picrrc-

Simon Laplace built a device fbr mcasuring quantit ies of heat,

9t

Thus, aprr t l rom reseatch on the nervous svsteDr, most of '

the major discover ies in c ightcenth-centun phvsiologr uere thc

rtork, if not of amateurs, thcn of men uhose primary specialtv

$ns not medjcine. Among thcm vvere such namcs as Hales, John

B()\ nton Prie\tle\, Lavoisicr, R6aumur and Spallanzani. l. . .] Con-

tcmporarv te\ts therelble givc a misleading, altogcthcr too ac.r-

demic picture of thc state o[ the discipl inc. I t is odd that rvhcn

[' ierrc Jean George Cabanis published his survcy of the nerv phvsi-

ologv in 1804, hr'mentioned only u,orks and experiments bv ph,--

sicians, even though he rtas rvell arvarc that one of the rcasons

I i r r the supcr ior i tv of the nerv mcdic ine w'as the contr ibut ion of

"thc collateral scicnccs, rvhich are constantlv providing us vvith

nt 'u insights and instrumcnts." [ . . . ]

The sevenrccnth and eighteenth cenrurici are alike in that both

rterc <lominatecl by a singlc grcat discovery. But Will i .rm Harvev's

rrork nearly inaugurated his century, w'hereas Lavoisier's nearlv

cl t 'sed his. l larrev in lentcd a mechanic l l nrodel in ordcr to ( le

scr ibc onc phirn()menon; Lavois icr introducecl a chemical modt ' l

to expfain anothcr, [ "Phvsiologie anirnalc," Historte ginirale,

vol .2, pp. 5 9 3-9.11

Ci rcu Iati o n

[32] Thc rvork of those ref 'erred to as " iatromcchanics" (or,

rgual lv appropr iately, " iatromathcmat ic ians") rvas constant ly

nrot i lated b! an ambit ion to determine, through mrasurcment

an<l calculatirtn, the larvs of phvsiological phenomena. This was

the least contcstable of their postulates, morcovcr. ' l he circula-

tion of the blood and the contraction of the musclcs had alr ',,avs

been objects ofprcdi lcct ion ibr the phvsic ians of th is school .

ln Dc motLt cordis Will i .rrn Harvcy suntmarized his conclusions

.rs an anatomist and his observations as a vivisectionist. He calcu-

latcd thc rvcight of the blood displaced bv the hcart simply in

order to show th.rt so large a quantitv ol blood could not possi-

blv bc produced continuouslv by any organ or be dissipatcd bv

the organism, Ciovanni Alfonso Borell i uas the first to view the

circulatory function, bv then well established, as an ideal prob-

lenr to which to applv the laus ofhvdraul ics. He at tcnrpted to

calculate the fbrce of the svstolic contr.rction. Assuming that thc

contractive force of a muscle is proportional to its volume and

that the volume of the human heart is equal to thc combincd

volume of the nrasseter and temporal muscJes, he dcterrnined

that the contractive forcc ol the heart is equal to three thousancl

Roman pounds (l Roman pound = l1llu ounces). As for the pres-

sure thc heart communicates to the blood, an elaboratc series of

deduct ions led hinr to the l igure of 135,000 pounds!

In 1718, Jarrrcs Kei l l (1673-1719) de"oted tbret cssavs of h is

Tentamina medico-phvsico tcr the problcms of detcrmining thc

quantitv of blood, its vclocitv and the fbrce of the heart. I le esti-

mated that the blood accounts fbr 100 pounds of the ucight ofa

160-pound man; the blood in the aorta iravels at a rate of f ivc

fect, three inches per hour; and the forcc of the hcart is nvelvt:

ounces. (The modern figures arc that the rvcight of the blood is

r)ne third ol bodv rveight; the veloci tv of the blood is twcntv

inches per second; and the rvork ofthc contraction rvave ofthe

left ventricle is three and a halfounces.)

A skil led experimentalist and a religious zealot, Stephen I Iales

made an important contr ibut ion to c i rculatorv mechaDics when

he published his Staticol Esscrrr, Containing Haemastoti.s ctc. (l7J3l.

Hc had already written important v',orks on mathematical bot-

anv. I I is [egetob.lc Statichs (1'721\ contained il lustrations of instru-

ments he had built to measure variations in sap pressurc in roots

and branches. From there it was but a short step to measurinll

the pressure of blood in the vessels using a manometer consisting

of a long glass tube attached by a cannula to the jugular vein or

96

carotid or crural arterv of a horse, dog or shcep. Hales rvas ablc

to establish that the blood pressure is lorvcr in the veins than it

is in thc arter ics ( in the horse, the blood rose to a height of n ine

feet lvhen thc cannula rvas inserted into the crural artery but to

onlv fifteen inches u.hcn inserted into the jugular vein); that it

f luctuates rvith the svstolc and the diastolc; that it is character-

istic of a given animal species; and that it is a test of the state of

the hcart.

Apart from thc tentative work of Borell i and Kcil l, the next

rvork of cqtrall l great importance uas Jean Poiscuil le's Aecierches

sur la lorce du coeur aortique (1828). Haller kncrv and spoke of

the r',,ork of t lalcs but treated it as a development of ideas of

Borcll i 's, ft i l ing to apprcciate the novcltv of the concept of arte-

rial pressure.

Thc importance and originality of Hales's rcscarch should not,

horvever, cletract from the merits ofthosc uho, follorving him

and building on his results, madc progress torvard solving some

of thc major problems of hcmostatics and hemodvnamics. Daniel

Bcrnoul l i , professor ofanatomv at Basel f rom lTl l to 1751, u 'as

the first to cxplain correctlv horv to calculate the rvork done by

the heart as thc product of the rvcight of blood expelled timcs the

svstolic displaccmcnt. He also made comparative studies of tht'

l lorv ofl iquids in rigid pipes and in l iving vcssels ( l/rdro dvnamica,

1738). His pupil, I)aniel Passavant (De vi cordis,lT'18), used Halcs's

ligures to arrive at a motc accurate evaluation of the work of the

heart, onc close to presently accepted values.' lb*ard the end of the seventeenth centurv, researchers began

to invcstigate the causes of the movement of blood in the veins,

rvhich are not clirectly connectecl to the arteries. Borell i, though

admitting the forcc of the heart, dcnicd that it \r 'as sufl icicnt to

dr ive the blood in thc vcins. Hence, thc microscopic examina-

tions bv Marcello 1\' lalpighi (1561)and Antonie van Lecuwcnhoek

98 99

(1590) ol the capil larv circulation in the mcscnter) of f i-ogs and

the tail of tadpolcs assumecl a verl grcat importancc, and so clid

Corvper's investigations of the mesenterv ol a cat (1697). Albrccht

von Haffer (De moru sanguinh, 1752)shou'ed that the hcart's pulse

could bc observed simultaneously in both artcries ancl capil laries,

proving that the powcr ol the heart extcndcd to the capil laries.

His theory of i r r i tabi l i ty then enablcd him - as the thcory of

tonicity enabled Gcorg Ernst Stahl - to argue that thc shcath o1'

thc capil lary can contract independcntll, imparting an additional

circulatorv impctus to the blood. SpaJlanzani also contributed ttr

the solution of this problem in a serics of papers, Sur la circula-

tion observie dans 1'universaliti du s,vstime vasculoire, l-es Phenomines

tle la circulotion languissante, I es .llouvements du sang indipendants

de I'action du coeur and La Pulsat;on des artires 1171)). ["Physiologie

.rnimale," Hxtolrc gindrale, vol. 2, pp. 601-601]

Respi ration

[33] From Robert Boylcs's Novo etperimenta physiomcchanica de

ti otris clastico et ejusdem eJJectibus (16691, )ohn Mavorv concluclecl,

. rbout l6?.1, that animal respirat ion involves the f ixat ion ol . r

"spir i t " contained in the air . I t is the eventual dcplct ion of th is

spirit from the air in a confined space that renders it unlit to sus-

tain life. ln his Experiments ancl Observtttions on DiJlcrcnt Kinds oJ

Air 11774-17), John Bo-vnton Pricstley reportcd that a sprig ol

mint *,i l l rclease enough dephlogisticatecl air (oxvgen) to suPPort

combustion in an inverted bcll jar. In I775, hc infbrmed the Rolal

Society that clephlogisticatcd air obtained b-v the samc mcthocl

could sustain thc rcspirat ion ol a mouse.

Lavoisier's f irst invcstigations of tht' "principlcs" u ith n hich

mctals combine dur ing calc inat ion had much the samc aims as

Priestlcv's sturl ies: thc analvsis, dctcction and idcntif lcation of var-

ious k inds of gascs. Thc inf lucncc of thcsc gases on animal rcspi

ration $'as init ially conceived as a kind ofchemical test to study

the experimental separation of the hypothetical elcments ofatmo-

spheric air, ' ihich

had been do*ngraded lrom its ancient status as

an element. Lavoisier's more systematic studies ofthe respiration

ofbirds (1775-76) and guinea pigs (1777) enab)ed him to present

to the Acad!mie des Sciences a de{init ive paper on changt's in the

blood dtrring respiration (M!moite sur les chaneemcnts que le sang

tprouve dans les poumons et su le micdnkme de Io rcspiration, 1777),

Using comparat ive measuremcnts of the volume of gas ab-

sorbed .rnd thc quantity of heat relcascd bv guinea pigs placed in

a calorimcter, Lavoisier and Pierre-Simon Laplace werc able to

generalize all these observations and to state, in 1780, that respi-

ration is nothing other than a slorv form of combustion identi-

cal to the combustion ofcarbon. They rlcre rvrong, however, in

asscrting that respiration is the combustion of r:arbon alone, as

l avoisier rr.rs obliged to admit in his 178 5 palter Sur lcs alty'rations

qu'dprouve l 'oir rcrpird, in rrhich it was shorvn that respirntion pro-

duced not only carbon dioxide from the combustion o[ carbon

but also rvater from the combustion of hvdrogen. They u,ere also

\{,rong to dcrcribe the lung as the locus and seat of combustion,

thc hcat from u'hich thev believed rvas distributed throughout the

organism by the blood.

Finallv, aftcr mcasuring, in collaboration rvith Sdguin, who

volunteere(l to serve as an experimental subjcct. energ,r exchanges

in human beings, Lavoisier summed up his vierrs in t$'o papers,

Sur lo rcspirotion des animaux (1798) and Sw lo trontpirdtion des

aninaux (17901. I l is declarat ion ol pr incip)e is of ten c i tedl

Comparison oI thcsc results rsith earlier ones :,horvs that thc animal-

nr.rchine i r control led bv thrcc pr incipal governors: respirat ion,

rvhich consumes hydrogen ancl carbon and rvhich supplies caloric;

transpiration, rvhich l luctuates rvith the requiremcnts ofcaloric;

IOO

and, last but not leasr, digcstion, which rcstores to the blood n hat

i t ha. lor t br respirar ion and tr , rnspirat ion.

["Physiologie animale ," Histoirc gdndrc.le, vol. 2, pp. 595-96]

[34] The end ofthe debate over the causes ofanimal heat cojn-

cided with the beginnings of a dcbate over the jeat ol the phe-

nomenon. L.rvoisicr had proposed that carbon and hvrJrogen in

the blood are oridiztd in the vessels of the lung bv the action of

oxvgen on a hvdrocatbonic fluid secreted therein. Objections to

this v iew vvere put fbrward in l79l by Jcan-t lenr\ Hrssenfratz,

a former assistant ol Lavoisier and later a disciple of the mathc-

mat ic ian l -agrange, who descrves credi t for having f i rst ra ised

them, Ifall the heat in thc organism is first relcased in the lungs,

Hassenfi 'atz asked, u,hv don't the lungs drv out? Or, in anv case,

vvhv aren't they rvarmer than thc other organs of the bodvi Isn't

i t therefore more l iLelv th.r t heat is released in al) parts ol the

bodv suppl ied wi th blood? According to I agrange, pulmonarr

blood, in contact u i th inhaled air , becomes sarurate<l * i th dis-

solved oxygcn, u'hich then reacts with the carbon and hydrogen

in the blood to vield carbon dioxide and \",ater, rvhich.rre rcleased

u ith the exhaled air. This cxplanation is roughly corrcct (except

fbr the fact that oxidation takes place not in the blood but in thc

cells themselves), but it was not conflrmed experimentally unti l

18f7, rvhen Gustav )\ 'hgnus used a mcrcury pump to detcct the

prescncc offree gases in venous and arterial bloocj.

Furthermore, the posthumous publication of Jean Senebier's

' l ' l6moires sur Io rcspiration (1803)revealed that Spallanzari dt-roted

thc l . rsr rcars of h i , I i le r() \ \ : \ tcnlat i ( erpcr im. ntat i , , r r on r< spi-

ration in vertebrates and invcrtcbrates, f iom $ hich he. tc,o, con-

cluded, afier thousands ofexperiments, that oxyqen is absorbed

and carbon dioxide released by all t issues and org.rns, and that

amphibians and repti les may absorb morc oxygen through the

skin than rhrough thc lungs. In othcr \ \ 'ords, in animals * i th

lungs, thc lungs arc the organ of cxpression but not the organ of

exercisc ol r function coextensivc u.ith the entirc organism. Bv

performing cxpcr iments to dissociate the respirat ion funct ion

from the pulnronar-v organ, Spallanzani, even nrole than Lavoisier,

btrt using his mcthods ofcomparativc physiolog\', laid tht'{Iround-

' r 'ork for a general phrsiologv. [ "Phvsiologic animale," Histoire

yllniralc. tol.2, pp. 597-981

An Expe r imt 'ntal Science

New Styles in the Age of Lahoratories

[35] lLclat ions bet$,ccn thc f i rst systemat ical lv exper imcntal

phls io logv and thc thcoret ical lv, that is , mathematical ly, more

advancc<l phvsical and chemical scicnccs fbllorved dil lelent pat-

tems in france ancl Cenranr'. Thc flrst vcar of the nineteenth ccn-

turv nitnesserl the pubJication ol Recherthes ph.rsiolooiqucs rur lo

,tie et la nort br' \ar i< r Bichat. n ho strove to prescn'c tht ciistinc-

t iveness ol b io logr ' 's subjecc mattcr and methods in the lacc of

ef for ts bv ph1's ic ists and chcmists to annex phls io logv to thcir

ou.n disciplincs. Bichat, thc bri l l iant lbunder ol gcneral anatomy,

or t l re studv ol organic t issues, and a tcnacious chanrpion of the

conccpt of the "v i ta l propcrt ies" of such t issue, had a profbund

inf luencc on the f i rst French phls io logists to embrace methodi-

cal expcr imentar ion. Al though Franqois Magcndie and Claude

Bernard, unl ike Bichat, ncvcr doubted the need ro usc phls ical

anr l chemical mcthor ls to i r rvcst igatc phvsiological rnechnnirnrs.

thel ncver ceascr) to Lrr:l icvc in the uniqueness ol orqanic phenont-

ena, Thir rv.rs the dist inct i rc f i 'aturc, oDc nt ight e len say thc

nat ional t r .x lcnrark, of French physiology, at a r inre rvhen phv-

siologv in Gernranr r .as alreadr being done, l ike phvsics and

chemistry, in laboratories equippcd with steadilv irrproving, in-

rol

dustriallv manufacrured e<luipment, rvhile Frcnch physiologists

soldiered on u'ith nothing more than the rudimentary facil i t ies

available to university professors and hospital physicians as per-

quisites of thcir positions. This accounts for the undeniabie dif-

ferencc in or ientat ion and sty le of rcsearch on ei ther s ide of the

Rhine. \\rhcn Bernard compared himself to Hermann von llt. lm-

holtz and remarkcd in his notebook that his German colleague

lbund only rvhat hc uas looking fbr, he u'as remarking not only

on a dif lerence in spirit but also on a disproportion of available

means. For, bv this time. nerv discoveries in physiology u'ere not

to be had on the cheap. This u,as one re.rson u'hy doctors rvho

carne from the Llnitcd States to studv in Europe generallv pre-

ferrcd to studv u.ith German phpiologists, especially Karl Luclwig

(1816-1895), rather than rvith their French counterparts. The first

phvsiologv laboratories were established in rhe United States in

the 1870s, and they soon could boast of faci l i t ies and equip-

ment superior to the flnest European laboraton'es. As physioJogv

laboratories gren larger and their equipment more complex, it

bccame common lbr rcsearch to be conducted bv tcams rather

than individuals. Researchers were more anonymous, but the dis-

cip)ine as a u,hole u'as less dependent on individual strokes of

genirrs. ["Physiolo gic," E ncvclopaedia, pp. 1 076a-b]

l6] I l physics and chenr istr l cxcrted grorving in l luenct ' on

research in phvsiologv, it was mainll,bt'causc phvsiologists found

the cechniques ofthose sciences indispensable as research roolsl

though not necessarilv as theoretical models. While Claude Ber-

nard's oftcn-repeated claim that physiologv became scientif ic

when it became experimeDtal need not be taken strictly l irerallv,

it is certainly true that thc radical difference betrvccn thc phlsi-

ological expcrimentation of the nineteenth century and that of

thc eighteenth centun lay in thc systematic use ofmeasuring and

detcction instrumcnts and equipment borrorved or adaptcd from,

I O,l tot

or inspired by, the l lour ishing sciences ol phvsics and chemirtrv '

To be sure, Ludrvig and his school in Gernran-v deserve crcdit tor

their persistent interest in physical and chemical methods, as n'ell

as their ingenuity in thc constrtlction and usc of new instruments.

Bernarcl's rcsearch seems relativelv artisanal bv comParison. lt uas

also more narrorvlv biological , v iv isecr ion being i ts < hiel t , . 'ch-

niclue. But it rvould be misleading to suggest that therc was.r [un-

damental difference of national inte]l igencc or genius bet$een

the two countries. Indeed, thc historv of physiologv (not t 'r be

conlirscd \r. ith the historv of phvsiologist s ) shous that researchers

in both countries leanred from each otht'r nnd exchanged ideas

.rhout how to inrprove exPerimcntal mcthods by borron'ing from

other discipl ines. Ludwig becamc famous. lor example, not only

lbr building the mercun pump ftrr separating blood gases but even

more for the construction of the celcbrated kymograph (18'16).

In ternrs oftechnological phvlogencsis, thc ancestor ofthis instru-

mcDt \1as surely the "hcmodvnamometer" ofJtan Poiscuil le. Lud-

u ig's genius u.as to couple Poiseuil l."s artcrial manomet('r to a

graphic recordcr. Whcn Et ienne-Julcs , \ larev (1830-1904)sct out

to develop and perf'ect the graphic method in France, he rvas

therefbre indebted indirectlv to Poiseuil le and dircctlv to [.udrvig.

IErudcs, pp. 231-32]

l)71 Even though anal l t ical techniques borrorved l rom phrs-

ics and chcmistry pro'ed fiuitful in Phvsiology, they could not

discredi t or supplant thc method that Claudc Bernard cal led

"operative physiology," in rvhich vivisection, resection and abla-

tion are used to disturb the balance ofothenvise intact organisms,'fhis traditional method $.as uscd bv Julien Jcan Ctsar Lr:gallois

and Franqois l \ ' taqendie ear lv in the ninctcenth cenrurv and br

Pierrc Flourens later on. Gustav Theodorc Fr i tsch and Jul ius

Edward Hitz ig used galvanic st imulat ion of the cortex to dis-

tinguish betwecn motor and scnsory functions in the ccrebral

_r

lobes ( J870 ) . Fr icdr ich Goltz refuscd to aclmit the val id i tv of any

other method.

l\4ost of thc t 'arlv rvork on glands relied on ablation. Charles-

Edouard Brou.n-S6quard used i t to study the adrenal funct ion

(18.56), Nlor i tz Schi f l to studv the thvroid funct ion (1859 and

1883), and I :mi le Glcv to stucly thc pararhvroid funct ion (1891).

Beforc the active principlcs of the various endocrine sccretions

coulcl be identif ied (aclrenalin bv Takamine in 1901, thvroxin bv

Edrvard Calum Kendal l in 1914), phvsiologists t r ied to r icmon,

strate the chemical act ions ofglands trv means of organ trans-

plants. In 1849, fbr examplc, Arnold Adolphe Bcrthold rcvcrsed

the ellects of castration in a rooster bv transplanting testicles into

its peritoncal caviry. In 1884, Schiff transplanted a thvroid lrom

onc dog to another, the f i rst instancc ofan opcrat ion that had

becomc commonplacc bv thc cnd of thc centurv.

The techniques of operati.r 'e phvsiologv u ere used in conjunc-

tion rvith the ne.rr.mcthods of (tec rrophvsiology to map thc func-

t ions ol ncrvc bundlcs in the spinal cor<l and to produce an at las

of cercbr.rl lLnctions. Charles Scott Sherrington's discoveries .rvcre

based on very precise operativc techniques involving difTcrentia)"prcparations" (decorticated, riccerebratcd and dccapitatcd ani-mals). In studying the funct ions of the svmpathet ic nervous svs-tcm, phvsiologists rel ied on viv iscct ion long belbrc turning tochemical methods u ith .lohn Novport l-anglev. It was vivisectionthat enabled CIaude Bernard in 185.1 to demonstrate thc rolepJayed by thc svmpatheric svstem in calorif ication (regulating thecirculatorv f low in the capi l lar ics), [ . . . ]

Despite the f;ct that some of its grcatesr rcpresentatives _

Bernard, lbr instance - insisted that phvsiologv l,as an indepen-dent discipline rvith methods of its orvn, l. lr i lc others stressed itssubordination to physics and chemistrv (Karl Ludu,ig) or mathe-matics (Hcrmann von Helmholtz), ninetecnth-centun phvsiologv

EP STEMO OGY ')

\ \as not altogether dcvoid of unitv of insPiration or Purpose lt

\4as thc 5cience of functional constants in organisms One sign

that it was an authentic scicnce is that from l\{agendie to Sher-

rington ancl Pavlov u'e find a grcat manY ovcrlaPPing studies and

cliscoverics and a large numbcr of seParate and simultaneous clis-

coveries (sometimes rvith disputtrs over prioritv, somctimes not ) '

The historv of physiologv cnjovcrl a relative inrlependencc l iom

thr: h istorv of Phvsiologists. I t matters l i t t lc rvhether i t rvas Sir

Charles Bell or Nlagcndie rvho "rc.rl ly" discovcrcd thc firnction of

the spinal nerve roots, rvhether Marshall Hall or lolrannes Jll i i l ler

first discoverccl reflcx actions, Emile Du Bois-Revnloncl or l ler-

mann motor currents, or David Ferrier or I lermann i\ ' lunk the cor-

tical centcr of vision. As soon as mcthods and Problems become

adjuste<J to each other, as soon as instrtlments become so highlv

specializcd that their verv use imPlies thc acccPtnnce ol comnlon

uorking hvpothescs, i t is t rue to sav that sciencc shaPcs scicn

t ists just as much as scient ists shape science. [ " I 'hvsiologic en

Alfemagne," ITistotrc gindrale, vol. ), pp. +lt2-8'11

Physiology ls Not an Empirical Sciencc

[38] b concentrate solelv on the instrumcntal sidc of cxperimtrn-

tat ion \ \ !u ld be to give a misleading idea ol the c levclopmcnt of

nineteenth-centurv phlsiology, though. Some historical skctches

and methodological manifistous gire thc irnpression that instnr-

mcnts and the tcchniques that usecl them rvere someho\\ idellt '

' ib be sure, t lsing an instrument obligcs thc user to subscribe to

a hvpothesis about the firnction under studv. For cxample, Emile

Du Bois-Reymontl 's inductive slide phvsicallr embodics a certnin

idca of the l inctions of ncrve anrl muscle, but it is hardlv a sub-

st i tute fbr that idca: an instrument is an aic l to explorat ion but

ol'no use in fiaming qucstions. l-hus, I cannot agrce \\ ' i th thos(

histor ians ofphvsiologr, , Profcssional as ut ' l l as amatcur, \nho

ro6 t07

would outdo even Claudc Bernard's open hosti l i ty to theorv byascribing all progress in nineteeDth-century physiology to exper_inrenration. The theories that f lernard conclemned were systenlssuch as animism and vitalism, that is, doctrines that ansiver ques_t ions bv incorporat ing them, For Bernard, dara col lcct ion andresearch were to be distinguished from fruitpicking and stonequarrving: "To [re surc," he rlrotc, "many rvorkers are useful toscience rhough their activit ies be l imited to supplying it with rarl,or empirical data. Nevertheless, the true scientist is the one whotakes the rarv material and uses it to build science br, l i tt ing eachfact into place and indicating its significance within the scien_tif ic edifice as a u'hole."28 Furthermore, the Intrcduction A litudecle la midecine expirinentale (18651is a long pJea on behalfoftheralue oficleas in research, with the understanding, ofcourse, tharin scicnce an idea is a guidc, not a strai t jacket.

Whi le i t is t rue that empir ical expcr imentat ion enabledMagendie to establ ish the di f l i : rcnce in functr .on betu.een theanter ior ancl postcr ior roots of the spinal cord in 1g22. i t mustbe grantcd that Sir Charles Bell had not found it unhelpful elevenvears earlier to rely on an "idea," namely, his ldea oJ a Nev Anot_omy oJ thc Brain ( l8t l ) : i f t rvo nenes inncrvate thc same part ofthe body, their efl i 'cts must be differcnr. The spinal nervcs haveboth motor and scnsory f 'unctions, hence different anatomicalstructures. Given that the spinal cord has r$.o roots, each mustbe a firnctionallr differcnt nerve.

Al though the ear l icst resul t : in the phrsiologv of nutr i t ioncame from.lustus von Licbig's chemical analyses and Magendie'sinvestigatjons of the el} 'ects of dil icrcnt diets on dogs, rhe rvorkof Wi l l iam Prout (1785-1850) on sacchar ides, fats and albuminsin the human diet crnnot be said to have suffered fiom thc factthat his rvork was guided by an "idea," namelv, that what humanseat, rvhcther in t radi t ional d iets or carcful lv compost,d nenus,

reflects an instinctive need to re(:onstitute that PrototYPe of all

d iets, mi lk.

I f the work ofHermann von elmholtz dominated rhe physi-

ology of the sensorv organs in the nineteenth century, i t was

because he, justly renorvned as an inventor of instrumcnts (such

as thc ophthalmoscope in 1850). rvas an ingenious exPerimental-

ist rl ' i th a broad mathematical background that he orved to his

training as a phvsicist. When a mathematical mind turns to natu-

ral sciencc, i t cannot do rv i thout ideas. A student of Joh.rnnes

M0ller. rvhose larv of the spccific energv ol the ncrves .rnd sen-

sory organs guided all the period's thinking about psychophvsi-

ology, Hclmholtz *as able to combinc his o$'n insistence on

measurement and quantif ication u ith a philosophical undcrstand-

ing of the unity of nature that he took fi"om his teacher, whose

influence is apparcnt in all of Hclmholtz's u'ork on muscular *ork

ancl heat. lfthe 18,18 paper on the principal sourcc ofheat in the

$orking nruscJe rcpotts data qathcred u,ith temPeraturt-Dreas(lr-

ing instruments speciallv designed by Helmholtz himsell, his 1847

rvork on the conserv,ltion of forcc, Uber die Erhohung der Krot't,

rvas inspired by a certain idea of the unity ofphenomena and the

inteli igence thereof.

In his flnal lectures at the l\{usdum, published by Dastre as

Leqons sur les phinomines de la vic communs aur animou\ et au\

vdgdtoux (1878-79\, Claude Bernald discussed, along with other

key ideas, the unity of the vital lunctions: "There is onh one rvav

of l i fe, one physiology, lbr all l iving things." Bv then, this idea

epitomizcd his l i fe's u'ork; carlier, hou'ever, it had sureh guidcd

his rescarch. In the l8. l0s, i t had encouraged him to chal lenge

the conclusions reached bv Jean-Baptistc Dunlas and Jean Baptiste

Boussaingault in their Stotique chiniguc (1841), much as von Liebig

was doing at the same time in Gennanv. Dumas and Boussaingault

had argued tlrat animals merclv break dorvn organic compounds,

JT

ro8

uhich onlv plants could svnthesize. Bcrnard, horvevcr. describedali his rvork on rhc glvcoqenic function ,rf rhe l iver, f iom thc lg.l l lpaper reacl to the Acadimie des Scicnccs to the doctoral thesisol l85l , as a consequcncc of rhe.rssumption that therc is no diFfcrence betu,een plants arrd animals rvith rcspect to their capacitvto svnrhesize " int t ' rmcdiare pr inciplcs_" Indeed, tht , rc is no hier_arch,v of plant and animal kingdoms; sti l l more radically, I3crnardclairred that f iorn rhe standpoint ofphrsiologl there are no king_cloms. He rcf t rsed to bel ievc that there was something pl . rntscorr ld do that aninrals could not. ln anslrer ing his cr i t ics bv rc_

Jectlng a certain conception of the division of labor anrong organ_isms, Bernard mar have rcvcaled the (not vcrt,ntvsterious) secretol h is success. To be sure, Bernard's bcl ief u, . rs a, . fccl ing, , .notan "argument," as he stated in the lcqons de phvsioloqie expdri_mcntale oppliguie d lo nidccinc (1855-56;. It rlas not cven a *.ork_ing hypothcsis concerning the functions of some organ. But eveni f i t u 'as not str icrh Decessar,v to hold th is bcl icf . in orr ler ro dis_covcr the l iver's glycogenic firncrion, the facr that Uernard dirlhold i t hclpcd hinr to t -mbrace an inrcrpretrr ion ol .h js resul tsthar most of h is contempr.rrar ics lbund <l isconcert ing.

These eramplcs. dra* n {iom various flclds of research, shorvth,rr . expcr imental i r ts nced not prctcnd to be pure empir ic i ! ts,lvorking *,ithout icleas of anv kind, in order to makc progress.l lt 'rnard observcd that the expu-inrentalist.r,ho dcresn,t knorv rvhathe is looking fbr won' t understand u.hat he f inds. The acquis i -t ion ol scierrti l lc lnow.leclge rcquires a ccrtain kind of luci<iitr.Scientif ic discovcrv is more than indiviclual good fbrtune or accl_dental good luck: hence, thc hisror. , r .o l sciencc should l>t , a his_torl of the formation, delormation and rcctif ication of scientif icconccpts. Since sciencc is; branch ofcul t r r rc, educat ion is a prt ,_re<luis i te of scient i f ic d iscoverr . , What the indir idual scicnt isr iscapablc ofdcpends on rvhrt inf i - , rmat ion is avai lable; i f rvc f i r r -

get that , i t is easv to confuse exper imentat ion rv i th empir ic ism.

IEru</es, pp. 232-35]

Accidents, the CIinic ond Sociolizotion

[39] I t is impossible to u ' r i te the histor l o l random evcnts, and

i fsciencc \ere purely cnrpir ical i t rvould be impossiblc to rvr i te

the histor) of sciencc. One must have a rough scnse of periodiza-

tion to benefit lrom anecdotal cviclence. Research on digestion

of lers a good example oI th is. A grear deal rvas learnccl . rbout

digestive phvsiologr in thc second halfol the ninetecnth century,

.rf ier rcse.rrchers disco"ere,J horv tcr use gastric f istul.rs to perlirrnr

the experiments on rvhich todav's unclerstanding of digcstion is

bascrl. After 1890, in particular. Iran [ 'a' lov nradc good use ol a

technique that he himsel f had l rc lped to perfcct . But that tcch-

nir ; t rc had bcen pioneercr l , s imultanrouslv but qui t r : indrpen-

derr t lv , by Vassi l i Bassov in 1842 and Nicolas Blondlot in Troir l

(lnalt,tique ,1c Io ditlestion, considtrdc potticuliircnent dans I'honnte

ct lcs anindu\ vertdbrdi (18, t ] ) . re Near ly t rvo centur. ics ear. l icr ,

Rcgner dc Graaf had sucr t 'ssfullr produced a pancreatic l lstula in

a dog (Dirpulrrrio mediccr dc natLtro ct utu suc(i pdncra(lttci, 1661),

but no one ever attemptecl thc same operation rvith othcr organs.

Rcnc Antoinc Ferchaul t < lc Ri . rumur 's exper inrcnts in 1752 anci

l-azzaro Spallanzani's in 1770, both ofrvhich hacl bcen perfirrmed

in orcler to <lecidr betrlcclr van I lclmr>nt's chcnrical .rnd Borcll i 's

mechanical cxpl . rnat ion ol d igest ive phcnonrcna, involved t l re

col lcct ion ofgast l ic ju iccs l rom the csophagus hr ingenious l rut

roundabout means; nei thcr man secms ro havc thought of intro-

ducing an art i f ic ia l f is tu la into the stomrch. fbe invent ion ol the

art i f ic ia l gastr ic t is tu la l i ' l lo*cr l t l re American physic ian Wi l l iam

Beaumonl 's pubJicat ion of h is observat ions of . r Canadian hunter,

Alexis Saint-Mart in, * 'ho, a l ier bcing shot in the sromach, prc,

sentcd with a stomach l is tu la rvhose edgcs adhcrecl to the ab-

dominal rvalls. Beaunronr, having taken the man into his cmplov,reported his observations of contractions and gastric secretionsin a paper entit lcd "Experimcnrs and C)bser\ations on thr: Gas-tr ic Juice and thc Phvsiology of Digest ion' , (1g33). The historvof surgcry ollers ferv other cases of spontaneous stomach fistulas,and none u.as obscrved in any rvay comparable to Beaumont's.Thus, an accident suggested a mcthod of experinrent _ one thatBassov and Blondlot rvould later make systematic use of. It wasno accident, hou-cver, rhat this original accidcnt lvas first patiendyexploi tcd and later intcnt ional ly reproduced, The chemists ofthe per iod were intenselv interestcd in the chemical composi_tion of fbodstuffs, and this had led to interest in the chemistryof digestive sccrerions. The flrst chemical ana)rses ofgasric juicesuerc undertakcn bv Prout (1824). Hou.evcr, because ph,,siologistsneeded to obtain these juices, uncontaminatcd by foo<l particlcs,in consiclcrable quantit ies, they had to figure out ho\a,to retricvethe ju ices i t rhe moment ofsecret ion. fhey also had ro l lnd theright anim.rl to stud), (,nc rvith an appropriate anatomical ltruc-turc and digcstive patterns.

Thus, accidents and unfbrescen events sornetimes give rise toDeu techDiques of observat ion and nrerhods ofresearch. Onething le.rds to anothcr. Similarlv, scientif lc problems sornerimesar ise in one domain or f ie ld of science onlv to be resolved inanother. For c'xample, the history ol phvsiolr_rgv cannot be entirelvdivorced f iom the paral le l h istor ics of the c l in ic anr l ot . rnedicalpathologv. And it w.as not alrvays phvsiology that instructcd path-ologv: relat ions among the discipl ines rvere complex. Consider[i-rr a nroment the historv ol nervous and endocrine phvsiology inrhe ninetccnth century. Clinical obsenation revealed functionaldisorders and disturbances rhat physiologists nr f irst foun,J diff i_cult to explain, fbr they couJd nor ideDtif i u.hat repularon nrech_anism had gone a\r-ry, Without the history of clinical rvork on

Addison's disease or surgerv on goiters, it is impossible to make

sense of progress in unrlerstanding the physiologv of the adrenal

and thvroid glands. The u ork of rhe phvsiologist Brorvn-sequard

often beg.rn wi th some medical l inding; and in th is respect i t

dif lered sharply from the work ofcertain othcr phvsiologists, such

as Claude Bernard. IErr.rrles, pp. 2 36-38]

[40] Dise.rse \.\,rs not thc phvsiologisr's rrnlv source ot scien-

tif ic challenges. Healthv individuals are neither idle nor inert and

cannot be maintained artif iciallv at the beck and call of ingen-

ious or rcst less exper imental ists. ' l -he heal thv person too is, by

definit ion, capabJe of carrying out tasks set by nature an(l culture.

In the nineteenth cenrury, the dcvelopmcnt of industr ia l socie-

t ies in Europe and North America led ro rhe social izar ioD. and

therefore polit icizatitrn, of qucstions <rf subsistence, diet, hvgiene

.rnd u'orker productivitv. It is no acci(lent that problems oI energy

util ization arose arouncl this time, especially in Germanl, in rcgarrl

to both the stenm engin( 'and tht 'human r)rganism. The same

doctor, Julius Robert von Maver, rvho provecl that energy could

Dot be destroyed but onlv convr:rtcd fiom one fbrm to another

(J842) - I rom work ro heat, or v ice versa - a lso publ isbed the

rcsul ts ol h is rcsearch on dietarv energet ics in 1845. His work

confirmcd that of von l-icbig, n'hose research on organic chem-

istry as appl ied to phvsiology ( l l i42) rc lated rhc calor i f ic values

of var ious nutr ients such as f i rs, sugars and proteins lo var ious

organic phenomena involving expenditures ol energv; thesc rc-

sults rvere fLrther elaboratecl and refined bv Marcell in Bcrthelot

( lE79 ) and l \1ax Rubner and Wilbur Ol in A rwarer ( t904 ) .Simi lar ly, technological progr.ess and economic change had

subjected human beings to extreme conclit ions. People had bccn

lbrced, in \ {ar and peace, to cndurc cxtrcmgs of temperature,

to uork ar high altitudes, to dive ro grear depths; orhers chorc

to subject themselves voluntar i lv to extremc condi t ions, as

rl l

in sport . - l i r c i te just onc cxample, Paul Bert 's research on anox-

cnr ia at h igh al t i tude (1878) pavcd thc wav for later studies of

plrenonrena that had to be understood bcfbre intercontinental pas-

senger l-Jight coulcl become routine. ["Physiologie," Enc.vclopae-

dia, p. 1076c-11a)

Thc Nlajor Proble ms of

N in e t e e n t h - C e n t u rv [ 'h v s io log r

Bioenergetics

[-11] The resolut ion, through chemistrv, r r f an age<rld prrrbl tnr

ol 'phvsiologv forced phvsiologists to confront a pr.rblenr that

phvsics had yet to resolve: Hor,, can energv exist in a v.rriety ol

l i r rnrsT ln Carrcsian mechanics,5tat ics ( l (pcn( l on fhc conserv. l -

t ion of uork, and clvnanr ics oD the conser\r t ion of nr()rnentum

(mr' , mass r imes veloci tv) . Leibniz. in his c l i t ique ol C.rr tesirn

mcchanics, considcrcd the quantit\ nir ' l (mass tirres the sguare of

\e loci t \ , \a hich he cal led the " l ive fbrce") to be a substar.rcc. that

i \ , nn invar iant , but hc fa i lcd to notc that in anv rcal nrechanical

sYstem inr,olving f; iction, this quantitv does not J'enr.rin cor)stanl,

due to thc gcncrat ion and loss of heat. The eighteenth centurr

Ii i lcd to formulate thc notion of conscrvation of cn,. 'rgv. At tht:

beginning of the nineteenth ccnturv, t l\ 'o f irrms of energr nere

rccognizcd: the energv of motion (kinctic or potential) and heat.

But observations made bv technicians and engineers concerning

the operation of thc steam engine, the boring ofcannon Lt.rrrels

and so on lcd to studv ofthe rclations bctrvcen rvork an<l he.rt.' fhe f i rst person to assert thc indestrucr ib i l i tv and, const,-

qucntlv, the conservation of energv through various transfornr.r-

t ions rvas thc German plrvsician von Maycr, rvho basecl his r lairns

I I r ll l t

on medical obscrvations made in Indonesia in 1840 having to do

rvith the influcnce ofheat on the oxidation ofblood ln 1842, von

Licbig published a theoretical papcr by Maver, entit lcd "Bemer-

kungen tibcr die Krafte der unbelebtcn Natur," in the ,4 nnalen der

Chemie und Pharmocie, but it attracted l itt le attention init iallY.

In 1843, James Prcscott loule undertook to determinc cxper i -

mentall l thc mechanical eqtrivalent ofthe calorie, and in an 1849

paper read before the Roval Societl he claimed rcsponsibil i tv for

a discoveri- - and J\{ayer then f 'elt compellcd to dispute his claim

ofpriorit l. In 1847, rncanrvhile, von Helmholtz also published a

paper entit led "Uber die Erhaltung der Krafi."

Maver's rvork actually lvas more oriented tolvard biology than

Joule's and rlas therefbre more significant for thc history of phys-

iology. In 1845, Maver published the results of his research on

dietarv energctics under the tit le "Die organische Bewcgung in

ihren Zusammcnhang mit dem Stoffivechsel." Earlier, in 1842,

von Liebig had published his Organisci e Chemie und ihte Anwendung

aul Ph,ysiologie und Pathologie, in which he demonstrated, through

investigation of the caloric content of various nutrients, that all

vital phenomena dcrive their energy from nutrit ion.

The uork of Maycr and von Liebig actual ly c laborated on

studies descr ibed even car l ier by Th6odore de Saussurc in his

Recherches chimiques sur la vigdtotion (1804). Henri Dutrochet,

aftcr establishing the lau,s of osmosis (1826), shou'ed that res-

piratorl phcnomena v"'ere identical in plants and animals (1837).

When the Acad6mic cles Sciences sponsored a competit ion on the

origins of animal heat in 1822, nvo Frenchmen, C6sar Mausuite

Despretz, a physicist, and Pierre Louis Dulong, a physician, at-

tempted to reproduce Lavoisicr's experiments. Dulong found that

the eflects of respiration *'cre not enough to account fbr the full

quantity of heat produced. This fbnned the starting point for fur-

ther rvork to determine the amount of energy contributed by

nutrit ion: IIenri Victor Regnault and Jules Reiset published their

Recherches chimiques sur la respiration des animoux de diverses closses

in 1849, and their resul ts were latcr corroborated by Eduard

Pfli iger's research on thc contribution of each nutrienr to the

total input of nutrit ional energv, that contribution being mea-

surecl in each case by the so-called respiratory quotient. In 1879,

Berthelot systematizcd these results in his Essai de mdcanique

thimique, and he also formulated the lavv,s of animal energetics for

organisms doing external work and fbr those simply maintaining

thcmsclves, Finallv, Rubner, through cxperimenrs with dogs car-

ried out benveen 1881 and 1904, and At\r 'ater, through experi-

ments u ' i th human bcings conducted betwecn 1891 and 1904,

rvere Ied to generalize the results ofearlicr wrrrk on the conscr-

vat ion ofenergv in l iv ing organisms.

As for the second law of thcrmodynamics, conccrning the

riegraclation ofcncrgv, it rvas ofcoursc first fbrmulatecl by Nicolas

Sadi Carnot in 182.1 but l i t t le not iced at the t imc. Benoi t Pierre

[mi le Clapeyron took i t up again in 183.1, wi th just as l i t t lc suc-

cess; then at mid-century, fbllorving further research, it was redis-

covcrr:d by both Rudolph.fulius Emmanuell Clausius and Will iam'I 'homson ( l ,otd Kelv in) . Organisms, l ike other phvsicochemical

systcms, confirm the valicl ity of thc sccond lar, ', u'hich statcs thar

transformations of energv - fbr our purposes, those taking place

rvithin l iving cells - are irreversib)e, due to an increase in entropv.

Organisms, though, arc mechanisms capablc of reproducing them-

selvcs. Like all mechanisms, thev arc capable of doing rvork, of

accomplishing transfbrmations that are structured and, thcrcfore,

less probable than disorganized molecular agitation, or hcat, into

u hich al l other forms of energv degradc rv i thout possibi l i ty of

revcrsal. While it is no longer possible to accept Bichat's fbrmu-

lation that "l i f 'e is thc collection of functions that resist death,"

one can sti l l say that l iving rhings are systcms u.hose improbable

t l6 t t7

organization slous a universal process ofevolution torvard ther-

mal ccluil ibrium - that is, tor, 'artl a more probable state, dcath'

To surn up, then, the studY of the organism's transformations

of the energv it borr<trvs from the environtncnt \ras the \\ 'ork of

chemisrs as mr.tch as ofphlsiologists in th( strict sense. L)ur under-

\ tanding ol the l . rus of cel lu lar mctabol ism progressed in paral-

lcl u ith thc svstem,rtic studr ol the compounds ofcarbon, *hich

ler l to thc uni l lcat ion oforganic chemistr l rv i th inorganic chem-

istrr ' . Fr ier l r ich Wohlcr 's synthesis of urea in 1828 lcnt ne\ l r Prcs-

tige to the central idcas and methods of rrrn I iebig and his school.

But von Liebig's thcorv ol' lermcntation, lvhich rvas associated in

his mind rvith the studv ofthc biochemical sources ofanimal heat

(1840), urruld later bc chal lenged by Louis Pasteur, *ho uas

rightlv loath to believc that fermentation phenomena \r'cre inor-

ganic pro<essc'r, b,r nature akin to death, and thcrcfbre unrelatc<l

to the specific.rcrivit ies of microorganisms. IErurlei, pp. 250-62]

Endoc ri nology

[a2] The term "endocr inology," duc to Nicholas Pcnclc, rvas

coinerJ only in 1909, yet no onc hesi t i tes to use i t to rc ler , ret-

roacti\elv, to anl discovcrv or research relntcd to internal secre-

tions. \\brk on thcse secretions in thc ninetecnth centurv was

not as far-rcaching as nork on the nervous system, vet the verY

original nature ofthat u'ork can nevertheless be sccn toda,v as the

cause and ctlect ofa veritablc mutation in phrsiological thought.

-I 'hat is 'r,hv

the succinct term "endocrinologl-" se('rns pref'erablc

to anv c i rc um loct l t ion,

t 'aradoxically, thinlis to tht uork ofClaude Bernarrl, the phvs-

ioJoeical problcm posed by the existenct'ol glands rvithout excrc-

ton ducts - ()rgans, originallv knou'n as "blood-r'esscl glands,"

rvhosr: f nct ions could not bc deduced l ionr anaromical inspec-

t ion - $n\ solved bl using thc same str ict D)ethods ol chemical

invest igat ion that had been appl ied to the phcnomcna of nutr i -

t ion, assimilation through svnthcsis of specific compouncls, dis-

integrat ion and cl im inat ion. [ . . . ]

At the beginning of tht'ninctccnth centur! ', nothing \1ir kno$'n

about the funct ions of the spleen, thymus, adrcnal g lands or thr-

roid. The f i rst g l immcr of l iqht c.rme at mi( l -ccntur\ in connec-

t ion u i th Bernarr l 's r tsearch into the digest ion anr l absorpr ion ol

sugar in the intest ine, ruhich rcvcaled the hi therto- inconceivable

function ofa glanrl r. hose afl lnitv vvith those just n'rcntioned \4as

unsuspcctcd. Moritz Schifl was also lr-orking on hepatic glvcogcn-

esis and fermentation in Bcrne in 1859 rvhen hc rl iscovered the

latal eff 'ects ofdestroving the thvroicl, a result for rvhich he could

provide no explan.rr ion. I t rvas much latcr , in Geneva in 188J,

that Schi f f , revis i t ing l r i r car l ier exper iments in th<. l ight of Emi l

Thirodore Kocher arrr l Ja<ques Louis Reverdin ' r r rork on the

sccluel lac of surgical excis ion ol goi tcrs (mvxedematous cachexi . r ,

postoperat ive mvrcdcnra), had the ider of t ransplant ing the thr-

roid in order to conl i r rn or relute the hypothcsis that thc glancl

somchorv acted chenr ical lv through the blood. \ r ic tor Alcxander

llaclen Horsclv successlirl ly perfbrmetl thc same erperiment on

an apc in 188.1; ()dilon Nlarc [-annelongue repeatecl it ldr thcra-

peutic purposes on a n.ran in 1890. In 1896, Eugen Baumann iden-

t i f icd an organic cnnrpound of iodine in the th l ro id. In 191,1,

Eduard Calum Kend:rl l isolatcd the active principle in thc fbrm

ol crystal l izable thyror in. Thus, al though research into the lLnc-

tion ol thc thyroid began in thc phvsiologist's laboratorl, the solu

f ion involved thc c l in ic ian's er.rnr in ing room and the surgeon's

operating roonr.

ln the cast ol the aclrenal g land, the point o l -departure f i r r

rcsearch lav in clinical obscr-vations made bctuccn l8-lt) rnd 1855

by Thomas Addison and reportcd iD a paper ent i r led " f )n thc

Const i tut ional and Local Ef fects of l ) iscasc of the Supra-renal

r r8

Capsules." In 1856, Charles-Edouard Brorvn-Sequard read to the

Acad6mic des Sciences a series of three PaPers on "Recherches

cxp6r imt ntr lcs sur la pbvsiologie et la pathologie des glandes

surr6nales," in rvhich he reported on thc lethal ellects of rcmov-

ing the capsuJes as r"ell as ofinjecting normal aninrals I ' i th blood

taken l iom aninrals uhose "capsules" had been rcnroved. As a

result, Brorvn-stquard hvpothesizcd that thc capsules somehou

produced a chcmical antitoxic ef'f?ct on the comPosition of the

blootl. That same year, Alfred Vulpian reported his obsenations

in a paper cntit led "Sur quelqucs r6actions propres i la substancc

des capsules su116nales." The cortical cclls reacted dif ' ferentlv to

various dves than the medullarv cells did, from rvhich Vulpian

concluded that the latter, which turned gret'n rvhen cxposed to

iron chlor ide, secreted a chromogenic substance. This rvas the

first hint of thc cxistence of rvhat rvould one dav be called adren-

al ine. ln l i i93. Jean-Emile Abelous and Pau) Langlois conf l rmed

Brorvn-Sd<1uard's experimcntal results. ln 1894, Georges Oliver

.rnd E<lrvard Albcrt Sharpey-Schifer.reptrrted to the London Phys-

iologic.rl Societv on their obsen'ations of thc hypertensive effects

of injt 'cting agueous adrenal extract. In 1897. John-lacob Abel iso-

latcd a hypertensive substance fi 'om thc atlrenal mcdulla, u'hich

he called epinephrinc. In 1901, Tikamine obtained u'hat hc called

adrcnaline in crystall izable form, and Thomas-Bell Aldrich in that

samc vear providcd the formula. Adrenalinc uas thus the flrst hor-

mone to be rl iscovercd. The history ofthe hormones ofthe atlre-

nal corter does not begin unti l after 1900.

From this brit ' l sutnmary ofearly expcrinrental uork in endo-

cr inolo{} , i t is c lear that the concept oI intcrnal secret ion, which

Bern.rrd formulated in 1855, djd not nt f irst plav thc heuristic role

that one might be tempted to ascribe to it. This nas because the

concept. which *as first applied to the l lvcogenic function of

the l iver, init ially plaved a discriminatory role in anatomy rather

12C)t2l

than an explanatorv role in physiology: it distinguished the con-

cept ofa gland from that ofan excretory organ, But a hormone is

a more general concept than an internal secretion: a hormone is

a chcmical messenger, rvhereas an internal secretion is simply a

distribution or dilhrsion. Furthermore, the hepatic f lnction, the

f i rst-known cxample ofan internal sccret ion, is specialr i t p lact 's

a proccssed nutr iment, a metabol i te, into c i rculat ion, In th is

sense, theie is a dit ' ferencc between the endocrine secretion of

the l iver and that ofthe pancreas: the function ofone is supplr,

of the other, consumption. lnsul in, l ike thvroxin. is thc st imu-

lant and regulator of a global mechanism; it is not, strictlv spcak-

ing, an intermediar.v, energ,v-laden compound. Thus, to credit

Bernard as the author of the fundamental concept of modern

erndocrinology is not false, but it is misleading. The concept that

proved fruitful lr 'as that of the internal environmcnt, u hich, un-

like the concept ol intern.rl secretion, was not closelr.rssociated

rvith a specific function; rather, f iom the flrst ir was idcnti l ic't l

rv i th another concept, that ot 'a phls io logical consrant. ! \ 'hen i t

turned out that l iv ing cel ls depend on a stablc organic environ-

mcnt, which \Valter Bradfcrrd Cannon named "homeostasis" in

1929, the logical possibil i ty arose of transfbrming the t:oncept of'

internal sccrction into one ofchemical regulation. Once the fun-

damental idea rvas clear, research on various glantls quickly led

to the ic lent i f icat ion.rnd (at least) qual i tat ive descr ipt ion of their

firnctional eflects.

I t is not surpr is ing, then, that f iom 1888 on, the ' r 'ork

of

Moritz Schif] and Bro$ n-S6quard attracted man)- emulators anri

st imulated rrscarch in c 'ndocr inologr, usual lv in conjunct ion

rvith a desire to correct unsubstantiated p.r(hological etiologies.

It rvas the studv oI diabetes, for example, rvhich Bernarcl's work

had alreadv clar i f icd, that led joseph von Mcring and Eugene

Minkowski to discover the role of thc pancreas in the metabo-

l ism of g lucids (1889), and subsequent ly to the ident i f icat ion t rv

Freder ick Crant Bant ing and Charles Herbert Bcst 11922) of thc

substance that Sharpey-Schifer had named insulin in 1916. lr rvas

the studv oI acromegalv by l ' ierre Marie ( 1886 ) that led, evcntu-

allv, to cxperiments in hypophvsectomy bv Gcorgcs Marincscu

(1892)anr l Ciul io Vassale and Ercole Sacchi (1892), and larer ro

u orl that dis< rinr inatcd bcr$ ccn the l lnctions ol the anterior anci

poster ior lobcs of thc pi tu i tary (5ir I Ienry Dalc in 1909, I larvcv

Cushing in 1910, and Herbert McLean Evans ancl Crarvlbrcl Wil-

l iamson Lolg in l92l). Bror" n-Sequard's experiments also spurred

rvork on sex hormones, despite the ironic slepticism of many in

thc f ic ld. Thc rolc of the parathvroids, u 'hosc, ' rnatomical d js-

tinctivcn(sr \\ 'cnt unnoticed unti l lvar Victor San<lstrrjm's $ork of

1880, uas elucidated in I89? through the research of Emile Glev.

Thus, the phvsiological concept ofa chemical regulator, in its

current scnse, u.as claboratcd in the late ninctecnth century, but

an expressive term fbr r ' t had vet to be coined. In 1905, Wi l l ianr

Bayl iss ancl Ernest Star l ing, af ter consul t ing a phi lo logist col-

feague, proposecl thc tcrm "hormonc." [Etudes. pp.262-651

Neurophysiology

[.+3] Ol a) l the svstems *hosr ' l i rnct ions arc dctermined bv rhe

need to preserve the inre{r i tv cr f cel lu lar I i f l , thc onc rvhorc

mechanical nature al\ iavs aroused the lervesr objcctions rvas rhc

neuromuscular. Mechanist ic thcor ies f l rst . l rose not f rom thc

studv of plant growth or from viscous ancl visceral palpation of

the mol lusk but l rom obserrr t ion of the dist inct ive, sequenr i r l

locomotion ol r< rtcbr.ltcs. rvhos< ccntr.rl ncnous svstcnts control

and coorrl inatc a scries of srtgmentary movcmcnts that onc can

simulate by mechanical means. 'An amoeba," Alex von Uexki i l l

maintainecl , " is Iess ofa machine than a horse." Because somc of

the ear l iest concepts of nerrous physiologv - af lercnt and cl l i r -

r :nt p; thw'ays, re l lercs, local izat ion and central izat i r )n - \ rere

b.rsed in part on analogies u'it ir opcr.rt ions or objectl that rvcrt:

f inri l iar bv dint ofthc construction and/or usc ofmachines, prog-

ress in this branch of phvsiologv, r 'hosc discoveries \,vere also

incorporated by psvchology, earned it widespreacl recognition.

Al though tcrms such as "hormone" and "conrplcx" har,e entered

contmon parlance, they surelv rentain morc csoteric than a rrrrd

l ike "ref lex," rvhose use in conncct icrn rv i th sports has madc i t

ent i rc ly rout ine.

lf the motor elfects ofthc dccapitation ofbatrachians and rep-

t i les had led eighteonth-ccntury rese.rrchers to suspcct thc role

ol the spirral conl in the nruscular l inctiorr, and il the erperinrents

of Robcrt Wh,r t r (1768)and Jul ien Jcan C6sar Leg.r l lo is (1812)

alreadv had a positive character, it rvas ncvertheless impossible

to explain u,hat Thomas Will is in 1570 called "rcflt 'cted move-

ments" in terms of thc rcflcx arc unti i the Bell-Magcnrlic larv hacl

t rccn ldnnulated and rer i l icd ( l8 l l -22). l \ ' larshal l Hal l 's d iscoverv

of the "<liastalt ic" (reflex) function ol thc spinal corcl. simultanc-

ouslr glimpsed bv Johannes Miil ler, rlas a ncccssary consequence

of differcntiating the various functions of thc spinal nerve. That

dilh'rcntiation also lecl inevitablv to idcnti l lcation ol l irnction-

al l r special ized bundles ofconductors ui th in the spinal cord - bv

Karl Fr iedr ich Burd.rch in 1826, Jacob Augustus Lockhart Clarke

in 1850, Brorvn-Sirquard in 1850 an(l Friedrich Goll in I860. Uasecl

init iallv on experiments involving scction and excitation of ncrve

fibels, this work preceded Frieclrich \4ralter's discovcrv ofspinal

degencr, t t ion in l8 5l) .

( )ncc the du.r l s igni f icance of conduct ion along the nerrous

f lber ha<l be,. :n dert ' rmincd, the cxci tabi l i tv ancl conduct iv i tv of

ncrvoLrs tissue vvere stuclied systcmatically, along lvith the con-

tra(ti lc properties of muscle. l his r"ork uas the positivt ' or cmpir-

ical port ion of a largc volume ol reserrch. some of i r ntagical in

r2l

character, spurred by the discovcry of "animal elcctricity." The

lield of electrophvsiology began with Luigi Galvani's obsen'ations

and experimcnts, his polemics w.ith Alessandro Volta (1794), and

Alexander von I lumboldt 's corroborat ion ofGalvani 's resul ts. ln

1827, Leopoldo Nobi l i bui l t an astat ic galvanometcr sensi t ive

enough to detect very rveak currents. Carlo Matcucci established,

in 18.11, a correlation between muscular contraction and the pro-

duction of electricity. Du Bois-Reymond virtually inventcd the

cntire apparatus and techniquc of electrophysiology in order to

subject Mateucci's rvork to stringent crit icism. He demonstrated

the cxistence of u'h.rt he called "negative variation," an action

porent ia l that generated a current in conjunct ion wi th the st im-

ulat ion of a nene: he also studied phrsiological tetanus, Using

simi lar techniques, von I lc lmholtz in 1850 measured the speed

ol propagation along the nerve. Although this cxperiment failed

to shed the expected l ight on the naturc ofthe mcssage transmit-

ted, i t d id at least refure al l theor ies holding that th is m<ssaqe

involved the transport of somc substance.

After Whvtt and George Prochaska identif ied the spinal cord's

sensor imotor coordinat ion funct ion but be[ore Marshal l Hal l

explained its mechanism, t-egallois and Pierre Flourens located

the center ofref lex movement in the medul la oblongata. At

around the same t ime, tht 'ancient concept ofa seat of the soul

r>r organ ofcomnron sense, whose possible location had been thc

subject of much speculation in thc seventeenth and eighteenrh

centuries, collapsed, Albrecht von Haller had providcd a negative

answer to the question, "Do different functions stem from dif]

lerent souls (An diversae diversarum oninde functionum prcrin-

ciac)?"r{r In 1808, horvtver, the father ofphrenologv, Franz JosephGa)1, argued that "the brain is composed of as many distinctive

systems as it performs distinct functions," and that it is therelore

not an organ but a composite of organs, each corresponding to a

| 24 115

facultv or appctite - and, furthermore, thnt thosc organs are to

be found in the convolutions of the brain's hemispheres, rvhich

were reflected in the con[iguration oIthe cranial she]1.

This is not the place to deal with the allegation that Call was

a charlatan. It is more imPort.rnt to undcrstand s'hv he enioyed

as nruch in l luence as he did, and fbr so )ong. l le provided the

phls io logists and cl in ic ians of the f i rst two thirds of the nine-

teenth century u,ith a furrdamental idea that one of his crit ics,

Louis Franqois t-elut, callcd "the polysection of the encephalon."

Recall, moreover, that Gall claimed to have <onre upon his the-

orv through observat ion of the skul ls of ccrtain of h is col leagues

rr ith a particularly keen memory for u'ords; hc located the organ

of thnt memory in the lower Posterior portion of the antcrior

lobe. Now, it happens thar the first idcntjf ication of an anatomi-

cal lesion responsible for.r clinical diagnosis of aphasia, made by

Jean B.rptiste Bouil laud in 1825, confirmed Call 's obsen'ation. In

1827, Boui l laud publ ished the f i rst exPerimrrrral f indings on the

ab)ation of regions of the cerebral cortcx in nrammals and birds

Fronr then on, exper intents on animals conr l>ined rv i th c l in ical

and pathological observation of humans to producc a functional

mapping ofthe cerebral cortex. In 1861, Paul Eroca identif ied the

seat o[aticulate language in the third fiontal convolution, which

led hinr to nrake this decl . r rat ion of fa i th: " t l re l ieve in the pr in-

ciple of localizationsl I cannot believe that the complexitv ol the

cercbral hemisphcres is a mere caprice ofnature."

In 1870, Gustav Thcodore Fr i tsch and Jul ius Ed*ard l l i tz ig

provided experimental proofof cerebral localization bl emploving

a rcvolutionary nerv technique, electrical stimtrlation ol the cor-

tcx. Previously, due tcr the ta i lure of at tempts to sr imulat( the

brain direct ly dur ing t rcpanat ion, d i rcct t t imulat ion had becn

declarcd impossible. From experiments with dogs, Fritsch and

tlitzig concludecl that the anterior and posterior regions of the

br.rin vverc not e(lui!?lent; the anterior region w.as associarcd rvith

the motor funct ion, the poster ior rv i th the sensorv funct ion.

Because Hitz ig could not apply electr ical st imul i to a human

brrin, in 1874 hc instead mapped the motor region in an apt'; in

1876. David Fcrr icr conl i rmcd I l i tz ig 's resul ts. Naming Flourcns

bLrt airrring his crit icism nr Friedrich Goltz, Ferricr ryrotc, "Tlre

soul is not, as Flourens and many rvho came after him belietecl,

sonre kind ol synthetic f irnction of the entire brain, rvhose mani-

fcst,rt ions can be suppressed in toto but not in part; on the contrary,

i t is ccrtain that some, and probable that a l l , psvchic fundions

derire lrom rvcll-dcflned centers in the cen ical cortex," Similarl\,

Fcrr ier 's discoverv of the rol<r of thc crccipi ta l lobe in v is ion lcd

Hcrmann N'lunk in l8?8 to givc the first precise localization oI a

sen!'ory ccntcr, A grou ing number of expcrime nts, confir-mecl by

clinical obscrvations, provided Carl Wernickc rvith the marerial

to ent i t le his 1897 trcat ise on the anatoml and physiologv ol the

f>rain thc ,.1rlos des Gehirns. But it rvas nol unti l the earlv ruenti-

eth century that Al t icd Campbel l (1905)an<l Korbinian Brodmann

(1908), drarving on a( lvnnccs in histologv l iom Camil lo Colgi to

Santiago Ramon v Cajal, were ablc to lav the founclations fbr a

cvt()Jrchitectonics of rhe cortcx.

ln Lc7ons sur lcs locolisorlons (1876), Jean-,\lartin Charcor rvrote,"The brain is not a honrogcreous, unitarv organ but nn associa-

t ion." lhe tcrm " loc.r l izat ion" rvas takcn l i teral lv at thc t i l l le: i t

uirs assumed that thc trnfolded surfac.' ,rI thc cortex could be

div ided into dist inct zones, and that lcs ions or ablat ions could

cxplain sensorimotor disturbances described as dcflcits (a-phrsia,

aaraphia, a-praxia and so orr ). Yct Jules (iabrit ' l l-ranq:ois Bail lalqer

had pointe<i our in I365 rhat aphasia is not a loss of rhe memon,,1 rr , r r r l r . b( ( JU:\c \o l l te.rph.r . icr r t . t . r i r r r l re i r voc.r l ,u l . r r r hut l , r . ,e

the abil ity to usc *,ords properly - and in anvthing but an .rutn-

mat jc manner. Over the next tu.o dccadcs, Flughl ings Jackson,

inrerpret ing s imi lar observat ions in tcrms oI Spencer ian evolu-

tionism, introduced the conccpt of a conservativc integratirrn of

neurological structurcs and lunctions, accorcling to rvhich less

complex structurcs and functions are dominated and controlled

at a higher Jevel bv more complex and highll dil ' ferentiated ones,

rvhich appear later in rht phvlogenetic crrd< r. Pathological states

arc not decomposi t ions crr d iminut ions ol phvsiological : i tates;

rather, thev involve a dissolut ion or loss ofcontrol , the l ibera-

t ion of a dominated lunct ion, thc return to a morc rcf lexive,

.rlthorr[h in itsell positivc, rtatc.

An iDrportant event in thc historv of the local izat ion concept

\ !?s the Internat ional Congress of l \1t ' t l ic ine he[d in Lon<lon in

l iJ81. at which Sherr ington, then aged trventy- lbur, heard rhc

llomeric debatc bctueen Ferrier and FrierL'ich Goltz. I.ater, when

Charles Scott Sherrington visitcd Goltz in Strasbourg in l8[i.1-1.l5,

he lcarnt'd the techniquc lor taking progrcssive sections ol thc

spinal cord, His u 'ork on the r ig id i tv caused Lrr decercbrat ion

(ll{97) and rcscarch on subiects ranging l iom reciprocal innerva-

tioD to the concept ol .rn intcgrative action oI rhe ncrvous s|stem

(1906) enabled him to corroborate and correct . lackson's fln<la-

mcntal ideas rv i thout ventur ing outside the realm ofphvsiologv.

Bct lccn Marshal l Hal l and Sherr ington, the study of the la\ \s

of rcllex nradc l itt)e prog:'ess apart f iom Eduald Pl1iiq,:r 's ear-

l ier , rather crude st . r te l rcnt in 1853 of rhe rulcs of i r radi . r t ion, a

concept that impliod thc existence of an clcmentarv reflcx .rrc.

Shcrrington shou.ed, to the contrarv, that even in the casc of thc

simplest rcf lcx, thc spinal cord integratcs the l imb's ent i rc bun-

tl l i : ol-nencs. Brain l irnctions merelv expand upon this capacitv of

the spinal cord to intcgrate v.rr i ( ,us pnr. ts of thc organism. Fol lou-

ing lackson, Shcrringron thus cstablished that thc animal organ-

ism, seen in terms of i ts sensor imotor funct ions, is not a ntosaic

but a structure. 1'he great phvsiologist's most original contrihu-

t26 t)7

t ion, however, was to explain, rvith the concept of thc cortex,

the difference bet$een nenr'ous mechanisms for integraring imme-

diate and defbrrcd movements.

At around the same time, Ivan Pavlov studied anorher corti-

cal integrat ing lunct ion, which he cal led "condi t ioning" (1897).

Pavlov shorved how the cortical functions could be analyzed by

modifying techniques borrowed from reflexology. When an ani-

mal (in this case, a dog) was condirioned through the simultaneous

application of different stimuli, ablation ol more or less exten-

sive regions of the cortex allowed one to m!asure the degree to

u.hich the sensorimotor reflex depended on the integrity of tht:

cortical intermediary, This technique, which Pavlov re[ined as

results accumulatcd, rvas taught to large numbers of the great

Russian physiologist 's d isciples. [ . . . ]I u'ill cnd with a I'ew words about what John Newport Langley,

in 1898, called the "autonomic" nervous system, whose functions,

because thev involve u,hat Bichat called "vegetative" as opposed

to "animal" l i [e, were less susccpt ib le ol 'mechanical interpre-

tations than those of the central nervous svstem. It was _facobWinslow rl ho in 173 2 coined the erpression "great svmpathetic"

nervous svstem to refer to rhe ganglionic chain. ln 1851, Bernard

discovcred the effect of the symparhetic system on scnsitivity and

body temperature; in 1852-54, Bro*'n-sdquard contributed new

techniques fbr exploring the firnctions of the sympathetic ner,

vous system bv sectioning nen'es and applying electrical stimuli.

Langley u'as a pioneer in the use ofchemical techniqucs, includ-

inq thc block.rge of synapses bv nicotine ( 1889) and the sympa-

thicomimetic propertv of adrenaline ( t 901 ). lEtudes, pp. 266-7 l l

CsrPren Stx

Epistemology of Medicine

The l i r r r i ts oI l lcal ing

[44] Awareness of the l imits of medicine's Po\!er accomPanies

any conception of the l iving body which attributes to it a sPon-

tanrous caPacit!, in nhattvcr fbrm' to preserve its siructurc and

regulate its functions. lf the organism has its oun powers ofde-

fense, thcn to trust in those Powers, at least temporarilv, is a hvpo-

thetical imperative, at once Prudent and shrcwd. A dvnamic bodv

deserves an expectant medicine. Medical genius may be a form

ol patience. Ofcourse, the Patient must agree to suffer. Th6oPhile

de Bordeu, well anare of this. u-rote in his Acchercfies sur I 'histoire

de nitlecine: "The method of expectation has somcthing cold or

austere about it, which is diff icult fbr the keen sensibil i t ies of

patients and onlookers to bcar. Thus, Ierv lew phvsicians have

pract iced i t , p.rr t icular l \ in nat ions ruhr.rse peopie arc natura) lv

ardent, impatient, and f 'earftr]."

Not all patients respond to treatmenti some recover withotlt

i t . l l ippocrates, sho recordtd these observat ions in his t reat ise

On the Art, rnas also, according to legr:nd, responsible for - or,

i f you rv i l l , credi ted rv i th - introducing the concePt ot nJture

int , r met l ical th inking: "Natures are the healers of d iscases' ' ' he

rvrotc in Book Six of Eprdernics. Here, "healer" relt 'rs to an intrin-

s ic act iv i ty of the organism that comPcnsatcs lbr def ic iencies,

t 29

restores a disrupted equi l ibr ium or quicklr corrects a detccred

dcviar ion. - fh is act iv i rv, horvever, is not thc product of inn.r te

knou.ledge: "Naturc fincls its orvn w-ays and means, but not bvintell igence: blinking is one such, thc various ofl ices ofthe tongueare aDother, and so arc other actions of this sort. Naturc does I,hatis appropriate rr ithout instruction and r,,, ithout knorvledgc.',

Thc analoql ' betrnecn naturc as healer and the nrcdical ar tthro\r 's th( l iuht ofnature on the art , but nor v ice versa. Themedical art nrust observe, must l isten to naturc; to obscrve andto l is tcn in th is conrext is to obev. Galen, who at t r ibuted toHippocrates concepts that one can only call Hippocratic, adoptedthcm in his o*n l ight and taught that nature is the pr inran,con-servator o1'health because it is the principal sh.rper of the org.rn-ism. I lorvever, no Hippocratic text goes so far as to portray natureas infall ible or omnipotent. The meclical art originatcd, devclopedand rvas perfected as a gaugc of the porver of naturc. Depcndingon rvhether nalure as healer is stronger or $,eakcr. the phvsicianmust either allorv nature to tnke its course, intcrvene to supporti t or help i t out . or ref lse to intervenc on thc grounds that thereare diseases for rvhich nature is no match. Whcre nature givcs in,medicine must givc up. ' l 'hus, Hippocrates vvrote, , ,To

ask art fbr\ \hat ar t cannot provic lc and to ask naturc fbr uhat nature can_not provide is to tulfer from an ignorance th.rt is more akin tomadness than ro lack ofeducation," [,. ld6e de rnttre," ,Mddecine,

PP.6-71

[a5] h simplif l (probably to excess)the dil lerencc bet.rvcenancient (pr imari lv Grcek) medicinc and the moclern me<l ic ineirrauguratcd bv Ancircas Vcsaiius ancl Will ianr Harvcy and cele-bratrr l hr I ( , , { . r Brc,rn 1661 R(,ne Dcrcarrr \ , r , , "

- ighr. . , , rh"r

the lbrmcr.rvas contemplati.r,e , the latter operation;I. A;cientmcclicine rvas fbundcd upon a strpposcd isomorphism betrveen thecosmic ordcr and thc equi l ibr ium of the organism. ref lectcd in

r lo r l l

naturL"s presumed po\{er to corrcct disordcrs on its or, 'n. Nature

rhe physic ian ' r 'as

rcspectcd b1 a thcrapetr t ics of r larchlulness

and support. Bv contrast, modern medicinc \\ 'rs activist in its ori-

cntat ion. Bacon expressed the hope that i t u 'ould lcarn l rom

chemistrv. and Descartes that it u'ould learn fiom mechanics. Yet

bcnvcen the Greeks and the Moderns, for all that thcy {'erc sePa-

rarcd br,thc Copernican revolution and its crit ical consequfDces,

the di f fercnce remained phi losophical , $ ' i thout percept ib le im-

pict on rhc health of mankind. The shared proiect ol l lacon and

[)escartcs, to prcserve hca]th and to avoitl or at least dclav the

decline of old age - in short, to prolong lif i - resulted in r)o not-

able achievrnrt 'nts. Al though Nicolas dc l \ la le l r ranche rnd latcr

Edmc Nlar ior tc spoke ol "exper imental mecl ic ine," the phra:c

remained a s igni f ier in search of a s igni l iecl . Eighteenth-ccntur l

me<licine remained a symptomatology and nosolog,v, that is, a sys-

tr :m of c lassi f icat ion erpl ic i t ly bascd on that of thc natural ists.

l \ ' lcrJ ical et io logv squandered i ts energies in the crcct ion ol s ls-

tcms, reviv ing the ancient doctr ines of sol id ism and hunlrrr ism

by introducing nerv physical concepts such as magnetism in(l gal-

vanism or bv raising mctaphysical objections to thc Procedures

of thosc s ho l,ould assimilate medicine to mechanics. ' l 'herapcu-

t ics, guir ied bv pure empir ic ism, al ternrted bctrveen skept ic.r l

cclccticism ancl obstinate dogmatisrn. Tragicallv, medicint could

not accompl ish i ts goals. l t remaincd an cmptv discourse about

practices oficn not verv dif lerent from magic.

Freud said of ancient medicine that psychic thcrapy was the

onlv t rc i tnrent i t hat l to ol ler , an( l much the same thing could

lr.rve been said about nreriicinc in the eighteenth ancl nrost ol th<

nineteenth ccntur ics. Bv th is I mean that thc prescnce lnt l per-

sonalitv of thc phvsician rrere the primarv remcdies in manv afl l ic-

t ions ol rvhich anxiety was a major componelnt , Udeolol l t ond

Rat ionol i t r , pp. 52-5 l ]

The Nerv Si tuat ion of Medicine

A Shilt

[46] The gradual climination from medical understan<iing o{ anv

refercnce to thc patient's l iving conditions u.as. in part, an ellect

of thc colonizat ion of medicine by basic and appl ied scicnce in

the earlv nineteenth ccntury; but it *as also a consequence of

indrrstr ia l society 's interest ( in cvery sense of the uord) in the

hcal th of i ts working populat ions (or, as some rvould pur i t , in

the human component of thc productive fbrces). The polit ical

author i t ies, at the bchest ol , . rnd * i th advice f ionr, hygienists,

took steps to monitor and improve l iv ing condi t ions. Medicine

and polit ics joined forces in a neu approach to i l lness, cxempli-

l ied br changes in hospital stmctures and practices. In eightcenth-

ccnturv France, part icular lv at the t imc of the Revolut ion, steps

\{'ere taken to replace hospices, which had provided shelter and

care to sick patients, many of lvhom had nowhcre else to turn,

uith hospitals designed to lacil i tatc patienr suneil lance and clas-

sif icati<-rn. By design, thc ncrv hospitals operated as, to borro$

lacques Ren6 Tenon's phrasc, "healing machines." Treating dis-

eases in hospi ta ls, in a regiDteDted social environntcnt, helped

strip them oftheir individuality. Meanu hile, thc conditions undcr

rvhich diseases developed rvere subjected to incre.rsinglv abstract

r l l

anal\sis and, .rs a result, thc gap u idened betrvccn thc rcalitv of

pat icnts ' l ivcs and thc c l in ical representat ion of that rcal i ty. [ . . . ]Thc statistical study ol the frequencv, social contcxt and spread

of disease coincided exact lv \ ,v i th the anatomical-c l in ical revolu-

tion in the hospitals ofAustria, Englancl and l]rancc in the earlv

nineteenth century. f"Maladies," Univers, p. 1235a]

[47] ' fhree phenomcna al tcred the si tuat ion ol Europcan

medicine.' l 'he first rvas the institutional ancl cultural change that

i \ , l ichcl Foucaul t has bapt ized " thc bir th of the c l in ic," l r .h ic l r

combined hospital relbrms in Vicnna and Paris r 'r ' i th incrcasingly

'w idcsprca<l use ofsuch exploratorv practiccs as percussion (Joseph

Leopolcl Auenbriiggcr,.fcan-Nicholas Corvisart) and mediate aus-

cul tat ion (Ren6. l 'h!ophi lc l lvacinthe Ladnnec), and rv i th svs-

tcmatic effbrts to relate obscrvcd symptoms to anatomical and

pathological data. Sccond, a rational attitudc of therapeutic skep-

ticism was fbstered and developed in both Austria and France, as

Edu'in Heinz Ackerknecht has shorvn.rr Third, physiology grad-

uallv l iberated itsclf from its subserviencc to classical anatomy

and becamr: an independent medical discipline, rvhich at f irst

f ircuscrl on disease at the tissue level, as yet unaware that cventu-

ally it uould come to fbcus evcn more sharplv on the ccll. And

physiologists looked to physics and chemistrv for examples as rvell

as tools.

Ilcncc, a nerv moclel of mcdicine uas elaborated. Nerv diseases

u.ere identif ied and distinguished, most notably in pulmonarv and

cardiac pathologv (pulmonarv edcma, bronchial dilation, cndo-

carditis). Old medications, w,hose numbers had proliferated n,ith

no discernible cfl ict, wcre discounted. And rival medical theo-

ries cast discreclit on onc another. Thc nelr- model rvas one of

knou.ltrJge without systcm, based on the collection of facts and,

i1 possible, the elaboration oflavvs conllnlred bv cxpcrimcnt. This

knowlcdge, it rvas hoped, rvould be capable ofconversion into

I 14r i5

cflcctive therapics, rvhose ustr could be guidcd bv crit ical arvare-

ncss of their l imi tat ions.

In France, elaborat ion of thc ncu' medical model t 'as pur-

stred first by frangois-loscph Victor Broussais, then bv l iranqois

Nlagendie, and finallv by Claudc Bcrnard. Despite the traditional

claims of medical historians, however, it can bc shorvn that the

phvsiological model remained an ideologv. If the goal of thc pro-

gram \\ 'as evcntuall l achicvcd, it rvas reachcd b-v routes quitc dil:

fercnt lrom those envisioncrl bv the progr.am's authors. [, ldeologr

ond Rationalit.v, pp. 5a-551

The Physiological Point o[ View

I : ra n qo i *l oseph Victor Brousso is

[.]8] By demolishing the period's most majestic and imposing svs-

tem, that o l 'Phi l ippc [ ' inel , Broussais c learcd thc rvay fbr thc

advcnt of a ncw spir i t in mtr l ic ine. " l t u 'as Broussais 's opinion

that pathologv was nothing but physiologv, s ince hc cal led i t

'phvsiological medicinc.' Therein lav thc rvhole progrcss in his

uav ol looking at things."l l To bc sure, Broussais's "svstem ol irri-

tation" hinclered his understanding unnecessarilv, and he discrtri-

itt 'd hinrself bv overreliance on leechcs and bleeding. Yct it should

not bc fbrgotten that thc publication ofhis Examen dc la docttine

nidicale giniralement adoptie rvas, in the rvords ol l-ouis Pcisst',

"a medical fequivalent ofl 1789."rr ln order to refute Pincl's "phil-

osophical nosographv" and cloctrinc of "essential fcvers," Broussais

borrou,ed lrom Bichat's gcncral anatomv thc notion that each t,vpe

of t issue, orving to its specific tcxture, exhibits certain charac-

tcr ist ic al terat ions. I Ic idcnt i f ied lever u. i th inf lanmat ion, dis-

t inguished <l i f l i : r r :nt or ig inal s i tes and paths of propagat ion for

cach type of t issue, ancl thus erplaincd thc svmptomatic (l iversitv

ol d i f lcrmt tevers. I le cxplained inf lammation as the rcsul t o l an

excessive irritation. rr hich interlered rvith the ntovcment ofa tis-

sue and could in the long run disturb its organization. I le stood

on its head the basic principle of pathological anatomv bv teach-

ing that thc dysfi-rncrion precedes the lesion. I lc bascd medicine

on phvsiolcrgv rather than anatomt. Al l cr l th is is summcd up in a

rvcll-knonn passage oIthe preface to thc Eramen of l8l5r .,The

charactcr ist ic t ra i ts ofdiseases must be sought in phvsiology.. . .

Enlightcn me with a scientif ic analysls of the often confused cries

of the suff-ering organs.... Tcach me about their reciprocal in0u,

ences." Discussing the new age of medicine in his Essai de philoso-

phie mddicale, Jean Baptiste Bouil laud wrote, "ls not the fall of

the systcm of Nosogroph;e phtlosophique one of the culminating

events ol our medical cra, and is not the overthrorv ofa svsrcm

that had governed thc medical rvorld a revolution ro,hosc mcm-

ory wil l not fade?"ra ln a more lapidary flashion, ]\, l ichel Foucault

put it this u'ay in lhc Birth ol the C,/inic: "Since 1815, the doc-

tor 's eve has been able to confront a s ick organism." l5 Emi)e

I i t t r i ' , a man {arni l iar wi th thc concept of "dist inguishing" di f ' -

ferent tvpcs ofexplanation (he ref'ers to "Bichat's great distinc,

tion" betrveen occult and irrcducible gualit ies), rvas thus able to

observe in 1865 that "s hile theory in medicine once \4ras suspect

and serred onh as a target, so to speak, fbr the facts that demol-

ished it, today, orving ro its subordination to phvsiological lans,

it has become an effective instrument of research and a faithful

rule of conduct."l6 No doubt Claudc Bernard u,as right to say that

Broussais's phvsio)oqical medicine "rvas in realitv bascd onlv on

phvsiological icleas and not on the essential principle of phvsiol-

ogv."l7 Yct Broussais's idea was rvell suited to become a progrcm

and to justifv a medical technique quitc different from the one

or ig inal l l associatcd $i th i t . Franqois, \ lagendie r()ol Broussais 's

doctrine and transfbnned it into a method. That is rvhy Brouss.ris's

svstem brought about a different kind of revolution fi.om other

r l6t l7

svstems, Physiological medicinc, even if i t mimickcd the tbrm of

a svstem, markcd a decisive shift f iom the era ol systems to the

ige ofrescarch. from the age of revolution to the epoch ofprog-

ress, bccause Broussais 's idca looked to techniques n i th i r reach

ol contemporary possibi l i t ies. I f tudes, pp. 136-38]

l:rongois trlagendie

l+t)l What Broussais promiscd, someonr clse had alreadv begun

to dcl iver. Thir man, too, had declared th.r t "mccl ic ine is noth-

ing but the physiologv of the s ick man." l ' r Just onc year af ter

Broussais's Htstoire dc phlellmosies (1808), this man had publishcd

his fromen dc ]'oction de quclques vigdtaut sur la noille dpiniirc,

|lc lounde<l t\e Journal de phvsiolollie etpirimcntol a vear beforc

Brc.'ussais foun<le<f the ,4nnal.'s de la nidetine phvsiololyiquc and in

i t in 1822 conl l rmecl Char lcs Bel l 's d iscovtrv (1811) through his

"Exp6r iences sur les fbnct ions dcs racines dcs ner ls rachidiens "

I : ronr thc t i t ies of these rvor ls alone we gat l rer th( : d i l lereD(e

bctrr,ecn the oricntation of Broussais's work and that ol this other

phvsicianr Frangois Magendic (1783-1855). Whercas lJroussais ha<]

r .orkcd f i rst in mi l i tary and lntcr in c iv i l ian hospi ta ls, Magendic

\ \ 'as n man ol the laboratorv.rs u 'c l l as a hospi ta l phvsic ian. For

him, experinrcrrtal phvsiolcr{Iv rvas thc study of rhe ph'-sics of ital

phenomena such as absorption. He conducted svstematic exper-

iments rvith animals to test the pharmacodvnamic propcrties of

ne*lv isolated classcs of chemical compounrJs such as the alka-

l , r i< is. As ear lv as i821, Nlagendie ' r Formrlory carr ied the subt i t le

"For the Use an<l Preparation of Various l\{e<.l ications Such as Nux

Vrmica, Morphine, Prussic Acid, Strvchnine, Veratr ine, Iodine,

and the Alkal js of Quinquinas" ( that is , the quinine of Pel lct ier

anrl Caventou ).

ln short , l \ lagcndie 's cxpcr imental mc<l ic ine di f fcred f iom

llroussais's physiological mcdicine in three lvays: it was centered

in thc laboratorv rather than rhe hospi ta l ; i t expcr imented on

lnimals rather than on mcn; and instcad of Calenic pr inciples i t

15cd extracts isolatecl bv pharmaceutical cht'nristrv, for examplc,

repl . rc ing opium rvi th morphine and quinquinr rv i th quininc,

Ol rhes( threc di f ferences, thc second uar in i t ia l l r grccted *, i th

th. t r ( atest inconr p reh cnsion and cr i t ic isnt . I l , rgendie 's v iv iscc-

r i l r r nroLlsed host i le protel t . rnd demonrtrat ions, no doubt lbr

rris()ns more profound than conrpassion fbr animal suff 'ering.

For (o rcason lrom anintals to man $ils r,t abolish the clistance

brr\\ecn the t\vo.'fhe practicc was held ro stcm fiom a materi-

alist philr-rsophv, and success u.ould rcsult in thc tempration to

errend the expcriments to man. When accused of experimenting

en humans. Magcndie denicd the chargr. But i f administer ing

unpro!en dnrgs is experimentation (as Claude Bernarri himself rvas

ont ol the l l rst to admit le) , then Magcndie rJ i r l exper imcnt on

hlrnJns, p,r t icnts in hospi ta ls, uhich he.r)nsi( lerc( j a vast labo-

...r141r' rvhcre pitieDts corrl(l bc qrouped rrrd stricl ied compara-

tir.h'. [/r lcolo1ir onrl Rdtiona]it.v, pp- 58-59

CluJe Bernord

[5t)l A vcaf befbrc his death, Claude Bern.rrd, u'rit ing the intro-

drction lbr a planncd Traiti de I'expiricnce tlans les sciences miLlicales,

took l itcrallv a u'c]l-kno*n quip of Magcndie's. Bcrnarcl repcated

hii pred('cessor's sclf-characterization: "l le uas the ragpicker of

phrsiologr. I lc rv.rs merclv the init iator of er pcrinren tation. Todav

ir i\,r discipliDe that has to be crcated, a mrrhorl."{)For Bernard, a

5111-snlecl ragpiclcl r,trs no <loubt supcrior to a dognrati(. svstem-

burl, ltr rl h,r did not r:vcn realize th.rt he s.rs building a systcm,

li l ,, Brouss.ris. But n'hat are we to nt.rke itf Bernard's repeatcd

in\i\tence that onlv he apprcciates thc trur requiremcnts of t ie

erprr imental mcthod?

Insuff ic ient atent ion has been paid, I rh ink, to two conceprs

r l8 I l ' )

i

in Bern:C's mcthodological writ ings that $'erc fbr him inscpa-

rablc: t l orv and progrt'ss. Experimental mulicine is progressive,

he argu, , because it elaborates theorics and bccause thosc the-

or ics arr-hcmsel les progressive, that is , open. Benrard's r ieu is

summcc up in tu,o obitr 'r r/ icto: 'An cxPerimentalist neler otrt-

l ives hi , vork. I le is alr rar:s r t the levcl of pn>grrss," rnd " \ \ ' i th

theoric lrerc are no nror( scientit ic rct'oltt iont. Science grorrs

gradual l 1111 ste.rdi l r ' . " { l A<ld to th is the two (oncePts of ( l ( ter-

minism ,rd action - kno\1le(lge ol thc one being cssentirl l i)r itrc

ccss of t ,: other - an(l vou havc the lbur components ol a medical

ideolog that clearh' mirrored the progressivc idcologl'of mid-

ninetec'h-ccnturv Europcan industr ia l societv. In l ight of morc

recent r ncepts, such as Bachclard's ePistcmological break and

Kuhn's,ructure of sci(nt i l ic revolut ions, Bcrnarcl 's col tcpt o l '

theory r thout revolut ion has drarvn understanclab]e ant l lcgi t i -

mate cr cistn. ln Bcrnard's dar'. physicists sti l l IoLrnrl in Ne\r'ton

rncl Pi t : -Simon Laplace rcasons to bcl ieve in Pr inciples ol con-

sewat i r Ru<lolPh l t r l ius l immanucl l Clausius ha<l vet to at t ract

the attc' l6n 11f 2 1.119. part ol the scicnti l ic comntunitv to Carnot's

princip , of u'hich philosophers *erc a t 'ortiori c\ '( n less a\\ 'arc.

Nlichae :aradav's txpcriments, Andr6-Maric i\mpi'rc's larrs and

lames [ 1 l i Maxr,vel l 's calculat ions had vet to reveal c lcctr ical

current r a possible substitute lor coal as the nrotor of thc indus-

tr ia l m; r ine. In 18?2, the Gernran phvsiologist Emi le l )u Bois-

Rcvmo-r (of rvhom Bernard had on sevcral occasion\ exprcssecJ

a rathe" onteml) tur>rrs opinion) displaved sulTic icnt c,rnl idcnce

in Iapl ian determinisnr to pre(] ict rvhcn Englant l l loulr l burn

her last,iece ol ctr.rl ({/6cr dic (lrcnzen r/ci Norurcrlrnrtcnr ). Birt

in that me ye.lr, rhc Actr(l6mie des Scicnccs in P.rris. consulted

{br thc 'cond t i rne . rbout thc invent ion of an c lectr ic.r l r ' torkcr

named .:nobc Granune. finallv acknorvleclgecl that practice hacl

racecl a a<l of thcorl and autlrcnticatc(l .1 rcvolution in ttchnol-

ogy. In short , the concept ofa theorv rv i thout revolut ion, u.hich

Bcrnard took to be the solid basis of his methodology, \4,as pr:r-

haps no more than a s ign of internal l imi tat ions in his ou.n medi-

cal theor"-: e:,perinrental medicine, rctive and triumphant, rvhich

Bernard proposed as .r definit ive model of what medicine in an

industrial society ought to be. He contrasted his model rvith that

ol contemplative, rl,atchlir l mcdiciDe. a model appropriare to agri-

cultural societics in rvhich time was governed by q uasi-b iological

rather than industrial norms. The son ofa vine grorver lvho main-

tained a deep attachment to his nativc soil, Berrrard u,as never able

to apprcci.rte fullv that science requires nor only th.rr the scien-

tist abandon idcas invalidated bl facts but also that hc givc up a

personalizerl stl le ofrcscarch, rvhich rvas the hallmark of his ou,nuork. In sr:ience, it rras thc same as in agriculture, rvhere eco-nomic progress had uprooted manv from tht soil.

Paradoxicallv, the internal l imitations of Bcrnard's theorv ofr l iscarc (r t io logr an, l pathogenr ) r rere r lut r , , thr in i r i l l * , , . . " . . . . ,

of his research as Magendie's sLrccessor. For he had discovered

the inf' luence of thc svmpathetic nervous system on animal heat(1852); had generated, in the course ofresearch on glvcogcnesis,

a casc ofdiabetes by a lesion o{ the pneunrogastric neive at thelevel ol the fburth vcntricle (1849-5 t ); and had demonstrated the

selective action of curarc on the motor nerves. As a result, Bemard

concejved an idea rhat hc never repudiated. nanrcJ1,, rhat all mor-bid clisordcrs arc controlled by the nenous svstem,+2 th.rt diseases

are poisonings, and th,rt inf'ectiotrs virusers are agents of fermen-

tat ion that al t t r the internal environmenr in r , , .h ich cel ls l ive.al

Although rh(.sc propositions $ere larer adapte(l to quite different

experimcntal situations, none can be said to havc been directlyresponsib)e for a posi t i r c thcrapcut ic appl icar ion. What is more,

lJernard's srubborn vicrvs on the subiect o1'pathogenv prevente(l

him from seeing the practical implications of the .w,ork of ccr-

r4l

ta in contemporar ics whonr hc held in contempt bccause thcv

rvcre not physiologists. Convinced of the identity oI the normal

and the pathological, Bernard \! 'as never able to rake a sincere

interest in cellular pathologv or gernl patholog,i. Lldeolo11.v ond

Rdtionality, pp. 60-63]

The Stotisticol Point of View

Rend -Th lophi I e H yaci nthe La tn nec

[51] Considcr LaEnnec. Franqois Magendie mocked him as a mere

annorator of s igns. The in\ent ion of the stethoscope and i ts use

in auscultation as codified in thc De .l'auscu./ta tion mtdiote of 1819

led to the ecl ipsc of the symptom by the sign. A symptom is

somerhing prcsentfi l ol oflered by the paticnt; a sign, on the othcr

hancl, is somcthing sought and obtained u,ith the aid of meclical

instruments. The patient, as the bearer and often commentator on

s!mptorns, u 'as "p)aced in parentheses." A s ign could somet imes

reveal an i l lness be[bre a symptom led to its being suspected. ln

Section 86, I.adnnec gives the example of a pectoriloquv as the

sign of a svmptomless pulmonarv phthisis,4a This rv.rs the begin-

ning of the use of man-m.rde instrunrentl to detect alterationi.

accidents and anomalies, a practice that would grarlually expand

n ith the addition of ne*, testing and measuring equipment and

the claboration of subtle tcst protoco)s. Fronr the ancient steth-

oscopc to the most modern magnetic rcsonance imaging equip-

mcnt, f) 'om the X-ray to the computcrized tomographic scanner

and ul t rasound instnrment, the scient i l ic s ide of ntcdical prac-

ticc is most strikingly svmbolizcd by the shift f icrnr the medical

officc to the testing laboratory. At the same time, the scale on

rvhich pathological phenomen.r are rcpresented has l>een reduced

lrom the crrgan to the celi and from rht'ceil to tlrc nrolecuL:-

Thc task of the physician, lrowever, is to inrcrpret informatirrn

der ived fronr.r nrul t ip l ic i ty ofsourcL's. - [hough medicinc may set

aside the indiv idual i t l of the pat icnt , i ts go.r l remains the con-

quest of<l ise,rsc. Without diagnosis, prognosis and trcatnlcnt ,

there is no medicine. Here we finrl an object suitable for stu(ly

in tcrms o{ logical and epistcmological analysis of thc construc-

tion and testing of hvpotheses. We also find ourselves at the dau n

ol me<licri nr.rthenratics. f)occors u'ere just bt.ginning to become

arvarc of an epistemologic.rl l imitation alreadl recognizr:d irr cos

mology and phvsics: no ser ious predict ion i : possible rv i thout

quantif ication ofdata. But rvhat kind ofmeasurcment could there

be in mcdicint'? One possibil i tr $,as to m('a\urc variations in the

phlsiological lunctions. This uas thc purpose ol instruments such

as Jean [ 'o iseui l le 's hcmo<lynamometer ( 1828 ) and Kar l [ -u<lrr . ig 's

kvmograph. Anothcr possi[ri l i ty \1as to tabulate thc occurrence

ofcontagious diseases and chart thcir propagation; in the absence

ofconflrmed etiologies, thesc data could be correlated rvith orher

natural anr l social phenomena. l t rvas in th is seconcl lbrm th.r t

quant i f icat i ( )n f i rst establ ished a fbothold in mcdic ine. [ "Statut6pist6.mof ogique," Histoirc, pp. 19-20)

Philippe P;nel

[52] The stnl ist ical method ofcvaluat ing ct io logical d iagnoses

and therapr.utic choices bcgan rvith Pierre Louis's , lf imoirc on

phthis is (182 5), rvhich appeared lbur vears belbre the ptrbl icar i , rn

in London rrl Francis Bisset I larvkins's Elements ol ,l,ledical Statistrc:s

(r'hose outlook uas.rs social .rs it lvas medical), Those rvho cel-

ebrate rhe I i rst r rsc ofstat ist ics in mecl ic inc tcnd to lbrget [ ' inel ,

horvever. In 1802, in his .l l idacine clinique, hr u5(\l :taristical merh-

ocls to studr the relation betueen certain dircascs and changes

in thr : wcathcr. l l t : a lso introduced stat ist ical considcrat ions in

the revised edition ofhis ftaiti mid;co-philosophique sur I'aliination

mcntalc. Fdu in l leinz Ackurknt'cht savs that Pinel rvas "the veri-

t12

tablr' l .rther of the runrcrical mcthori." It mav ber of sonre intcr-

( .st to rccal l a l i t r lc-Lnor\n judgmcnt conccrning hint . I lenrv

I)Lrcrotnv de Blainvi l l<: said th is in his Hi .stoirc des t t rcnccs de

I'orylanisation ol 1815 :

A nr.rthcmatician. Pinel began bv applring mathcm.rti{ \ to .rnimal

mt-cJr;rnics: a phiLrsrphcr, he crrricd on u ith an in rlepth sturir ol '

n)entrl i l lness; a nituralist and observcr, h< made progrcss in appll-

ing the natural merhod to medicinr:r and torvard the enrl hc l.rpsecl

back into his carly precli lcctions bv cnrbracing thc chimerical icica

ol ,rpplving thc calcrrlus ol probabil it ics to nrcdicinc, or nrcdical sta-

t ist ics. rs i f t l re nLrtnbtr o l d iscascs roLr ld al l i 'c t tht in l in i tc vrr ia-

ri()ns oI tcm per.rlnc rr r, r l ict, Iocale and so on. rvhich inllrrtncc thcir

in<. idcnce and makc rhem so diverse l rom inr l iv idual to inr l iv idual .

This jutlgment is \r.orth rcmL'mbering l i)r the l ight it shcrls on the

srrrrnrv relat ions benvccn Blainvi l le and Auguste Cr lmte and on

rhc hosti l i ty of the prrsit ivist phikrsoqrhcrs to the calculus oI prob-

abil it ir:s. The Forticth Lesson of the (ours tle Philosophtc positive

states that mc(lical staristics are "absolute empiricism in fi ivolous

mathematical guist"'and that therc is no morr: irration;rl proce-

r l r r rc in therapv than to relv on " the i l lusor l thcorr o l 'ch.rnce."

()nc t in<ls the s.rnrc hrrst i l i ty in CIaude Bcrnard, dcspi te his skcp-

t i ( ism about Comte's phi losophv. [ "Statut i 'p ist6nrrr logi<1ue,"

Hiroirc, pp. 20-2ll

P i crrc -C ha rles- Al e r o ntl rc Lou is

1 5 3] I ouis uscd srat i . t ics in a di l lcr< nr spir i t l rom Pinel . l l i r nrain

go.rls \\cre to substitute a qu.tntitativc indcx firr the clinician's per-

sonJl judgment, to count thc numbel of rvcl l - t lef incd signs pres-

ent or atrscnt in thc t raminat ion ol a pat icnt nnd to coDparc the

rcsul ts of onc pe'r iod u i th t l rose obtaint r l bv othcr phvsic ians in

other per iods using the snme methods. Expcr ience in mcdic ine

is instruct i \e, hc insisted, only i f numcricai rccordr are main-

tained. But, othcrs argucd, tables and charts destroy memorv,

judgment and jntui t ion. That is rvhy Emile t - i t t r t and Charles

Robin, both positivists, declared thcir hosti l i ty to "numcrics" in

the articlc thev publishe(l undcr that rubric in the thirteenth edi.

tion of their Dictionnaire de mdtlecine, chiuryie et phornacie (1873).

In their vieu', calculations could never replacc "anatomical and

phvsiological krou'lcdgc, . 'r 'hich alone rrakes it possible to weigh

the value of rvmptonrs," Furthernrore, the ef lect cr I using the

numerical method is that "patients are obserued in a sense pas-

sively," As wirh the case of Laennec, this rvas a method that set

aside the dist inct ive fearures of the pat ient seeking indiv idual

at tcnt ion lor h is or her p.r thological s i ruat ion.

It u'ould be more than a ccntury before "the i l lusorv theory

ofchance," as Comte called it, u'ould be fullv incorporated into

di . rgnosis and therapy through methods elaborared to minimizc

errors ol juclgment and r isks of t re.r t rnent, inclu<l ing thc com-

puterized processing of biomedical and clinical dat.r. One recent

consecluencc of this technological and epistcmological evolution

has been the constructiol of "expert svstems" capable of apply-

ing various rules ol infert:nce to data gleaned f}om examination

and then rccommending possible cour5cs of treatment. [,,Statutepistemologique," H istoirc, pp. 2l-221

A Medical Revolut ion

Bocteriology

[5.1] The discoverjes of Louis Pasteur, Hcnnrnn Robert Koch and

their students quickly led to a profbund epistcmological revolu-

tion in medicine, so that, strangelv enough, thcse researchers had

a grcater impact on clinical medicine than did contemporan clin-

ical pract i t ioners, Pasteur, a chemist wi thout medic;rJ t ra in ing,

inaugurated a new cra in mc<l ic ine, I le f ieed medical pract icc

liom its traditional anthropocentrism: his approach had as much

to do rvith silkrvorms, sheep and chicken as with human patients.

Pnstcur discover!'( l an etiologv unru,lated to organ functions. By

revealing the rolc ofbactcria and viruses in disease, h<r changc<l

not onlv the lbcus of medicine but thc locat ion ol i ts pract ice.

Traditionally, patients had been care<l lbr at home or in hospitals,

but raccinations could now be administered in dispcnsaries, bar-

racks and schoolhouses. 1he object of mcdic ine rvas no longer

so much disease as hcalth. This gave ne\r, impetus to a medical

discipline that had cnjoyed prominencc in England and France

siDce the cnd of the eighteenth ccntur\ ' - publ ic healrh or hy-

giene. Through publ ic hcal th, rvhich.rcquired inst i tur ional status

i t r Europe in thc f inal th i rd ol thc nineteenth centun, epidcmi-

dogy took medicinc into the realm of the social sciences and eco-

t44 t45

nomics. l t bccanre impossible to look upon mcdicine solelv as

a science of org.rnic anomal ies or changcs. ' I 'hc ef lects of the

pat ient 's so( ia l ind economic s i tuat ion on thc condi t ions of h is

or her l i f i 'nrxv Dunrbcrc(l among the l.rctors that the phrsici.rn

hacl to take into dccount. l 'he pol i t ical prc iJures stenrming from

public hcalth concerns graduallv resulted in changes in nr< <licine's

objectives and practices. The accenr \aas shifted from health to

prcvent ion to protcct ion. ' fhe semart ic shi f t points to a change

in thc mcdical act i tsel f . Whcrc mct l ic ine had once respondc<l

to an appeal , i t vras nolv obedirnt to I r lemand. Healrh is the

cnp<rcitv ro resist diseasc; yet thos( uho enjor goc,d hc.rlth arr:

nevertheless c<rns<ious of the possibi l i ty of i l lncss. Prorect icrn is

the negat ion ol <l isease, an insistence on ncvcr having to th ink

about it. In rcsp()nse to polit ical pressurcs, medicine has had to

takc on the appearancc of a biological technologv. Hcrt , fbr a

third t ime, the indiv idual pat icnt , \ \ho seeks the at tcnt i ( )n ofa

cl in ic ian, bas l>t ,en set asidc, Brr t perhrps inrJ iv ic lual i rv is st i l l rec-

ognizcd in tbe notion ol resist.rnce, in the f)ct th.rr sonre organ-

isms are mort'sus(:(.ptiblc than othets to, sav, the cholera bacil lus.

Is thc conccpr of resistance artif icirl, serving to cover a gap in

thc gcrm theorr 's determinism? Or is i t a hint of some more i l lu-

minating conccpt yct to conrc, fbr u hich microbiologv has paved

the u,ay/

i f rncr l ic i r r< has at ta ined rhe st . r rus ofn scicn(( , i t d i<l so in

thc era ol b.rcrer io logv. A pract ict is scient i l lc i f i r provi<les a

modcl f irr the solution of problems and if that moclel gives rise

to ell ictive tht.rapics. Such u'as the case rvith thc dcvelopment

of scrums and r ' . rccincs. A sccond cr i ter ion ofscicnt i f ic i tv is the

abi l i tv of onr thcorv to give r ise to . rnother capable ol explain-

ing $.hv i ts prcrJeccss,rr possessed onlr l inr i tcd val id i tv. [ "St . r tut

epist6mologiq uc," Histoire, pp. ) ) - )11

r.+6

The German School

f55] Yet i t was an extensior ol microscopic techDiqucs fbr the

studv r) l cel l preparat ions and thc use ol-svnthct ic ani l ine stains

lmanul ictured in Germany al ier 1870) that led, l i r r the f i rst t ime

in rhe history of medicine, to a therapeut ic techni( lue that ua\

lroth effcctive and unrelaterl to anv medical theorv: chcmother-

apv, invented by I 'aul Ehr l ich (185.1-1915). From Wilhelm von

Waldevcr in Strasbourg, Ehrlich had lcarnecl hou'to usc stains to

cxamine normal and pathological t issue, and at Breslau he ha<l

at tendt 'd lecturcs on pathological anatomv given br Jul ius Cohn-

heim ( t83t)-188-1), a student of I {udolph Lur l rv ig [ rar l \ i i [chorr ' ,

rvh,r *ould later shorv that inflammation wrs caused bv tht pas-

sage of lcucocvtes through the capi l lary rval l . Virchou's ic leas

rcached Ehrlich through Julius Cohnhcim. Neverthelcss, if cellu-

l . r r pathologv plaved an indirect part in thc invcnt ion ofchcmo-

thcrapv, the rolc of bacteriologv and the discovi rl of immunitv

\\a\ mr)re direct. Thc prob)en that Ehrlich sratrd anrl solved can

be for-mulatecl as fo l lorvs: lhrough rvhar chernical compoun(ls

u i th speci f ic af l in i tv lbr cert . r in infect ious agcnts or cel ls coulr l

one act dircctlv on the causc rather than on thc st nrptoms of <lis-

casc, in imitat ion of the ant i toxins prescnt in var ious serunrs?

This is not the placc to delr.e into thc circumstamccs surround-

ing thc discovcrr o l immunitr or to revive a disprr te over pr ior-

in', an exercisc uscfi.rl ldr rerninding us th.rt the constitution o1

scit nrif ic knorvledgc d()cs not necessaril,v r. 'r luire rh( simultarre-

ous er is ience of a l l u.ho cl . r im to bc i ts authors.r5 l t is of l i t t le

importancc that tht 'Ber l in School preccdcd the Par is School by

scverrl months, or that I lcrnrann Robert Koch's pupil Emil Adolf

von Behring conclu(le(l l>elore I 'asteur's pupil Pierre Paul Emile

Roux that diphther ia cannor be treatcd \ \ ' i rh a \accine but c in

<tnlv bc prcvcntcd bv in ject ion oIsenrm tnkrn l rom a convales

cent pnt ient - providcd onr.has a convalesccnt l lat ient , that is , a

sun,ivor ol the disease. Roux was ablc to prepare the toxin in vifro.

Von Bchring managed to attenu.rte its virulence with trichloride

ofiodine. Roux rvas more successful than von Behring in increas-

ing the act iv i t ) of thc serum.

Nevertheless, Ehrlich, rvhom Koch put in contact n,ith von

Behring, dreamed that chemistrv could one day endorv man with

ponrers f . r r bcvoncl those of n.r turc.{{ 'He hi t upon the idea of

looking for sub!tances rvith specific afl init ies fbr certain parasites

and their toxins on the model ofstains with electivc histological

afTinit ies. For rvhat is a stain but a vector aimerl at a particular

lbrmation in a healthy or infccte-<l organism? Whcn a chemical

cnnrpound dircctc(l at a particular cell penetrates that ccll, rvbat

happens is analogous to the $' , in $,hich a kev fits into a lock.

Ehrlich's first success came in 190,1, u,hen in collaboration r.r ' i th

Kiyoshi Shiga he discovered that Trvpan red destroys the trypan-

osome that causes slccping sicLness. Later came the discoverv

in 1910 ofSalvarsan, or "606." and Nt 'o-Salvarsan, uhich proved

less ef fecr ive in combatt ing svphi l is than *r . rs [ re l ieved at f i rst .

But Ehrlich's real success lay not so much in thc products that

he ident i f ied himsel l as in those that u,ould ul t imately be dis-

covered in pursuit ofhis fundamental hypothesis: that the affini-

t ics of chemic.r l stains could bc used as a svstemnt ic technique

for dcveloping artif icial anrigcns. Using the same method, in l9]5

Gerhardt Domag discovered prontosil red, the first ofa glorious

ser ies of sul famides. I ts decl in ing ef f icacy led to the greatest

of triumphs to this dav, the chemical synthcsis of penicil l in bv

Horvard Walter Florev and Ernst Chain. fhis is not to say rhar

therapeut ics s ince the discovery oI chemotherapy has been rc-

duced to the automat ic and inf lexiblc appl icat ion of chemic:r l

ant i toxins or ant ib iot ics, as i f i t rvere enough to administer a

remcdv and lct it do its rvork. Gradually, phvsicians learned thar

infect ious agents develop resistance to the drugs used againsr

146 | 4<)

them, and that organisms sometimes defend thcmseJves, p.rr.rrlox-

ic.r l lv enough, against their chemic.r l guardians. Hence i t rvas

necessarv to develop combined treatment regimcns.aT [3ut such

flexibil i tv, tvpical of modern therapies, was made possible onlv

bv the rat ional ist s impl i f icat ion inherent in Ehr l ich 's program:

since cel ls choose betrvcen stains, let us i r rvent stains that wi l l

in la l l ib lv choose p.rr t icular cel ls.

But $hat does i t mean to invent a stain? I t means ro change

the posi t ions of thc atoms in a molecule, to al ter i ts chcmical

structurc in such a rvav that its color can be read out, as it $,ere,

from its fbrmula. Ehrlich's project rvas not simplv impossil>le; it

u,as inconceivable in thc t imc of Magendie. l t rvas nor unr i l 1856

that Wi l l iam Perkin, Sr. , obtaincd a nrauve dye from .rni l ine as

the outcome of research directed tor" ,ard an cnt i re ly di f ferent

goal . I t *as not unt i l 1865 that F.A. K6ku16 publ ished his paper

"The Composition ol Aromatic Comporrnrls." Alter confirming

that the cartron atom is tetrar'; lcnt, Kekul! determined thc stntc-

ture ol benrene and {.rve the name "aromatic" to its (leiivatives

to distinguish them ficrm compounds involving thc fittv acids,

rvhich, along rvith the alcohols, rvere thc primarv fbcus ofchcmi-

cal intt 'rest in the days of Magenclie and Bernard.

l 'he theoretical creation of new chemical substanccs \\ 'as con-

limrcd on a vast scale bl the chemical industry. Alizarin. thc prin-

cipal component of nr.r<Jder, rvhich Perkin in England and Karl

lames Peter Graebc and Edme Caro in Cermanl separately and

simultaneouslv svnthcsized in 1858, uas rv i th in ten years ' t imc

being prodrrced at thc rate ol'9,500 tons annuall,v. Finally in lt)04,

ani l ine, thc most ( ' laborate of the dve compounds, bestou'cd i ts

prestiAious name on tlre German flrms Baclische Anil in und Soda

Fahrik 1BA5l l rnd Ani l in Konzern.

Thus. trvo of thc preconditions necessary lor the devclopment

of chemotherapv as a repJacement lbr rhe thcrapies associ . r ted

\\ ' i th thc old medical thcorics \\ 'ere a new symbolic represcnta-

tion firr chemical substanccs and a ne$ technologv fo producing

org.rnic compounds, u,hich supplantecl the old extractive proccs-

ses. These \\ 'ere cvcnt! rvith fixcd, ascertainable dates; their place

in historv coulci not lravc been cleclucecl in advance. Hencc, chc-

mothcrapv could not havc cxistcd rvithout a certain level of sci-

cnti l lc and industrial society. Betu'een Eduard Jcnncr and Ehrlich

came the indispcnsablc discoverv ofani l ine, n,hich no onc could

havc lbreseen at the beginning of the ccnturv. In his studr of the

"rat ional ism ofcolor," Gaston Bachelard rvrotc, " thc chcmist

th inks of color in terms of the verv blucpr int that guides his cre-

at ion. Therein l ics a communicatr le, object ive real i ty and a mar-

ketable social rca] i tv. Anvone nho manuf)ctures ani l ine knows

thc rcalitv and thr.: rationalitv ofcolor."a8 l ldeolollv and Rational-

i t r ' , pp.65-681

The French School

[56] In consider ing the precursors of the immunizat ion tcch-

niqucs pcrfcctcd at thc cn(l of drc nineteenth centurv, I shall look

.rt the u.ork of Pasteur rather than at that oI Koch, partly becausc

it cam<'first chronologically and partly because I'asteur's uork u.as

of morc gcncral import, fbr "it not onlv modified the relationship

betrvccn biologv.rnd chemistrv but changcrl thc rcpresentation

ol the uor ld of l iv ing th ings general ly, the relat ions betrvr :cn

bcings, and the lunctions ascribed to chemical rcactions."4'l

Frang.ois Dagognet argues, contrary to a u'idclv hcld vicrv, that

it \r 'as n()t trccausc of tcchnical problcms raisc<l b,r industrialists,

artisans and aninral breeders ("malaclies" ol beer, * ine, silklvorms

and sheep) that Pastcur took so Iong to dcvclop " l 'asteur ism."

Rathcr, Pasteur cncountcrcd technical problems trecause, I iom

his flrst encounter vvith theoretical chemistrv, he sau.thc <rxper-

imental mrxlif ication of natural pnrducts as a theoretical tool for

analvzing rcalitv. for him, thc laboraton n'as.r place fbr renorking

subst.rnces given bv nature or art and a placc for f iccing dormant

or blocked causal mcchanisms - in short, a place fbr revealing real

itv. Hcnce, laboratorv rvork *.as dircctlv aflcctcrl bv what rv.rs

going on in thc uorld of tcchnologv.'I-hc rcvolution in mcdical thinking bcgan rvith the develop-

mcnt of t\\ 'o methods fbr studying the properties ol crystals: ster-

comctry and polarimetrv. l) issatisflcd rvith Eibhard Mitscherlich's

cxplanations ofthe elfect of polarizcrl l ight on tartrates and para-

tartrates, Pasteur discovered the cli l l 'erent orientatiolt of the hc-

ets of paratartraie crvstals. Aftcr isolating thc nno clifferent kinds

ol crvstals, hc obscrvc<l that a solut ion made rv i th one kincl o1

cr lstal rotatcd polar ized l ight to the r ight , rvhereas a solut ion

matlc n ith the other rotatccl it to thc lcfi. Whcn the r\\ 'o cr!s-

ta ls were combined in solut ion in cqual parts, the opt ic.r l ef ' lect

ruas null if ierd. When a solution ol'calcium paratartratc was fcr-

mentcd bv thc eflcct ofa mold, Pasteur noted that onlv the right-

polarizing lbrm of thc crystal was altcrcd, I Ic thcrefbre inferred a

connection betrveen the propertics of microorganisms and molec-

ular asvmmctrics, Dagognet has sholvn horv microbiologv began

u ith this ingenious reversal of a result in bioclrr:mistrv. A micro-

scopic org.rnism, a rnold or a ycast, \\ 'As sho*n to bc capable of

dist inguishing betrvccn opt ical isomers. Pasteur ism converted

chcmical scparation by bacteria into bactcriological isolation bv

clremical isomcrs.50 Thus conllrmed in lris br:l ief th.rt thcre is..r

structural contrast between thc asvmmctrical l iving organism and

the mineral , and hence just i f icd in reject ing anv explanar ion

receptivc to the notion ofspontaneous gencration, Pastcur l inked

gcrm, fermcntat ion ancl d iscase in a uni f ied thcoret ical f rame-

rvork. Since my purpose here is simplv to reflect on mattcrs of

historv and epistemologv, there is no neecl to recal l thc srrbsc-

cluent progrcss, doubts, rctrcats or cvcn tcmporary err()rs that

,$

I5()

Pasteur nradc in elaborating this theorv. l lLleolollr antl Ratlonal-

r r r ' , pp. 68-70]

An Applied Science

[57] Bacter io logv providcd proof of i ts rn i l i tant scient i [ ic i ty by

giv ing r ise to thc science of imrnunoloqv, nhich not onlv ex-

tcndccl ancl refined Pastcurian medical practices but dcvcloped

into an autonomous biological science. lnrmunologv replaced the

Pasteurian rclation of virus to vaccinatc(l organism lvith the more

gencral relation ofantigen to antibody. The antigen is a generali-

zation ol the aggrcssor microbe. The histc,ry of immunology has

becn a search fbr the true meaning of the prcfix antr'-. Semanti-

cal l r . i t mcans "against ," but doesn' t i t a lso mean "before"?

l 'erhaps there is a rc lat ion, as of kev and locL, t retween these

t\x) DrenDiDgs.

;\s irnllrr:nologv became awarc ol its scir:ntif ic vocation, it con-

f i rnred i ts rc icnt i f ic st . . r tus thr . rugh i ts . rb i l i t ) to nrake unant jc-

ipated discorcr ies and to incorpor.r te neu concepts, one very

striking example bcing Karl I-andsteiner's discoverv in 1907 of the

human blood tvpcs. Consistency of rese.rrch fin<lings is another

criterion of scienti l lc status. Immunological f inclings rvere so con-

sistcnt, in fact, that immunologv's object ol research came to be

knorvn as the "immune s'stem," where the rvord "system" con-

notes a coherent structure ol positive and negative responses at

the cellular and molecular level. The immrrne system concept \4as

more eff-ectivc at "prescrving appearances" than the earlier con-

ctpt of" terrain," In a svstemic structure, cvcl ical ef l 'ects can

appear to impede a causality construed to bc l jnt'ar. 'fhe immune

s\stenr. morcover, has the remarkable propertv lnot*n as idiotvpy:

an antibodv is specil ic ncrt onll to a p.rrt icular antigcn but also

to a part icular indiv idual . The id iotype is thc capaci tv ol thc

immune system to encode an orq.rnic indiv i ( lual i ty.

I lowever tempting, it would be a nristake to vierv this phe-

nomenon as bctokening a rediscoverv of the concrctc individual

paticnt set aside by the ven medical scierrce rr hose progress even-

tual ly revealed thc cxistence ol the id iotvpe, AJthough immune

identity is sometimes porrravcd, through abuse of ternrinology,

as involv ing an opposi t ion of"sel l " and "nonsel f , " i t is a str ict lv

objcctive phenomenon. N4cdicine nlay sometimes appear to be

thc application ofbiological l inon l..dge to concrete individuals,

but that appearance is deceiving. The time has norv come to con-

sider thc epistemological status ol medicine as such, leaving his-

torical matters aside. Given u,hat u,e know about immunologv,

genetics and molecular biology, or, looking backrvard in time,

about X-rays and cellular staining techniqucs, in nhat sense can

we sav that medicinc is an appl ied science or an evolv ing synthe-

sis ofappl ied sciencr:s? [ . . . ]

It is appropriate to describe medicine as an "cvolving synthesis

ol'applied sciences," insolir as thc rt 'alization of its goals requires

the use oI scient i f ic <l iscover ies har ing nothing to do with i rs

intr insic purposes. [ . . . ] ln using the term "appl ied sciencc," thc

accent, I th ink, should fa l l on "scicnce." In saying this, Id isa-

gree u'ith those rvho see the application of knowlcdge as involv-

ing a loss of theoretical dignitl ' , .rs rvell as those who think they

are deftnding thc uniqueness of medicine bv call ing it a "hcal-

ing art." The medical application of scientif lc knowledge, con-

verttd into remedies (that is, into ntcans ofrestoring a clisturbed

organic equi l ibr ium), is in no sense infcr ior in epistemological

clignity to the disciplines from rvhich that knou'leclge is borrowed.

The application ofkno*'ledge is also an authentic form of exper-

inrentation, a crit ical scarch for eflectivc thcrapies based on im-

ported understanrJings. Medicine is the science ol the l imi ts of

the porvers that the other sciences < iaim to conf'er upc.,n it. i . . . ]If the progress ofa science tan be measured bv the dcgrcc to

fltt2

rt l

which its bcginnings are forgotten, then it is worth noting that

u'hcn doctors today need to do a blood transfusion, they verilv thc

blood-tvpr: corrpat ib i l i tv ofdonor and recipient rv i thout Inorv-

ing thar the tests th('t arc ordcring are the product ol a historl '

that can be traced back through immunologv and bacteriologv

to Ladv i\ lontagu and Edrvard Jenner, incleed to a typc of medi-

cal practice that doctrinaire phvsicians oncc considered hereti-

cal, That practice started medicinc dou n a road that brought it

into contact wi th a part icular branch of mathcmat ics, rhe math-

emat ics ol unccrtaiDty. CalcLt lared uncertainty, i t turned out, is

not incomp.rtible n ith ctiologic.rl hypcrtheses an<l r.rrion.rl diag-

nosis bast'd on data gathered rvith rhc aid ofsuitable insrrumcnts,

What cxl)(.rt is qualif ied to decidc thc epistemologicrl status

of meclicine? Philosophers cannot bestorv upon themselves thc

porvcr to judge nonphi losophical d iscipl ines. ' l 'hc tcrm "episte-

mologv" rclers to the legacv, not to snl the relics, of thc branch of

philosophv traditionalh knorvn as "rheorv of kno* lcrJgc." Because

thc relat ion,r f knor, ' ledge ro i rs objects has bccn progressively

reue..r led by scicnr i f lc methods, cpistcmologv has broken with

phi losophic.r l Jssumptions to give i tscl fa neu.del ln i t ion. Rathcr

than dcduce critcria of scientif icity f iom o prion categories of

understanding. as was done in thc past. it has choscn to take those

criteria Irom thc historv of triumpharrt rationality. Whv shotrldn't

mcdic ine thr ' rcf i r rc be borh. judgc;rnd partv in the cascj Whv

should i t fccl thc need fbr a consecrat ion ol i ts status u i th in thc

scicnt i f ic cornmunitv? Might i t l re that mcr l ic inc has preserved

from i ts or ig ins a scnse of the uni<lueness of i ts purpose, so that

it is a mattcr of some interest to detcrmine rvhether that sense is

a tenuous sun ivnl or an essential vocation? To put it in somervhat

different ternrs, arc rvhat used to I)e d.fr ofdiagnosis, dr'cision

and treatment abotrt to bccorne ro,/cr rncilhr.y t.) somc c!)nrput-

cr ized nredical program? I f medir ine cannot s l r i rk the duty to

assist individual human beings uhose livcs are in dangcr, cven il '

that means r iolating thc requiremrnts of the rational, crit ic;l pur-

sui t ofknorvlcgr: , can i t c la im to l . le cal led a science?

A c l t 'ver an<i Iearncd histr t t i . rn of mcdic ine, K.rr l Rothschuh,

has exanrinc<l this issue in tcrnrs l)orrow(l f iom Thorn.rs Kuhn's

historical epistemologv. In 197?. he askcd *hether Kuhn's con-

ccpts of "normal scicncc," "paradigm" and "scient i f ic group"

could be applied to conceptual advances in clinical mcrlicine; he

concluded that Kuhn's lramerrc'rl i , rvhile uselul fbr rrnrl<'rstand-

ing medicine's incorporat ion of ar l rances in thc basic sciences

since the ear ly ninetcenth centurv, i l inadequate to.rc<.<rrrnt lor

the clif l icult ies encountcrcd bl clinical medicine, due to thc com-

plcxitv and variabil itv of its object. He concludecl his papcr * ith

a quotation from Lcibniz: "l rvish that medical kno* ledge rere

as ccrtain as medical problems arc r l i f l icul t . " In thc course ofhis

analvsis, Rothschuh reports that Kuhn oncc character izcd mccl i '

c ine as a "plotosciencc," ruhereas hc, RothschLrh, prc l i rs to cal l

it arr rrperaticrnal 5cicnce (i?.r.-lr iond!e l l i tsenschaIt\. ' fhese tuo

appellations are worth pausing ovcr. "[)rotoscicncc" is ingenious

bccausc it is ambiguous. Proto- is polvscnric: it suggcsrr "prior"

as rrel l as "rudimentarv," but i t mav also rcfcr to hierarchical

prioritv. "Protoscicnce" is a term that might u.cll be applicd tcr

an car l ier pel iod in the histor l o l nrcr l ic ine, but i t scenrs some-

hor l i ronic to use i t \1hen somc physic iars bcl ieve that the t inre

has corne to al lorv computcrs to guide trcatment s ' l r i lc cr thers

arguc th.rr pa(ients ought to be allorved to consult thc machincs

direct lv. )ct "opcrat ional science" sccms no morc appropr iatc

a tcrm than "appl ied science," uhich some ninetrcnt h-cen tu ry

phvsicians themselves applied ro their discipline as thc! began to

treat pat ients on the basis ol their unt lerstanding ol phvsical and

chtnr ical m<chanirmr txplc ' r t t l t rv phvsiolrrgists. For c rnrpl t ' , the

rvork ol Car lo Matcucci , Errr i lc Du Bois-Rcvmon<l and Herrrrann

'

.':

frlN

tt1rt t

trvon Helmholtz on animal electr ic i ty led Gui l laume-Benjamin

Duchennc de Boulogne to discover new w-avs of treating muscu-

lar diseascs. l l is major works, published bet$'een 1855 and 1867,

bear tit lcs incorporating the u'ord "application."

An instructivc example is electrotherapy. It suggests that medi-

cine was impelled to become an applied science by the need to

discover morc ef'fective treatments, as if in obedience to its orig-

inal imperativc. Later, ofcourse, the "science ofelectricity" led

to the devclopment not of therapeutic but of diagnostic devices

such as the electrocardiograph (invented by Willcm Einthoven

in 1903), the electroencephalograph (Johanncs Berger, 192'l) and

cndoscopy. By treating the patient as an abstract object ofther-

apy, it rvas possible to transform medicine into an applied science,

with the accent now on science. Like any science, medicinc had

to evolve through a stage ofprovisionally climinating its concrete

ini t ia l object .

Earlier, I called medicine an "evolving synthesis of applied sci-

cnccs." Norv that I have discussed the scnse in rvhich medicine

is an applied science, I have only to justi ly the choice of the words

"evolving" and "synthesis." Surely the reader wil l grant that any

science, w'hether pure or applied, validates its epistemological sta-

tus bv developing new methods and achieving new results. A sci-

ence evolves because of its interest in new methods fbr dealing

with its problems. For example, the existence ofchemical neuro-

transmitters u'as acknowledgcd (not without reservations, par-

ticularly in France) u'hen the work of Sir Flenry Dalc and Otto

Loewi fi l led in blanks in the results obtained bv electrical meth-

ods a centurv carlier.

So much for "cvolving" - but what about "synthesis?" A syn-

thesis is not a mere addition; it is an operational unity. Physics

and chemistry are not syntheses, but medicine ir, insofar as its

object, whose interrogativc prcsence is suspended by methodolog-

ical choice, nevertheless rcmains present. ' fhat object has a human

form, that ofa l iving individual rvho is neither the author nor the

master of his own life and who must, in order to l ive, sometimes

rcly on a mediator. I lorvever complex or artif icial contcmporary

mslicine's mediation may be - rvhether technical, scientif ic, eco-

nomic or social - and however long the dialogue betteen doc-

tor and patient is suspcnded, the resolve to provide effective

treatment, which lcgitimates medical practice, is based on a par-

ricular modalitv of l i fe, namely, human individualitv. In the phy-

sician's epistemological subconscious, medicine is truly a synthcsis

because, to an evcr-increasing degree, it applies science to the

task of preserving the fragile unity of the l iving human individ-

ual. When the epistemological status of mcdicine becomes a mat-

ter of conscious qucst ioning, the search fbr an answer c lcar ly

raises questions that fall outside the purvie$' of medical epistc-

nrof r:rgv. ["Statut 6pist6mologique," Histoire, pp. 2 ] -291

titl

156 tt7

-T

P,cRt THnrr,

History

Cs rpt t ,n SrvrN

Cel l Theory

Theories Never Proceed front Facts

[5S] Is biologv . r theoret ical or . rn e\per imcntal scienccl 'Ccl l

thcorl is an irlcal tcst case. \{i: can see light u.avcs onlv rt ith rca-

son's eves, but u-c appear to vierv thc cells in a plant section \4 it lr

thc sanre eves \ve usc t() look at evt'ry<lat objects. ls ccll rheorv

.rnvthing nlorc th.rn .r set of observational protocols? With th< aid

, ' l , r nr icr , 'scoPr ' . \ r { c. tn \ r e that m.rcr"r , ' , I ic or ! :nt) i \Dts r , 'n\ i . t

ol cells, just as \rc can see rvith thc naked eve that the sanre organ-

isms.rre eicmcnts of thc biosphere. Yct thc microscopc cxtcnds

the po\\ers ofintell ig<,nce more than it does the polters crf sight.

Furthernrolc, the f i r ! t l l renr isc of cel l theorv is not th.rr l iv ing

things arr compostd of cel ls but thr t o, / .1 l iv ing th ings consist of

totfi ind bul ce]ls; everv ccll, morcovcri is assumed to col't)e lrom

a prccxist ing cel l , Such an assert ion c i lnnot be provcn with a

micr()scopc. At bcst , the microscope ( in serve as a tool in the

task ol r t r i l icat ion. Bur rvhere did the i< lca t r f the cel l conrc t ;om

in thc l i rst p lace?l

Robert Hookc is gcner.rl lv given to() nruch crc(l it fbr the fbr-

mulation ofcell theorv. Truc, he *.as the l lrst to discover the ccll,

somc.rvhat bv accidcnt, rs hc pur._uecl a cur iosi tv arvakcned bv

microscoPr 's car l iesr Icr<l . r t ions. Al ier rnakirrg a th in s l ic . ' in.r

t() t

piecc oIcork, I k-,<-,ke observecl its compartmentalized structure.]

He .rlso coined the nord "cell" n hile under the spell ofan imager

the section of cork remindecl him of a honeycomb, the rvork of

. rn.rninral , l rh ich then further reminded him of a u 'ork of man,

thc honevcomb being l ike a building macle up of manv ce.//s, or

lmall rooms. But Hooke's discoverv led norvhere: it failed to open

up a new avenue of research. The lvord disappeared, only to be

rcdiscovcrcd a ccntrrrv latcr.

The discovcrv of thc ccll concept and the coining of the vvord

nre \\ 'orth drvell ing on lbr a moment. As a biological conccpt, the

cell is surclv ort 'rdctcrminc<l to a considcrable dcgree. The psy-

choanalrsis ol knorvledge has been sufficiently successful in the

past rhnt i t no\ l const i tutes a dist inct genre, to $ hich addi t ional

contri l>utir>ns mar bc ,rrlr led as thcy arisc, cvcn u'ithout system-

rtic intention. Biologv cJasscs have fimil iarizcd all ofus u'ith rvhat

is norr a lairl,, st.rnd.rrd inr.rge of the cell: schematically, epithe-

Iial t issue n'scnrblcs i honc)'conrb,j Thc w-ord "cell" calls to mind

not thc prisoner ()r thc monk but the bce. Ernst Heinrich Haeckel

pointcd out that cells ofrvax fi l led with honey are in t 'r 'err, rvav

analog<rus t<.r ccl ls of p lants f i l led ui th sap.a I do not th ink that

this analogv explainr the appcal of the notion ofthe cell. Yet rrho

can s.rv u herher or not the human mind, in consciously borrou-

ing lrom the bechive this term lbr a part ofan organism, did nor

uncon5ciou!lv borrorv as uell the notion ofthe cooperative labor

th.r t produces the honevcomb? Just as thc alvcola is part of a

structure, becs arc, in Maeterlinck's phrase, inclividuals wholly

absorbcd bv the republic. In lact, the cell is both an anatomical

and a functional notion, refarring both to a fundamcntal build-

ing block and to an individual labor subsumed by, and contribut-

ing to. a larger process. What is certain is that affective and social

valuts of cooperation and association lurk more or less discreetly

in thc background o[ the developing cel l thcorv.

162 r6l

A feu' vears af ter l looke, in 1571, Marcel lo lUalpi{hi and

Nehi:rniah Greu' s imultaneouslv but indepcn<lcnt lv PUbl ishcd

their *,ork on the microscoPic anatomv of plants. Althcrugh thev

clid not mention l looke, u'hat thcy discovered was thc sanre thing

Irc had discovered, even if the rvord las dif lbrent. Both nrcn found

that l iv ing th ings contain rvhat we norv cal l cel ls ' but nei ther

claimed that I iv ing th ings are nothing but cel ls. According to

l\ larc Klcin, moreovcr, Greu'subscribecl to the thcor,v that cells

arc preceded by and groru out ofa so-called rital l luid. l-he his-

torv of this biological theorv is u'orth exploring in greatt 'r detail

lbr u hat it can teach us about scientif lc reasoning in gcncral.

As long as people havc been interestcd in biological nrlrrphol-

ogv, thcir th inking has been dominated bv t \ r r ) contrndictor l

inrnges - continuity Ycrsus discontinuitv. Some rhinkcrs inragine

l iv inn th ings grou, ing out ofa pr imarv substance thar is cont inu-

ous and pl . rst ic; others th ink r i l organisms as composi tes ol d is '

( rctf pnrts, of 'brganic atoms" rtr "seeds r., l l i lc." Continuit\ ' \ '( ' l sus

<l iscont inui tv, cont inuunt versus P.r l t ic lc: rhe nr ind imposes i ts

1, , .61 1n I ' i , r logr ju\ t . r \ i t ( loe\ i r r nI t i r ' .

Thc tcrm "protoplasm" now rcfirs to n constituenr ofthc c< l l

c , rnsidered as an atomic element of a conrposi te organism. ()r ig-

inally, horvever, thc rvord ref'erred to the vital f luid out ol n' hich

aJl l i f i ' presumablv arosc. l-he botanist I lug<r von l\ lohl, <rne of

thc f i rst to observc the bir th of neu cel ls bv di f is ion ol exist ing

ones, proposed the tenn in l8,l l : in his mind, it rcferred to a fluid

Prcsent pr ior to the emergencc of anl sol id ccl ls. In 1315, l -c l ix

I)ujardin had suggcstcd thc term "sarcode" fbr the ,iamc thing,

namelv, a l iv ing je l ly capable of subsequcnt organizar ion. Even

Thcodor Schrvann, the man regarded as the fbunder of cell the-

orr', rvas inlluenced bv both imagcs: he belieled that a structure-

less substancc ( the cvtoblasteme)gives r isc to thc nuclei . r round

uhich cel ls fbrm. In t issues, cel ls Ibrm u'herevcr thc nutr ient

l iquid penctri ltes. This theoretical ambivalcnce on thc prrt of thc

authors 1r 'ho <l id most to esrabl ish cel l rhcorv led Marc KIt ' in t<r

make.r remark that has considerable bc.rring on uhat I rvirh to

argue hcrc: "What rve fincl, then, is thar a small numbcr of basic

idcas rt 'cur insistentlv in the rvork of authors concerncd rvith a

rvidc varir 'tv ofobjects fronr a number of dif-terent points of vit ' \1.'fhe,- cerr.rinly did not t.rkc thesc idt'.rs l iorn one.rnorher. These

f i rndarnental hvpothescs appcar to rcprescnt pcrsistcnr moclcs

impl ic i t in thc naturc ol scient i f ic explanat ion." tanslat ing th is

cpistcmological otrscrvation into philosophical terms, it f 'ol lou's

that t lr.orics netcr procecd Jront fo.tr, a finding that confl icrs rvith

the ernpir ic ist point of l ien rhat scienr i i rs of icn adopt uncr i r i -

callv when thev trr to philosophizc about thcir cxpcrimenr.rl f ind-

ings. Theories arise onlv out of carlicr thcorics, in somc cascs vcrv

nld oncs. l 'he ficts are merelv the path - ancl it is rarell a strnighr

path - br rvhich one theorr' leacls to another. Auguste Contte

shrt'r lt l lv c.t l lcrl i ttention to this relation of therrrr to theory \\ 'hen

he rerrrlrkcd that sincf .rn cmpirical obscrvation prcsul)posc5 a

theorv t (J locus the at tent ion, i t is logical l r inevi table that fa lse

t l rcor ies precede true ones. [ . . . ]Thus, i l rvc * ish to l ind thc t ruc or ig ins ofccl l thcorv. . , r ,e

nr l rst not Iool to the ( l iscr) \c l . \ of certain microscopic structures

in l iv ing th ings. lConnattsoncc, pp.47-5t l ]

Comte Buffon, or the Discontinuous ImoBinqtion

[59] In thc rvork of BufILrn, rvho, as N4arc Klein points out, nrade

l i t t le use of the microscol>e, ue f incl r theorv of the composi-

t ion ol l iv ing th ings - in<lr ,c<1. a svstenr, in rhe eighreenrh-ccntury

scnsc of thc tcrm. ButTirn proposecl a ser ies ol-rx ioms to crplain

certain f.rcts having to do chiellv rvith rcpro<luction and herecl-

itv. In Chiptcr Trvo ol thc Il istoire naturellc dcs onimour (t;^-18),

he set forth his "thcorv of orqanic molecults." In Bul' lon's rvords,

16.1 r6t

" , rn i r ra ls and plants that can mult ip l r an<l r tprocluct jn , r l l their

I).u-ts .lre organiTed ln,l ies compctscd ,rl other, sinri lar rrtganic ltorj-

ies, rvhose accuntulated quantitv rre can disccrn rvith rhc cvc but

* hose primitive parr! \\ 'c can perccive onlv rvith thc ait l of reason."

Fron this, Bufion deduced that there arc infinitelv manv org.rnic

l)art\, cach conrposecl <rf thc same substancc as "organizcd bcings."

Thcse organic parts, comnron to aninrals a,rd l ) lnnts, are pr imi-

r i ! ' ( . rn( l incorrupt ib lc. What is cal led "generat ion" in biologv is

nrtrelv the conjun<:r ion of some numtrcr ol pr imit ivc organic

parrs; s i rn i lar lv, death is merelv the dispersion of thosc parts.

Thc hvpot l resis rhnt organiTed bcings consist of pr imit ive or-

1.rnic prrts is thc onh onc. Buflirn nrgucs. c(rpable ol arrridin{ the

r l i f l icul t ics encountered bv t rvo car l ier theor ics thar c la imed to

cxplain the plrenomena of rcprocluct ion, namel\ ' , ovi5m and ani-

malcul ism. Both ol thesc theor ies assumccl that hercdi t l is uni-

lareral : ovists, fb l l , r ' , r ' ing Regncr dc Craal , c la imcr l th.r t i t was

matcrn,rl, u hercas anirralctrl ists, follorr ing Anthonie ratr Lrcu* en-

hoecl ,11gu,, ,1 that i t r ras patcrnal . But lbn, a lcr t to phcnonrrna ol

hvbr ic l izat ion, bel ievcd that heredi tv must be bi later.r l . , rs is c lear

fron Chaptcr f ivc ofhis *ork. l 'hc lacts rc infbrced this bcl icf : a

chi ld could rcscml) l ( ' r : i ther his f i thcr or his nrot l r i r . Thus, hc

rvritcs in Chapter Tcn, "Thc fbrmatiorr of the letus occrrrs through

crtmbin.r t ion ol or l lanic molccules in rhc mixtu|c composcd ol '

rht seminal l lu ids <rf c l lo indiv iduals." [ . . . ]

In Buf lbn's v ie\ \ ' , Ne$tonian mcchanics expl ic i t lv had jur is

cl ict ion over the org.rnizat ion of l iv ing th ings:

I t is obr ious th.rr nei ther thc c i rcLr lat ion oi thc t 'Lxxl nor rhr morc-

lncnt ol thc musck. ' nor rhc anint . l l [unct ionr can bc cxpl . r inecl in

t t : rms ol impulse or anr ol the larvs oI orr i inrrv mcchanics. I t is just

rs obvious that nutrit ion, (lcvelopmcnt .rnrl rt productir:,n otrev othcr

la\s. Whv not .tcLno(lerlge, thfn, t ltrt therc arc l irrccs pcnetral-

ing and acting upon the masles ol bodics, since rre have examples

oI lbrccs in thc substance of bodies in magnct ic at t ract ions and

chcmical .rff init ics?5

C)rganic molecules attract one another in obedience to a lar; of

morphological constnncy, constituting an aggregatc that Buf'fbn

called the "internal mold." Without thc hypotheses of intcrnal

mold and organic molecule, nutrit ion, development and rcpro-

duct ion rvould be unintel l ig ib le. [ . . . ]Thcrc can be no doubt that Buffon hopcd to be the Nervton

of the organic lorld, much as David Humc at around the samc

time hoped to bccome the Newton of psvchology. Ne*,ton had

demonstrated that the forces that movc the stars are thc same as

thosc that move objccts on the surfacc ofthe earth. Gravitational

attrnction explained horv simple masses could fbrm more com-

plex svstems of matter. Without such a forcc ofattraction, real-

i tv uould be not a universc but just so much dust,

[:or Buffon, the hvpothesis that "mattcr lost its forcc ofattrac-

t ion" u 'as e<luivalcnt to the hypothesis that "objccts lost their

cohcrcnce."6 A good Newtonian, Buffon believed that l ight i{as

a corpuscular substancc:

'I hc smallest moleculcs ofmatter, thc smallest atoms rve knolr,, are

those ol l ight. .. . t. ight, though scemingly blessed rvith a qualitv the

cxact opposite of weightiness, n irh a volati l i tv t lrat might be thought

essential 1{) its nature, is ncvertheless as hcavy as anv other matter,

since it bends rrhcn it passes ncar orher bodies and linds irscll rvithin

rcach of their sphere ol attraction. . .. And just as anv form of mat-

tcr can convert i tsc l f into l ight rhrough extreme subdiv is ion and

clispcrsion through impact of its infinitesimal parts, so, too, can l ight

be converted into any other firrm ol ntattcr i l , through the attrac-

tion ofother bodies, its component parts arc made to coalesce.T

t67

I ight, heat and fire are dif l ircnt modes of existence ol the same

common material. To do science was to try to {ind out ho$', "rvith

this singlc source ofenergy and single subject, nature can varv

its rvorks ad infinitum."s If, moreover, one assumes that l iving

mattcr is nothing but ordinary matter plus heat, a corPuscular

conccpt ion of matter and l ight inevi tablv leads to a corPUscular

concept ion of l iv ing th ings:

All the cfl icts of crude mattcr c.rn be related to attraction alone,

all ol the phenomena oi l iving martcr can bc rt ' lated to that same

l;rcc ofattrnction couplerl rvith the l irrce ol heat. By l it ' ing m.rttcr

I orcan not onl'r 'all things that l ivc or vegctatc but all l iving organic

rnolccules disperscd and spread about in thc dctritus or residuc ol'

organized bodies. LInder thc head ol l iv ing matter Ia lso includc

light. l irc and heat, in a nord, all marter that aPpcars to trt to be

rctive trr itscll.e

This, I bel ieve, is thc logic behincl thc thcory of organic mol-

ecules, a biological theor l that owed i ts existence to the pres-

tigc ol a phvsical theory. The theorv of organic molccules is an

example of the analvt ic method in conjunct ion rv i th thc c l iscon-

tinuous imagination, that is, a penchant fbr imagining objects bv

analogv u ith discrete rather than continuous models, Thc discon-

t inuous imaginat ion reduces the diversi tv of nature to ur l i form-

it1,, to "a singlc sourcc of energy and a singlc subject." That one

elcment, the basis of all things, thcn fbrms compounds u.ith itself '

that produce the appearance of rl iversitv: nature varies its norks

.rc l inf in i tum.-fhc l i fe of an indiv ic lual , u 'hethcr.rn animal or a

plant, is therefore an efl 'ect rather than a causc,.r product rather

than an essencc. An organism is a mechanism rvhose global cllect

is the nccessarl conscqucncc of thc arrangcmcnt ofits parts, Truc,

l iv ing indiv idual i tv is molecular, monadic.

' l hc l i l i o i an .n,nr" t . r . pt . -"r , r1 sccms. is merel , - rhc rcsuj t of a l lthe nct ion\ , ofal l the l i t t le. indiv idual ) iver ( j f I nra\ p l r r i t thar rra. ! )ol each ol irs .rct ivc mcrle< uics, ,r .hose I i lc is pt inr ir ivc and rpparently(nnnor [)c drstrovtd. \ , \ ,r have f irund there l iving molecules in af ll i ! ing ()r vcgcraring things: rvc are certain that al l thcsc organic rnol_cculcs lre equall l .cssential ro thc nutr jr jon ancl thercl. i rrr to the.cproducrion ol animals and pl.rnrs. I t is not dif l . icult to inraginc,rhert ' lbr 'c, rhat n.hen a ccrtain number oi. thcsc nrolccules are joinerltogcther, rhe\ t i .rnn a l iving thing: sincc thcre is l i l .e in each ofirsparts. l i le can also bc lbund io the r,rholc. that is, in anv rssemblagcol tbose p.rrts.

fCon naissancc. pp. 52-S6l

Lorenz Oken, or the Continuous Imagination

[60] Charles Singcr and N,larc Klein, asirci l as Erni le Gur(rnor,t l rough to a lessel dcgrcc, t j id not fa i l to norc rhc. ."al , au",uOkcn fbr rhe fbrmulation of cel l theorv. Oken bclonged to theRomnnric school o l narure phi losophcrs fbuna", l by 5i ; "11;n". ruThc spcculations of rhis schtnl harl as nruch inttu.,n." on

""iiynin( t ( , .n lh-(cnrUr\ Ctrm.rn l rhrr i r ians Jn, l b io iogl \ t . n. , ,n,r , " , ,o l I r ( t ( r . . Th,.r , . i r no ruprurc ol (o l r ( iu l r iL\ hetrr . .n r)k, .n.rn, lthe firsr biolo{ri\ts that u.ould offer deliberate emplrical sufporttbr ccll thcorv. j\, lathias

Jacob Schleiclen, rlho f;rst t;._rt","

: : ,1, ' t : l . i l , r r p l , rnr . i t l t is f la1174,1a ,u7 pfrr . roycnc,rs ( t8 . t8; , rarrghr

.r t lhr . l ln i \er . i r \ o l Jr l la. r rherc mem,r ( , \ o l ( )Lcn,. teJch:ng\\ 'ere sti l l fresh. Theodor Schrvann, rvho bctu.een lgig an,l lg,l igeneral ized cel l theorv to i l l l iv ing th ings, had seen a good dcalof Schleiden and his tcacher, Joharrnes ,\ l i i i icr, ,, h., hud be"n anature phi losopher in his r . . ruth.rr Singer is rhus l i r l lv just i f icd inremarking that Okcn ., in

a sensc sou,erl the irjeas of the authorsreg.rrded in his stcad as thc for . rndcr i ofcel l thcorr . , , f . . . ]

r()t{i { '9

I lere, the idta Ihat organisms <)re comp()\ i tL,s 1)f .e lemcntar l

l i l i ' l i -rrrns is merclv a Iogic.r l crrnseclut nce ot a rr l()re b.r j ic lrot ion,

lh ich is that t l te elerncnts ol l i fc are rc leasecJ whcn the largerlorms to uhich rht l belong ( l is intcgrat( , . Thc u.hole tok", pr"_ccd( n( e () \ 'er thc part5. K le in statcs rhis cxpl ic i t l \ . ;

t h<, .rssociat ion oi primit irc anirnals in the grr isc ot l i r ing l lcsh shorrlclnor br ' thought ol rs a rrechanjcal coupling ol orrc rnim.rl to rn.rhcr,rs in a pi lc ol srnd rr.hr.rc tbc onh rcl.r t i rrn rmong thcgr; insol.rvlr jch

it i \ c{).npo\ed is onc ol p;e*1n,1,r. . Just ar orr{cn anrl hvdrogcn r l is_. tppc,1f rn \ \ ' r tcf , ju\r as m(rcur\ . rnd sul l i l d i ; . rppear in c innabar,s hat rrkt.s placc hr:r(. is a truc in

rrniric,,ri'n'1 ;r,h" ",.,",.,."r"::''i":l;';]H,:i:l::l'l;:li:l:ln, ' l r l . , r l r l , , . j r , r r r r . l l l . r r , 1, l r , , . , l r r r l r , \ , r r i , ( , , j r l , i lh, . r , , r l . r , ,irnr and rrorL rrrvarrl .r uniqrrr aorl cornmon l.Llncti()n. orperh)rm rhrrl i rnct ion in pursuing thcir orvn tndr. l lere, no inr l i l i< lLr , r l is sparocl ;n l l nrc rrcr i l icc( I . l lut thc l . rnguagt. is rr l is l t , rc l ing. | r r rhc comhina_t ioo ol inr l i r j r l rn l i r jes i i r rnts lnorhcr jnt l i r j r l r r . r l i r_r . . l

he l i r r rnt ' r ar t ,tkrtr 'orctl, rnd tbc lattcr.rpprars <rnh .r, .r l l .sult r, l thar <i(.\tfu( ri(Jn.rl

\ \ rc.rrc,a long uar l ronr Btr l l i rn. The organism is not a strnt o l .e lc_rncntarv bir , logical cnt i t ics: i t is . rathcr, a hi-qhtr ent i t r . r r hoseclcmi nfs arc subsunred. \ \ r j tb t ,xcmpJan. precis ion, OLen anr ic i_patcd thc ther.rrr o l c lcgr<.cs ol indir i ( l l ra l i r \ . . - lh is *as nrore thanJust i ' l l ) rc lcnt imcnt, thou{h i t d i ( l aDt ic ipat( , $ l rat tcchniqucs olccl l ancl t issut . cul rurcs,r ,oulr l tcach contcmpori l r . . l r io l<, .11istsabor: t d i f f i ' r .enccs bcrucc.n r lhr t Hats pcterscn cl l led thc , . inr l i_l i rJLral I i l i " , r r r r l thc. ' ,ptolcssional i i te ' , o l .ct l is . Oken rhought ofthc organism.rs a k in<l of societv, Dut that s()c lct \ . \1.as not an.r ' . , ' r i , r r i , rn oi r r r , l i r i , l r r . r l . . r . , , , r r r r i re, l h. , . r1, , . 1, , , l i i i , r l 1, f r i1, , , , ,phr ' .of thc Enl ightenmcnt but, rathcr, i conrmlrnJtr . rs conc.ci l t , r lI ' r t I r , I ' , , I i r j r . r I 1, l r i l , , .o1,Jrr . , , f f t , ,nr , r r r r i , i . rn. . . -

Comparisotr is inc!itnl)le betr'een Okcn's biological thcories

and the pol i t ical phi losc,phv of the Gcrman Romant ics rvhonr

Novalis influenccd so dceply. Novalis's Glaube und I iebe: der Kdnig

un<l die Kdnil]in appearcd in 1798; his Europo odet dic Christenheit

rvas publislretl in f800; C)kcn's Die Zeugunll cante out in 1805' The

first t\r 'o rvorks arc vt hementlv crit icai of levolutionarr thinking'

Nov.rl is alleged that univcrsal sLrffrage pulvt'r izcd the popular rvil l

and tailed to give due w-cight to social, or, more preciselr' com-

mun.rl, contitruitv. AnticiPating tlegel, Novalis (l ike Adam Hein-

lich MLiller a ieu years later) considered the state to be a reality

l i l led bv Crxl, a fict surpassing individual rtason to .-hich the

indi ,n i r lual must s.rcr i I icc himsel l I f thcre is an analogv bctueen

these sociological viervs and bioloqical thcorY. it is' as has often

been remarkcd, because thc Romantics interPrcted polit ical cxpe-

r iencc in tenns ol a "v i ta l is t" conccPt io l l of l i le ' Even as French

p,-rl i t ical thinkers rvcrc offering thc idcas of the social contract

and universal sufl iage to rhe F.uroPean mind, thc l i talist school

of French mctlicine rvas proposing an image of l i fc as 11115csnding

anaht ical understanding. Vi ta l is ts c lenicd that organisms could

bc understoor l as mechanisnls; l i le, thev argued, is a fbrnr that

cannot be ret luccd to i ts matcr ia l comPoncnts ' Vi ta l is t b io logy

provided a totalitarian polit ical philosophy l ith the means to Pro-

pose certain thcor ies ofbiological indiv idual i tv ' though Phi loso-

phy $,as undcr no compulsion to do so. I lorv t rue i t is that the

problem of indii iduality is indivisiblc rr fConnainoncc, pp 58-63]

End uring Thcmes

[61] l ) id thc concepts ol indiv idual i tv that inspired these spec-

ulations about thc comPosition oI organisrns disappeal altogethcr

;rmong biologistt tntlv sorthv of l lcing callecl scientists? APPar-

cnt l ] not .

Claude Bcrnard, in his lcqonr sur /es phinomines de Ia vie com'

n)Ltns ( tu\ oni l t tou\ et our l igdrour ' publ ishcd at ter h is death bv

, t r ' , r . , " t t tU-to. r le 'cr ibcd th ' ' " r {Jni im J\ "an J! t ' r tPat- " f '

lc .

ln(nrJr\ ( i l l \ or organi : 'm:. ' ' lhercbt ' l l l i rmingthr Pr ln( l l ' l ( ' r I

Jutonomy fbr anatomical const i ruents ' This is tantaDloul l t to

".r.., i tg itt", a.tt ' behave in association iust as rheuI'ould bcha't

,,r ,r"f"it"" if the rnil icu \lere lhr s^me as that crcated for them

.*.,, it" *" organism bl thc action of nealbt cells ln other rvorcls'

..1f. ,,rrl,J l i"e in l ibertv etoct\ ' os th?' do in societ)" Notc' though'

,; O"rr;"*, that it the regulaiive srrbstanccs that control the l i lL'

, , t th" ." l t through st imulat ion and inhibi t ion ate the s lme ln n

. , , t ,ur" n l t ; . " . " i l ' o ' in thc intcrnal environment of the organ-

,r- , ' , ,n" . .nn,r , saY that the ccl ls I ive in l ibertv ' Neverthcless'

n".n.rd, L.,ping to clarif,v his meaning bv means of a coll lPalison'

. r .k. u. t " conr i r let J ( oml) lc\ l i r ing r l r inq " ' r t J-( r t \ \ \ i lh i l ' '^rn

\ l ( r ia l \ lJml) ," r r r r r h i t h int l i ' i ' l r r ' r l ' ; r l l tn i ' ' r Ih( \Jm( r( lent r (Jr

innd nn,l th.i rorrr" general caplcit ics vet contributc.to socii l l l i fe

t , , -at t i "* . , uaYs th;oush thcir special ized labor and ski l ls '

In 1899, Emst Heinr ich Hacckel urotc" 'Thc cel ls arc t ru lv

independr. :nt c i t izens, bi l l ions o[ ' r ' ] r ich

compose otrr l )odv' the

ctl lular state "{1 Pcrhrps tnrrges suclr ls the "assemtrlv <rt indcpcn-

<k nt cit izens" cotrstitLlt ing a "statc" r{erc more than iust mct'1-

phors. Polit ical philosophv sccms to (lominate biological theorv'

What man could sal that he rvas tepublic'rn because he bclieled in

ccll t l teorv or a bclie"er in ccll thelrrv l>ccausc he rras a rel>ublicatl?

-f,, fr" sure' Bernard an<l l laeckel rtere not altogether immune

to phi losophical temPtat ion or {xcmPt t iom phi losophical s in '

fhl s"..,nd chapttr of l\Iarcttl Prenant' I 'aul Andrd Bouin and

l .cruis Camil lc Nlai l lard 's 1901 l tLt i t ; d 'h istolol l ic ' lh ich Nlarc

Klein crc<i i ts, a l r rng rv i th Fel ix l lennegrrv 's Iegons sur Io 'c l lu ie

(1896), $'ith being thc tirst cLrssi<'rl uork to inrroduce cell theorv

in th i : tc.rching ofhistologv in France'15 rvas rT'r i t tcn bv Prenant '

The author 's svmp.r th ies lbr ccl l theorv di t l not b l ind him to lact \

tJ l

==

=ii,-'1

:27

+ii iiiz

+i ::2

::,i :i

=iii ;2

;;, :,t:=1

:

i==

i 1

=:=

TZ

tZZ

i+i:=

:ai: =iirz

z;;=

_ i=

i;= : il ?

ii:==

,?

-=-.+

j. j,tE

=i r=l=

7=

,2

:: = ?: s

;: 'r:==

r?

t1

iiii:ii liEi: zi:

E i j ; t =

1ii1

:,ii =

; ;=

+ii,1

:=,;1

j z

il::i il, = ;::=

rti::i:i * ; i,_

i :, | 2

1=

: :,=

, i i 7

i =-,il =

=;7

1 I 1

= r7

;i

= = 21

,==

2{=

=

i :i' i: :i j ; ; l t: : i =ia

:i; ii

i;=iZ

: i= ; i:: :1

;1

t ii1=

,+i2

!;i:i

iz:iii i:ii1

=1

1;,

u ilZ

=.i :j1

t=, =

: i:=-

2 :=

= +i: :1 t1

= :=

1=i1

=

= i:1

1=

: 1i,7

: i=:j . i ; z

i ;i -,t :Ii t iz','z

ii .iii:"=

ii +i:, =: :1

i=:=

,, :=

; z:+:=

:!=Z

:ii:z=

Z ;zi:=

til=i: =

=:i=

Zi=

!i t;

7=

r=i=

=i

=i:! =-,i=

i;;: i7

i==

:i:;=i:

. is the muscul , l r s\ 's tcnt or of such lornrat ions as plasnrodia or

svnci t ia consist ing ol cont inuous rnasses ofc l toplasm u. i th sc.r t -

terecl nuclei . In the human brxiv, onlv the epi thel ia are c lear lv

cellularized. Between a ficc ct' l l such as a leucocyte and a svncv-

t i r im \uch as the cardiac rnusclc or the sur l ice of the chor ia lv i l losi t ies of the fet . r l p lacenta, there arc intermediate fbrms,such as thc giant mult inuclear ccl ls (polvcarvocvtcs), ancl i t isdil l icult to sav u,hether syncitia dcvelop through firsion ofonce_indcpcndent cel ls or v ice rersa. Both ntechanisms can. in fact ,

bc obscrve<I. Even in the developnrenc ofan egg. i t is not certainthat cvcry cell comes fiom the division o[a preexisting ccll. EmilcRhocle vvas able to shou in 1923 that indiv idual cel ls, in planrsas rvel l as rnimals, f requent lv rcsLr l r l iom thr subdir is ion ofapr imir ive plasmodiurn ( nrul t inucleare mass).

But thc anaromical .1nd ontogenct ic aspects ol thc problemare not thc rvhole stor.v. Even authors u,ho, l ike l lans petersen,

acknonlcdqe that thr r ta l basis of cel l theorv is thc development<r l me r . rzoa, and *ho see the product ion of chir leras - I iv ingthings crcatcd by artif iciallv combining cgg cells f iom differentspccies - as supporting rhc "additive" composition of l iving thingsarc obliged to admjt rh.rr the explanotion of the Junctions of theseoqdnisnls tontrudicts thc e\pldnatlon ol thcir genuir. If the bodv isrcal lv a col lect ion of indcpcndent cel ls, hou,does onc cxplain thcharmonious flnctioning of the larger rrnit? If the cells arc closedsvstems, h(^! can thc organism live arrd .rct as a $,holei One wav

tcr rcsolve the di f l icul tv is to look l i r r a coordinat ing mecha-nism: thc ncrvous system, say, or hctrntonal secretions. But theconnection ol most cclls to the ncrv()us sl,stem is unilateral andnonreciprocal ; and man\ r i ta l pheno6qpl , especial lv those asso-ciatecl rv i th regLner,rr ion, ar( rarher di f f lcul t to erplain in terms

of hormonal regulation, no matter ho\l. complcx. petersen there-

fbre remarkcd:

t71 t7t

Pcrhaps one can sar inagcnelal r l . r t thr t . r l l the prc,cesscs in which

thc bodl 'part ic ipatcs as a whole (and in pathologv therc arc le* '

processcs wherc this is not the case) aru dil l icult to understand in

terms of tic ccllular state or the thcor.v ol cells as inclcpcndent oroan-

ivnr. [ - . .1 (J i rcn the wav i , r shich rhe ccl lu lar orqanism [ ,eh;rves,

l ivcs, \1orks, maintains itscll against the attacks of irs cnvironment

anrl rcgains its equil ibrium, the cclk arc organs o{ a unil;rm brxlr.

I lcrc tbe problem of indiv idual i tv comts up a{ain: a totnl i tv, in i -

t ia l ly resistant to div is ion of any k ind. takes pr ior i tv over thc

aromistic vicrl dcrived fiom an attcmPt to subdividc the u'hole.

P( tcrsen qui te pert inent l ) quotes a rem.rrk macle bv Jul ius Sachs

in 1887 conctrning mu)t icel lu lar p lanrs: "Whcther ccl ls seem t , r

be c lcment.rrr indcpendcnt crrganisnrs or s implv parts ol a * hole

tlcpentls entirelv on hov se look .rt thingt."

In rcccnt vcars, incr(asing <loubts ancl cr i t ic isms have bccn

roiccd about cel l thcor! in i ts c lassical {brrr , that is , in the f l rcd,

r logmat ic lbrm in rvhich i t i r presentr ' t l in t txtbookr, evcn those

intendcd fbr aclvancccl studcnts.rT Tlrcre is f;r less obicction todaY

to noncel lu lar componcnts of organisms ancl to mechanisms bv

rrhich ccl ls c,rn be fbrmecl out ol cont inuous masscs ol proto-

plasrn than there *as n 'hcn Rudolph Virchon, in Cermanv, cr i t i -

c izcd Theodor Schuann's ic lea of , r cr toblastemc and Charles

Robin, in Frincc, rvas lookcd upon .rs .r cantankerous, old-laslr-

iont'<l icoroclast, In 1941, Tivid.ir Huztl l.r shorved itr his luischcn

Zcl [en Or11ontsat ion thar intercel lu lar re lar ions anr l e\ t r rcel lu l . r r

iubstances (such as thc intcrst i t ia l lvnrph and noncel lu lar e le-

nlents ol 'conncct ive t issue) arc j r ls t as important biological l r . rs

thc cel ls thcnrselves. The intercel lu lar ro id that orrc can scc iD

thosc preparat ions mat le to be vicrrcr l through.r n l icroscopc is

bv no means devoid ol h istologic.r l f t rnct ion, In l9-16, I ' . Busse( i raui tz concluded on thc basis ol h is rcscarch that cel ls can

appear in basical l l acel lu lar substances. ls According to cel l thc-

orr, lunclamcntal substances (srrch as the collagen ofthe tendons)

n'lust be secrcted by the cclls, evcn if i t is not possible to sav pre-

cisell horv the sccretion takes place. I lcre, ho*ever, the ordcr is

rcverscd. Of cout sc, the cxPerimcntnl argument in such a theorY

is ncgativc in naturc: thc researcher trusts that sulficient Precau-

tions havc been taken to Prevcnt the migration of cells into thtr

lcellular substance in rvhich cclls arc seen to cmerge' In Francc,

Jean Nageottc had observecl, in the dcvelopment of a rabbit cm-

bryo, that thc cornea of thc eve first appears to bc a homogcne-

ous substancc containing no cells during thc first three davs of

grorvth - vet, in l ight ol Virchou"s larv, he bclieved that those

cells that appearcd subscquentlv must havc arrivcd there through

migration. Yet no such migration rvas ever observed. IConnois-

sance, 1>p.71-761

f6l l I t is not absurd to concludc that biologY is procecding

torvar<t a svnthetic | icrv of organic structure not unlike the sYn-

thesis that uave mechanics br-ought about betn'een concepts as

sceminglv contradictorv as \\ 'ave and particle. Ccll ancl plasmo-

clium are among the last incarnations of the contradictorv de-

mands ol'discontinuity and continuitY u'hich theorists have faccd

$cr s incc human bcings bcgan to th ink. Pcrhaps i t is t rue that

scientif lc theorics attach their fundamental concePts to ancient

images - I rvould even bc temPted to sav myths, if the rvord had

not been so devalued b.r ' i ts rccent usc in phi losophies obviouslv

created for purpoies of propaganda and nrystif ication. Folw'hat,

in the end, is th is cont inuous in i t ia l p lasma, th is plasma that

biologists havc used in one fbrm or another ever since thc prob-

lem of identifving a structurc common to all l iving things rvas i irst

poscd in or<ler to deal rv i th thc Perceivcd inarJequacies of the

corpuscular cxplanation? Was it anvthing other than a logical ava-

tar of thc mythological f luid fr.om 'vhich

all l i fe is supposed to

ar isc, of the t rothv uave that bore \ tnus ot t i ts f i ram? Charles

Naucl in, a French biologist rvho canlc c lose to discover ing the

marhcmatical laws of heredi tv bcfbre Grcgor Nlendcl , thought

that thc pr i rnordial b lastcmc was the "c la\" mcnt ioned in thc

Biblc. r ') This is u,hr' I have argutrd that thcorics clo not .rrise l i om

thc l icts thcv order - or, to Put it more preciselv, f)cts r/o act

as a st imulus to theorv, btr t ther nei thcr cngenclcr the conccPts

that provide thcor ics rv i th thcir internal coherence nor in i t iate

thc intc l lectual ambit ions that theor ics pt t t .sue Such ambit ions

come to us f rom long ago, and the numbt r o l uni f i ing concePts

is smal l . That is uhy thcort ' t ical thcmcs survivc evtn al ter cr i t ics

are pleascd to think that the thcories associatcd u ith thcm have

becn refirterl. lConnoissonce, p, 791

t76 t77

' )

C rr a p r r tt E I c H r

The Concept of Ref lex

Epi st emol og i co I P re j u d i ces

[6'1] Broadly speaking, the various historics ofresearch into rellexnrovrmcnt have fi i led ro discrirninatc sufl icientlv anrong descrip-t ion of automat ic nruronruscular responscsj expcr imental stuclvol .rnatomical structurc! and their lunctional interactirrns, and fbr-mtr lat ion ol ' the ref lcx c l . r r r r .cpt and i ts general izat ion jn thc fbrmof a theorr. l 'his f)i lure accounts fbr thc surprising cliscrepancics,* hen i t comcs 1o ;rvarr l ing cr .edi t lbr an or ig inal ( l isco\erv . , rant ic ipat ion to a part icular indiv idual , among histor ians as rvel las biologists cngaged in l racking thc c la ims of certr in of rhci lcol leagues.

Flere I propose ro dist inguish points o1 r . ierv that arc al l tooolien confbundcd. ,\1r'purpose is not to right u,rongs, l i l<e sonrcscholarlv avengcr, but to clrarv conclusions of potential v.rluc toepistemologv and thc hisrorv oi 'science. Indccrl, the ultim.rte rca-son lbr thc existence ofdi lergent histor ics has to do u, i th t rvorathcr $.idespread prejutJices. One of these involves all thc sci,encesr pcop]c are disposr:d to heljeve thaf a conccpt caD oriSiDateonlv n ithin the franrervork ol a thcorv - or, at anv ratc, a heuris-

ti( - honpgeneous rr ith the theorv 1)r heuristic in tcrms of rr hicirthe obscrvcd ficts \\ ' i l l latcr be intcrpretecl. The other involvt,s

t79

biologr in part icul . r r : i t is rv idelv bcl icvcd that, in th is rc ience,tlrc only thcories rhat have led to fnrjtful appJicatiorrs and p<.rsi_t i r .c advanr. t 's in knorvledge have been mcchanisr ic ;n stv le. l . . . l

In rhc rineteenth century, the mechanist theorv, based on theg< ncralization ol a concrpt rvhose b.rsic outl irre x.as clcar bv 1g50,pnrduccrl a rcrr.)actire ellbct on the rva,! in which its origins rvsyeconceiver i , I t sccmcd onl1, lqg1q11 that a phenomi,non u,hich,along rv i th many olhers, provided just i f icat ion f i r r a mechanicalcxplanat ion of animal l i fc coul<l have bcen discoveret l and stud_ier l only bv a mcchani5t b io logist . t f thc logic of .h istory thuspointcrl tr lvarrl o nrcchanist, thc history of phrsiologv proli<le<la name - I)escartes.-fhjs coincidence seemed to fbrec]ose funherdiscussion, though no one knerv or cared to knou.rvhether theiogic confirmed rhc hisrorv or the historr inspired the logic. Fromthe incontcstable lact thar l)e\carrcs had proposecl a ntechani_cal theorv rrf-involuntarr. movemcnr an(l cven provided al excel-lent description of certain instanccs of rvhat s,ould jater. in theninctc( .nth ccnturvJ bc cal lcd, . ref lexes, ' . i t u.as dgduqed, 1n 5uy-reptit ious irnticiparion o1-$.har $.as to come. that l jescartes hacldescribed, named and {brmulaterl the concel)t of the rellex be-causc thc general theor l o l the rel lex vvas elaborated in orderto explain rhe class of phenom(,na that hc had cxplainer l in hiso* 'n lashion.

L\4,v own vierl is that, in the historr,of scicnce, )ogic pcr seought to takc preccdcncc over the logic of historr-. B"f*" lu"relnte theories in terms o1 logical content an<l origin, rve mustask hor1' contenrpordrics intcrpretc(l the concepts ofrvhich thoseth(\)rics i{ere conrposed - l irr ifrve do not inrist on internai con_sjstcnc\'. \\ 'c risk fall ing into rhc parador rhar logjc is ubiquitousexcept in scicntjf ic thought. There n-rav be a logic, more.)ver, inth( succcssion ofdoctr ines in themsel.r ,es i l logical . Evcn i fonehol<ls that thc principic of noncontr.rcliction ir ob;olctc, alrl even

if one substitutcs fbr logic some currentlv more prestigious tem,the essence of the case rernains unchanged. Inclcccl, cv<,n if t lreo_r i t :s engt 'n<l t r one anothcr <l ia lcceic.r l lv , the n6rnrs ol scient i f ictheor l r rc not those ofnryth. c l ream or fa j r l ta le. Even i fy i r tu_al lv none o1 the pr inciplcs of a thcorr rcmain jntact , the theorvc.rn b, c.r l l , . , l l r ls , , ,n l r in r . rm\ r , l a j r r , lgmcnr h.rr- ,1 , ,n rho.epr inciplcs and their cons(.qucncc\. ' fhus, the elements of a doc_trin< arc supposc<l to l i t together in a rvar th.rt is not haph.rzarcl;i ts conccpts are srrpposcr l to conrbine in sonte $. lv that is notm( r , . ju \ I Jp, , \ i r i , ,n or . r , L l i r ion.

\Ve ntust, acco1dingl1,, lrxrk in somc ncu.direction lbr concep_tual l i l iat ions. R.r ther- than ask l .ho rhr auf l ror ot . r thcon.of . invol_untarv tnov( 'ntent thr t prel igured the nineteenth-centun. theorvol thc reflex rvas. rvr.ask lvhat a thc6rr.6f muscular 1n,rr,,rr-r.,na,ln<l rlr 'rve action must inc()rporatc in ordi,r f irr a notion l ike ref.lt,xmo\'(m( nt, involving as ir does a comparis.rn betln.een a biologi_ca) pJrenomenon and an oPtical one {ref)ection), to makc sense(u hcrc "rnaking scnsr"' mcans that th(, D()ti()n 6l rcflcx nr.,"r.ntcntmust bc Iogical lv consistcr) t wi th 5om(,sct of conccpts). I f .a con_cept outl ined or iomulllqd in srrch a contert is subsequentlv cap_tur<t i br . . r rheor\ thnt ust .s i t in a r l i f t l rcnt c()nrext or wi th. ld i f l i ' rcnt merninq, i t ( locs not l i r l lo*, th l t thc conccpt as ured inthe ori!] iDal tbt'orv is nothing but a nrcaninglcss rvorrl. Somc con,cept\i srrch as the reflection and rcfiaction of.l ight, are tlreoreti-cal lv poir val t 'nt , rhat is , capable oi being incorporated inro borhl). lrt iclc theorr antl rrare theorl.. Furthcrmole, the i ict that a con-ctrpt p la ls a strong rolc in a certain theoret ical dontajn is bv nomr' , t | r \ \ f l i ( i , n1 t1nLln1l . tor l r r i r ing rcs(, l l . i l t in lo r l te or ig in. , , lthat concept io s i rn i lar lv ( .onsr i tured domains.

. Rr adhcr ing to thcsc me(hodologic.r l pr<r<.epts, I canl( ,n l ) t to

r l iscover Thonras Wi l l is - I ; r s()mo ninr. tcenth-cenrun, physioJogi \ ts a\ \ 'are of thc historv of thc rcf lcx conc(,pt 6.rd n-,"n, ; , rn", l

l8o

his nanre - but to conf i rm his legi t imatc r ight to a t i t le that had

previously been opcn to doubt or challcn ge.lFormotion du r,lf lexe,

PP. l -6 l

Rend Dcscartes Did Not Formulote the Reflex Concept

[65] When Descartcs proposed his general thcorv of involun-

tary movemcnt, he, l ike many others befbrc him, associated such

movemrnts with phenomcna that we todav refer to as reflexes.

Does it lbllou, then, that he belongs among the naturalists and

phvsicians rvho helped to dclineare and dcfine the concept of

rcflex? l he anslvcr to this historical and epistemological ques-

t ion mu5t, I th ink. be deferrecl unt i l detai led, cr i t ical study of

the Cartesian.rnatomy and physiologv ofthe nerve and muscle ena-

bles us to rlecide rvhethcr or not Descartcs could havc anticipated,

horvcvcr conlusedlr', rhe essential elements ofthe concept.

Dcscartes. of course. lrelievcd that aJl physiological f i_rnctions

could be expl . r ined in purcl l mechanical terms. Hencc, he saw

onlr a l inr i ted number ol possible intcract ions anroDg an organ-

isnr 's parts: contact ! impulse, pressure and tract ion. The impor-

t.rnce ol t]r is l ict cannot be overemphasized. Dcscartes's rvhole

conception of animal movement derives lrom this principle to-

gt ' thcr ui th rvhat he considcred a suf l lc icnt set ofanatomical

observations. lFormation du rit ' lexe, p, 3Ol

l66l ID Article l0 ol The Possions ofdc Sou./, Dcscartes claims

that the animal spir i ts, born in the heart20 and in i t ia l ly carr ied

by the blood, bui ld up in the brain as pressure bui lds in an air

chamber. Whcn released bv thc brain, these spirits are transmit-

tcd through the nerves to the muscles (other than the heart) ,

'w'here thcv determine the animal's movements. Descartes says

that muscles l re bal loons f i l led wi th spir i ts, rvhich, as a rcsul t of

their transvers.rl expansion, contract longitudinally, thus moving

thc articulated lrone structurcs or organs such as thc cye in $'hich

rht 'y are inserted.rr NlorphologicalJv, th is t t ' l ls r :s l i t t l t ' , but that

l itt le sufficcs for Descartes's physiologv ofmorerneDt. Every nene

is a bundle offibers contained rvithin a tube, a marro\1 con\isting

of f ine thrcads extending from the cerebral marro\\ an(l rather

looscly sheathecl in an artervlike tubular skin.l2 One rnight sav,

borrorving an image fiom moclern technologv, that l)escartcs

envis ioned the nerve as a sort of e lectr ical cable run through

a condui t . As a bundle of l l i res, the nerve served.rs J sensory

organ, l l r lh i le as a condui t i t servecl as a motor organ. l l ' [ 'hus

Descartcs, unlike Galen and his lollowers, did not <listinguish st'n-

s()rv nerves from motor nerves. Everv nerve was both serlsory in(l

motor, but bv v i r tue of d i l l i rent aspccts oI i ts structurc.rnd l rv

r lav of d i f l l rent mechanisms.r t The centr ipr ta l scnsory c\c i r . r -

r ion $.as not something that propagatecl a long the nerve l )ut ,

r . r thcr, .1n immediate and integral t ract ion of the nervous l i l )er .

\ lhcn thc.rnimal sccs, fccls. tou<hcs, hcar, j or tnstcs, thc sr . r r f rce

ol i ts bodr shakes the hrain bv urv ol tht ' ner, ,e l ibcr ' . l he ct :n-

t r i fugal nrotor react ion, on the othel hand, is a prop,rgat ion, a

tran\port . The spir i ts f lorv out throrrgh the pores ol the brain,

optned up in response to the pul l ing on the l ibcrs. rnr l into thc

empt) space betueen thc f lbcrs and thc condui t through uhich

tht :y run. I f presser l , thcv prcss; i f pushed, thev push, l lence t l re

muscle srvel ls, that is , contracts.16 lnvoluntarv movement is thus

difl i 'rent from action in all of its elements and ph.rses, lFornra-tion tlu ri l lexc, pp. 3+-l5 ]

[67] Basical$ the concept of rcflcx consists of more than just

a rucl imentarv mechanical cxplanat ion ofmuscular movenent. I t

a lso contains the ic lea that some kinr l of st imulus stemming l iom

the per ipherv of the organism is t ransmit ted to the center and

thcn rcf lectcd back to the per iphcrv. What dist inguishes rel lex

mot ion is thc fact that i t < loes not procccd direct lv l iom.r cen-

ter or central repositorv ol immatcrial porver of an.r' kind. fhetein

r82 rf 'J

l ies, u i th in the grnus "mo\eDrent," thc spcci f ic d i f ference be-

t \ \ 'ccn involLlnt . r rv ant l ro l t rntarr , . Nou, according to C. l r tesian

thcory, movemenr that nr. rn i fests i tsel I at thc per ipherv, in the

muscles or visc('ra, ofigiutrs in.r ccntcr, thc center ol all organic

centers, namcl\ ', the c.rrdi.rc vessel. This is a material center of

action, to bc surc, not a spiritual one. The Cartesian thcorv is thus

ccrtainlr mechanical , bur i t i5 not the theorv of the ref lex. The

vcrv image that suggested thc u'ord "rcflex," that of a l ight ray's

rellection bv a mirror, rcquires homogeneity betlveen the inci-

clent movement and thc rcllcctecl movement. In Descartes's the-

ory, though, thc opposite is t lue: the excitation of the senses and

thc contract ion of the muscles nrc not at a l l s imi lar movements

'rvith respect to either thc nnturc ol the thing moved or thc mode

ol motion. What docs pull ing on.r [rel] cord have in common with'

blorving .rir into the pi1>e of arr org.rni Both arc mcchanical phe-

nomcna. fF.)rDtdtiDn tlu iJlttc. p.11)

[68] To sum trp, rvhi lc i t is t rue th.r t Dcscartes's nork con-

tains t l rc thtort r ic , r l t< lu i r r lent o l certain ninetecnth-ccnturv

attcmpts to lbrnrullte.r general reflcxolog), r-igorous examination

turns up nci thcr thr ' tcrm nor the concept ofref lex, Thc dorvn-

fi l l ofCartcsian phvsiologr', on( cannot overemphasize, lay in the

explanation of the movenrcnts of rhc hcart. I)escartes l i i led to see

Wil l iam Harrel 's theor ' \ ' . r \ an indiv is ib lc u hole. To be sure, he

rvas rT'cll arlarc that thc cxplanation ofthe he.rrt 's l-novcments was,

fbr thc scvcr-rtccnth centur-\ 't the kev to the problem ol'movement

gencrallr ' . l t-fhis rvoulcl continue to bc thc casc in the eighteenth

centurv. One f)ct turncd out to be crucinl in the Baconian sense

for anv theon purporting to crl>lain the neuromtrscular causes and

rt 'gulat ions of m. emcnt - i rJD)el \ ' , Lhe movcmcnt of excised

organs, cspcci , r l l \ the heart , l l tht ' l>r 'a in did not cause sPir i ts to

llou into thesc organs, rrh.rt c.rused th('D) to contract? Dcscartes

did not havc to conl iont th is r l test ior t , Rcntovecl f rom thc body'

rhc heart retainecl i ts heat, anr l t races l r f b lorr t l retraini t lg in i t

coul( l vapor i re rnd c.rusc i t to erparrrJ. lN uut fo l thosc *ho held

that thc heart was a rnusclc. i t bec.rmc di f f ic(r l t to.rrg(rc that the

brain was the cssential centr.l l controller ol .rl l crrgan m()vcmcnts.

l-hus, it became necessarv to look to pl.rccr other than thc brain,

i1 not lor the cause then at lcast l i r r lactors go!erning certain

rnovements. lFormation du ri l lctc, p.5)l

Thomos Will is Deserves Credit for the Reflex Concept

[69] What dist inguished Wil l is f iom [)escartes \ \ 'ere his con-

ccpt ions of the mot ion of the hcart an( l the c i rculat ion of the

blood, rvhich hc took *'holesalc fiom \\i i l l iam Ilarvev; namelv,

l r is concept ions ol the naturc of animal spir i ts and their mov(-

ment through the nerves; of thc structure ol ner 'es; ancl of mus-

ru lar contract lon.

; \ccording to Wi l l is (and Harvcr ' ) , thc heart is a nruscle ind

D()thiDg r)rorc. I f i r is thc pr imum movcl-r o l the other tnusclcs, i t

is srr onlv bv v i r tue ol the rhvthm of i ts lutrc l i<rn; i ts strr . tctr . t rc is

i rk.nt ical . " l t is not a noble ofg.rn, f i rst in the hicrarchy, but a

mere muscle."l ') Thc onlv possiblc c.rusc of the circulatorv move-

mcnt of the blood u,as the act ion of the spir i ts on thc heart , as

on anv other musclc: that act ion nradc rhe heart into a hvdraul ic

machine. l0 Wi l l is d ist inguishcd betrr ' .en thr c i rculat iorr of the

blood, a mechanical phenomenon, an(l it5 fcrmentation, a chemi-

cal onc. Fermentation hcatcd thc bloorl, u hich then impartcd its

heat to the heart * not v ice versa,Jl In Wi l l is 's mind, th is c l is t inc-

t ion r , r 'as sharp: c i rculat ion cxists in al ] animals, rvhereas fcrmen-

tat ion, he bel ieved, is lbund onh in the highcr animals.rr Wi l l is

descrvcs credi t l l rst ofal l lbr nor fecl ing obl iged, as Dcscartes

di<1, to correct I larvcv on.r fundamental lx)iDt ol 'cardiac anatomy

and phvsiologv, as u'cll as l irr not granting the heart a privilcged

lole and prceminent nntnre in compnrisoD to,r ther mrrsclcs. I ror

In.1 r fit

Willis as lor Haney, thc hcart uas simplv a hollow muscle.

As fbr the animal spirits, Will is looked upon them as disti l led,

purif icd, sublimated, spiritualized blood. All fbur terms, l isted

in ordcr ofincreasing dignity, are fbund in his rvrit ing. The brain

and cercbellum functioned as sti l ls to separate the animal spirits

fiom the blood, a separation that occurred now-here elsc in thebody.ll Functionally, the spirits f lorved along nervcs and flbers

from the brain to thc periphery - membranes, muscles, paren-chyma - and fiom the pcripherv back to the brain. On the u,hole,

horvevcr, ifthc flow olblood rvas a circulation, the flow ofani-

mal spirits \r 'as more in the nature ofan irrigation: emanating lrornthe brain, thev w-erc dispersed at the peripherv. In this respect,

therc rvas no differcnce between Will is and Descartes. Will is,horvever, distinguished betrvccn the cause of the blood's circula-t ion and that of the f lou'ofanimal spir i ts, and he acknou, ledged

that the spirits f lorved through thc nerve in both directions. Aboveall, he sau, the animal spirits quite differently f iom Descartes. [...]

According to Will is, the animal spirit rvas a potcntiality innecd of actualization, Ir u,as full ofsurprises. 1'hough it seemedto be merelv a ray of l ight , i t could be explosive, and whcn i tcxplodcd its eflects rvcre magnified in accordance u,ith rules thatrr.erc not those of either arithmetic or geometry.l l Descartcs heldthat the spirits u,erc cxpelled from the heart and sped torvard themuscles in the manner of a current of a i r or stream of water,rvhereas Will is argued that they u'ere propagared from the brain

to the muscle in much the samc u,ay as heat or l ight. Slowed andtransported by a Iiquid juicc fi l l ing thc intersrices of the nervous

structure, the spirits, upon reaching the peripheral organs, drew

encrgy and heightcncd motor potential from the arterial blood

bathing them. This energv camc liom thc addition of nitrosul-

Iurous particles to thcir o$ n salt spirits, igniting the mixture and

setting offan cxplosion, as ofgunporvder in a cannon. This intra-

r86 t87

nuscular cxplosion caused the musclc to contract and thus Pro-

rluccd movement.rt lFormotion du rdJlexe, pp.60-63]

f70] What distinguishes Will is f iom Dcscartes, horvever, is

nor simply his greater f idclitv to Hanev's phvsiologv or his notjon,

more chemical than mechanical , of thc animal spir i ts. Unl ike

l)cscartes, Will is does not assume that thc structure ol the nerves

allor,vs them to play dif ' ferent roles in thc scnrory ancl motor func-

tions. Thc nerves, he argues, havc a single structure, f ibrous and

porous. Thcv are neither conduits enclosing thin strands nor solid

rods. Thcy contain gaps, cmptl spaces into w hich animal spirits

may entcr. ' fhey are prolonged by l ibcrs, rvhich are not their onlv

capi l larr extcnsions; some of these or ig inatc outsi( le, and inde-

pendcnt of, the nervcs, through epigenesis. Just as animal spirits

flou through, or reside in, the ner',es, so too do thcy florv through,

or residc in, the flbers. Thel mav flou in cithcr direction, ancl

in uavelike motions. Thev florv l lrst one \r 'a\', then the othcr, in

paths radiat ing f iom a ccntcr, the brain.16

Thcse anatomical and physiological conccpts \1'cre necessarv

conrlit ions for Will is to do u'hat Descartcs u,as prccluded from

doing as regards the problcm rvc are acldressing. Though neccs-

sarv, however, thev $ere not yet suf f ic icnt . Wi l l is 's or ig inal i tv is

more apparent in the porvers of imaginat ion that caused him to

pursue the ultimatc consequences of the explanatorv comparisons

ht'cmplovecl. Because lre conceived ol thc anatomical structurc

of the ncrvous systcm as radiant rathcr than ramified, $,ith the

brain emit t ing ncnes as thc sun cmits ravs, Wi l l is thought of the

propag.rtion ofspirits in terms of radiation.l l Norv, thc cssence ol

thc animal spir i t i tsel fcould not be explained ent i re ly in terms of

anv knorvn chemical substancc. Sincc it originated in the "flamc"

ol thc bloocl, it rvas comparablc to a rav ol l ight.ls I 'his analogv

is pursuecl to thc cndi thc ncrvous discharge \\ 'as instantancous,

just l ike thc t ransmission of l ight . Evcn thc f inal stage of t rans-

mission, thc exci tar ion of the muscle bv the nerve, srrpported the

comparison. Just as l ight corpuscles procluced light onlv if thev

encountered ethcrcal part ic les disseminated in the air , thc ani-

mal spirits rcleasetl the pou.er in them onlv ifthc! nrqt sulfurous

or nirrous part ic lcs disseminated in the interst i t ia l b lood. The

rcsulting sp,rsmrxlic intranruscular cxplosion causcd thc nruscle

r() contract . Thus, the anirral spir i t uas l ighr onlr unt i l i t l ) rcame

fire. Its transport rvas analogous to i l lunlination, *,hercar its ct-fect

\ \ 'as in. t logous to.rn explosive detonat ion. In th is phrsiology the

nerves arc not stfings.rr conduits but fuses (Junit ignarius).t9 fFor-nation <lu riJlexc, pp.65-56]

[71] \\rc knou that rve have encountercd a conccpt bccause

lc havc hi t upon i rs del in i t ion - a dcf in i t ion at oDcc nominal

and rca]. The tcrm ,rotu.t rcJlexus is applicd to a certl in class of

movements, o l nhich a fami l iar example is provided: rhe auto-

mat ic react ion ol scratching. In addi t ion ro rhe obiecr being

def lned. t re hrre a def in ing proposi t ion, rvhich f i r r :s i ts mt-an-

ing. \\t have .r rvor'd that establishes thc a<lcquacv oI thc defin-

ing proposititrn to th( objcct defined (sci. l ircr). The definit ion

itself requires fbrv rvorcll: i t is not a fir l l-blou.n theon bLrt a pr6cis,

It is a definit ion th.rt rvorks bv division, fbr it is asrociatcd rvith

the pr ior dcf in i t ion of d i rect movetrent, the tuo together cov-

cring the entire rangt'of possiblc causes of movement. Civen the

clcarlv stated principJe (guoad m otus otigincm seu prin.ipium), the

div is ion is exhaust i |c: cvcry movement or ig inates ei ther at the

ccnter or at the per iphcrv. This biological del in i t ion rc l ies on a

phls ical anr i , indecd, a geometr ic one- In \um. wc f lnd in \ \ r i l l is

thc th ing, thc r tord and the n. , t ion. ' l 'he th in{, in the form crfan

or ig inal observat ion, a cutaneous ref lex of thr 'ccrcbrospinal svs-

tem, the scratch reflex; the rvord, rcflcx, lvhich hls improperly

entercd the language both as an adjcctivc and a noun;1(land the

not iorr , that is , the possibi l i tv ofa judgment, in i t ia l lv in the form

ofan ident i f icat ion or c lassi f icat ion and subseguent lv in the brm

of a principle of empirical intcrpretation. lFormation du i l le:.e,

PP.6U-591

The Logical ond Experintentol Consequences

172] ' lhomas Wil l is asstrnred th.r t a l l muscular mot i r )ns are cnused

ln a centr i f i rgal l lur of a l imal spir i ts f iom the brain, but hc r l is-

tinguished bcrrvccn rrrluntarv motions governc(l hv the cetcbrum,

such as locomotion. and tratural or involuntarv nrot ionl q( ivcrnc( l

bv the cercbcllum anrl rnt.dulla oblongata, such as respiration.rncl

l rcartbcat. l lence, he also dist inguished betr"een nvo souls - onc

sensi t ive and reasonablc, f i rund in man alone, thc () thcr s( nsi t ive

and vi ta l , lbund in both nran ancl animals.+l

In rnan both souls \\ 'ere situatecl rvithin the striated lrodics,

tlrr: seat ofthc sensorium tontntune of thc rcasonable soul. I his rr.as

the stagc at n hich a c l iscr in inat ion uls made betr l rcn thosc scn'

sorr inrpressions that \v('rc rr ' l l t 'ctecl into m()tion\ \\ i thr)ut rel:

( r ( 'nce to consciousr lcss an<l thc,se expl ic i t lv pcrccivcd.rs such br

the soul . [ . . . ]

I t should comr ns no surpr isc, thcrcf i r le, th.r t Jc.rn Atfruc

(1684-1766)ofMontpel l ie l locatcd thc seat ol common scnsc in

t l re u hi te matter of thc brain. Ih is local izat ion cnabled Astruc

t() propose an cxplanat ion ofsvmpathet ic phcnomena thJt con-

taincd, fbr the flrst t imc sincc Will is, the notion of reller nrotion

(,7n s_t mp.tthid pdrtitm d L.rlo D.rvorum positurd in intcrno \rntorio?,

1736). t lorv \1as i t th i t . r st i r ru lus or in jurv to onc pnrt ( ) l an

otqanisnr gale r ise to a rc.rct ion in anothcr pir t : 'Asrru( rc jectcd

lhe cxplanat ion, conlnron. l t th( t inrc, that cert . r in t ibcrs ol corn-

munication connected the nelves. He argued that .rl l nerlc f itre rs

arc separate ancl indept 'ndent f iom the brain to thc pcr ipherv of

thc organisnr. Astruc crplaincd svmpathct ic rc i lc t ion in terms

ol a phls ical rc l lect ion of impressions that he l rc l ic lcr l took

rlJl lr89

place in thc medulla, When animal spirits, stirred bv some stim-

uJus, rverc carricd to the brain by the nervc, they encountered

fibcrs in thc tcxturc of the meclulla, so that, "being reflected

rvi th an anglc of rcf lcct ion equal to thc angle of incidencc,"

thqy might enter thc orif ice of a motor ncrve siruated at that

prccisc Iocat ion. [ . . . ]Like Astruc, Robert Whytt of Edinburgh rejected the expla-

nation of svmpathies in tcrms of extracerebral communication

bctwccn nerves, vet he could not accept Astruc's mechanistic

ideas, nor cotr ld he envis ion, as I la l ler d id, a muscular i r r i tabi l -

ity distinct from sensibil i ty. i le u'as therelbre fbrced to propose

a truly novel conception of the functions of the spinal cord. In

his Essa.y on the Vitdl and Other Involuntary llotions of Animals

(1751), Whf,tt attemptcd to prove bv observation and experiment

that all motions are caused by the soul, in responsc sometimes

to an explicit perception, sometimes to a confused scnsation of

a stimulus applied to the organism. The central idea of his the-

orv of involuntary motion is that every involuntarv motion has a

manifest purposc, namell, to eliminate the causes of disagreeable

impressions. For example, u.hen thc pupil of the e,ve contracts

in response to l ight , i t is not the ef ]ect of a direct act ion of the

Iight on the iris but rather ofan importunate bedazzlement trans-

mitted to the retina and the optic nen'e. "The gcncral and wise

intention of all involuntarv motions is the removal of everything

that irritatcs, disturbs or hurts the bodv." It is this vital sense of

al l mot ions (r l 'h ich Whytt does not hcsi tate to compare to an

immediate, prclogical moral scnsc) that precludes understanding

them in tcrms of purelv mcchanical causes. Whytt nevertheless

denies that he is a "Stahl ian," one of those "who hold that one

cannot explain thcse motions in terms of the soul $ ithout accept-

ing the u,holc of the Stahlian vicw." The "sensitive principle" is

not the "rational and calculating" soul. (lr, rathcr, it is the same

l

soul - fbr there is onlv one - insofar as it esche$,s calculation

and reasoning and conf incs i tscl f to immediate , hcnce uncon-

scious, sensibil i tv. Phvsiologicallv, this rneans that muscles con-

tract onlv if innervatcd and scnsoriallv stimulated, which mcans

that they must be connected to the seat of the soul. Of course

Whytt vvas not unmindful ofthe arguments that Haller, rvith the

aid ofhis theories, drerv from the observation ofmuscular motions

in decapitated animals and scparatcd organs. This led him to sus-

pect thc role o[ the spinal column as a sensory cause ofmot ion,

"because the spinal column does not appcar to bc exclusivelv

an cxtension of thc brain and cercbellum. It is probable that it

prepares a nervous fluid of its ou,n, and this is the reason rvhv

vital and other movements persist l irr several months in a tortoisc

rr.hosc head has been severed."[...]

Johann August Unzer (1127-17991was critical of Whytt on the

grounds that nervous sensation is distinct from sensibil i tv pcr sc

.rnd that movement in l iving things is not necessarily caused bv the

soul, cvcn if i t cannot be explained in terms of a mechanical phe-

nomenon. Thc animal organism is indeed a svstem ofmachines, but

those machines are natural or organic, that is, they are machines

cven in theirverv tiniest parts, as Leibniz had cxplaincd. An animal-

machine nced not havc a brain and a soul. It does not follow lrom

this that the ncrvous fbrce in a brainless organism is merelv a

nrcchanical action. l he ncrvous fbrcc is a fbrcc ofcoordination

and subordination oforganic machines. For this firnction to oper-

ate, i t is enough fbr gangl ia, p lcxi or junct ions of other sorts to

make it possible for a nervous impression l iom an external source

to bc ref lected in the form of an internal ly or ig inated exci tat ion

destined fbr one organ or another. l 'hc movements of thc brain-

less polvp, fbr instance, can bc cxplaincd in th is wav. The expla-

nation also explains movcmcnt in a clecapitatcd vcrtcbrate. "Such

a nenous act ion, due to.rn internal scnsc impression, not accom-

panicd hv a rcpresentation, stemming ti.om thc rcflection of an

cxtcrnal scnse impression, is what takcs place, lbr example, when

a decapi tated frog jumps in response to a pinch of i ts d ig i t . "12

llnzcr's originality shr.'uld nou be apparcnt: he relirrcd to iden-

r i lv . lnt imcchanism u i r l r animism,lnd he decentral ized the phe-

nomenon of ref lect ion oI st imul i , \4,hich Wi l l is and Astruc had

becn ab]c to conccivc oDly in terms of a cerebral seat.

Ccorge Prochaska, prolissor of anaromv and ophthalmologv

at Prague .rnd Vicnna. r11rulcl succeed in combininll Wh\ tt 's obser-

vations on rlre functions crf the spinal cord u.ith Unzer's hvpoth-

cses about cxtcnding the refler function outsidc the brain. In De

lunctionibtr y,stematis ncn osi commentoth (178,+), Prochaska argued

that the 1>hlsiologv ol thc n< n ous slst<,nr harl confined itsclf too

narro*lv ro thc brain, ignored comp.rrative anatoln\', and there-

fbrc, unti l Unz:r, l) i led to recognizc that thc r,ls reriord, or ner-

vous lorce (no morc ta lk of animal spir i ts) , required onlv one

thing: an intact connrction ol the nerle fiber to the scnsorium com-

mune, r t isr inct l iom the brain, Even rv i thout a connect ion to the

brain, a scnsory ncnc can link up, through the.rensonum commune,

to a motor nerve inserted into muscle, and thus transfbrm an

impression into a mr)\ 'er)renr. Even i l Prochaska did nor def in i -

t ivelv rejecr th(.opinion that the spinal corcl is a bundle of nenes.

he m.rcle the rarl ical asscrrion that it, rogether l ' i th the medulla

oblongata, is the seat of thc sensoriun communc, the necessary

and sul l ic icnt con<l i t ion , r l the nerve funct ion. In div id ing, more-

orer, one dividcrl thc ncnous lbrce rl irhout abo)ishing it, therebl,

cxplaining thc pcrsisrencc of cxci tabi l i tv and movemcnt in the

liog uhose mrrlulla harl bcen sectioned. It was at thc level ofthc

medul la, Prochaska argucr l , that inrpression uas rc l lected into

r)rovcmcnt. t lDl ikc A\trLr( . Prochaska ( l id not bel i t 've that th is

rcflcction \\.as a purell, phrsical phcnomcnon governecl by a larv

simi l . r r to the lavv ol opt ical ref lect ion; in thc samc spir i t as

Wh\t t , rather, he argucd that medLrl larr r t f lect icrn of ncr\1)trs

impressions \\ 'as governcd bv a biological larv of the co[servation

of l iving things. l 'he cxamplcs citcrl bv Prochaska werc thc same

ones that L)escarres rnd Astruc had descr ibcd: occl t ts ion ol the

evel ids and snee/ ing. Prochaska t leI ined thc relat ion ol r t ' f lex

mot ion to consciousness better than anY of h is prcdecessors: he

cxplicit lv distingrrishcd the aspect o{ obligatory automatism from

thc aspect ofopt ional , intermit tcnt u nconsc iou \ncss, and he sup-

ported this c l is t inct ion r . r i th at{ t r t t rcnts f iom conrparat ivc anat-

omy. As one ascends tiom louel to higher animals. a brain is ad'lecl

to the rn.rorium communc ln man, soul and bodv have bcen jointtl

bv Cod. Nevertheless. thc soul "pto<lucus absolutc ly no act i ( )n

that depcnds t 'holh and uniquely orr i t Al l i rs act i ( )ns are Pro-

r lucct l , rathcr, through the instrr . tmcnt of thc nerrot ts svstent "

'fhus Prochaska end5 whcre l)escartcs began: in the case ol invol-

untarr mot ions, thc soul uscs an apParatus that c ln also funct ion

rr i thout i ts cooperat ion nnd ptrmission. But rhc r t latomrrpl lvsio-

logic.rl ((,ntcxt of thir asscrtion is (luitc dif l l l-ent' since l 'roch'rska

conceives of the nervous svstcm not " in gcneral ' ' ' l ike l )escarter,

but as an incrtasinglv comPlic.lted hierarchical serics, ot rvhich

the hunran brain is the highcst rJcvelopmcnt thorrgh not thc ch'rr-

.rcteri\t ic tvpe. ["Phvsiologit .rninralc"' Hrtoirt l l inirale. vctl 2'

pp. 6l l -161

173] In thc eighteenth ccntur-v, Astruc usc( l the not ion of a

ref lcct ion of thc ncrvou5 inf lux, l>ascd on thc phvsical larv of

rel lect ion ol l ight , i r r . t mc(haDist i ( thcor| of srr tPathies thr t

assunrcr l the brain ro bc thc uniqt te centcr of le[ lect ion \ \ 'hvt

desct ibcr l the ref lcx phcnomcn()n \ \ ' i thout using the rvorcl or

not i r )D. but thc lau s govcrning that phenomcnon \ ! -ere assumcd

n()t t ( ) bf purelv Pl) \ 's ical , r luc to th, . 'connect ion bctwcet) thc

rellcr leaction an<l the instinct <ll sellprcscrrirt ion. \Vhvtr at'11rte<l

that thc relat ion betrveen the s, .nsorv and nlotor f inct ions \ \Js

r9l'9t

not central ized but di l luse and not mcchanical but psvchic, and

he thercfbre saw no reison to ascribe it to any specific anatorni-

cal structure. Unzer also bclieved that the l.rw governing the phe-

nonlenon rvas not strictlv mechanical, but he svstematically ust'd

the ternr and the notion of reflection in r decentralizcd theorv

of the sensor imotor relat ionship, $hich he ascr ibed to a num-

bcr of anatomical structurcs (the nervous ganglia and plexus as

rvell as thc brain). Prochaska, f inally, retained both the rvord

and the notion of reflection but treated its physical mechanism

as suborclinate to the organic entitv's senst' crf self-preservation,

<lcccntr.r l izecl the rcflex function bv locating its explicit anatonri-

cil support in the rnedulla oblongata and spinal cord (and also,

probably, in the sympathet ic gangl ia) , and was apparent ly the

first to note that not all automatic reactions $'ere unconscious.

Legallois then \r,ent on to provc something that Prochaska never

did, namtly, that thc spin.rl column does not have the structure of

a nenc. \\rithout using the term reflex or thc notion, hc located

thr. ' re flex function in the me dulla, n hosc metameric division he

cstabl ishcd exper iment.r l ly .

Thus, bv 1800 the def in i t ion of the ref ' lex concept was in

place, a definit ion ideal when considercd as a rvhole but histori-

cal in each o[its parts. It c.rn be summarizecl as follorvs (with the

names of thc authors u'ho first formulated or incorporated cer-

tain basic notions iDdicatcd in parentheses): a reflex movemeDt

(\\ ' i l) is) is one \1hose inrmediate cause is an anrccedent sensation

(Will is), the effect of t 'hich is detcrmined bv phvsical la*-s (Will is,

Astruc, Unzer, Prochaska) - in conjunct ion wi th thc inst incts

(Whytt, Prochaska) - bv rcflection (Will is, ,\struc, Unzer, Pro-

chaska) in rhe spinal cortl lWhvtt, Prochask.r, Legallois), u' ith or

nithout concomitant c()nsciousness (Prochaska).{l lFormation du

re//r 'rc, pp. 130-311

r94 r9t

Corrections

74 laking rhir Jcl in i t ion as, ,ur \ lar l ing point . r re crn \ee Pre-

ciselv rvhat elements stood in need ol correction. One of the best

rcl 'crcncc terts is Johannes Mtil let 's Handbuch der Phrsiololl ie des

.Ilcnschcn, rvhere thc i l lustrious Gcrman phvsiologi5t comPares his

ideas on rcllex movement rvith thosc of Marshall I lall.{4 Miil le r

makcs i t c lear that in 1813, ' rhen

both Hal l 's paper and the f i rst

cdition of the Handbuch wcrc publishcd, thc rcflcx conccpt was

a principle ofexplanation, a thcoretical instrument tor interprct-

ing phcnomena defined as "moventents follor"' ing sens.rtions." The

thcoret ical contcnt o[ th is conccpt consistccl of lu 'o elementt .

onc positire, the other negati\ '( ' i ncgativelY, thc corccPt rcjccted

thc theon ol anastomoses betrT'een sensorv and motor fibers; posi-

tivelv, the concept rcquircd a ccntral interme(liarr between the

scnsorv impression and the dctcrmination of thc motor reaction.

It rvas fbr th! express purpose ol denoting the true ltrnction of

the mc<lu a spintl is, or spinal nrcdulla (rathcr than spinal cord ).

that Nlarsh.r l l l la l l coined tbc term "diastal t ic" to indicate that

the medullr could providc a l inctional connection [. letrveen sen-

sory and motor nerves only if situated betrveen them as an authcn-

t ic anatomical structure r l is t inct l rom the brain. The cl iastal t ic

(rel)ex) function of the spinal nrcdulla deterinined its relation to

the esodic. or anastal t ic , [unct ion of rhe lcnsorv nerve and the

cxo( l ic , or catastal t ic , funct iorr o l ' the motor nene.

On this fundamental point ,\ lLil ler and Hall agrcr:d. In Mtil ler's

words, "thr phenomcna I have described thus far on the basis

first of my o*,n observations and thcn thosc of lr ' larshall Hall 's

have one thing in common, namelv, that the spinal rnedul la is

the intermediarv bctrveen the st 'nsorv and the motrrr . lc t ion of

thc nervous pr inciple." Beal in nr ind that the t \ \ 'o phvsiologists '

agrecmcnt about the speci f ic central lunct ion oi thc spinal cord

uas the result of t lventv ycars of research and controversv con-

cerning the val id i ty.rnd interpretat ion of the Bel l -Nlagencl ic larv

(1811-22). [ . . .1Thc t3ell-Magendie lau' rvas a necessary ingrcdicnt fbr the for-

mulation of the reflcx concept, insofar as that concept incJudes

thc speci f ic lhnct ion of the spinal corcl . What l la l l cal led the

diastaltic (or cliacentric) function rvas conccivablc onh in con-

junction rvith t\ l.o mutually indepenclent propertics of thc nen'e.

Onlv if thosc two properties existed uas a nenous center rcqtrired

to divcrt thc ncrvous impulse to a neu, dest inat ion. [ . . . ] The

course that Mril ler fbllorvcd from 182.1 to 1833 shorvs that it rook

Bcll 's idca and Magcndie's experiments to relate the rcflcx con-

ccpt to the phvsiological function ofthe spinal cord.

The seconcl respect in rvhich thc nincteenth centurv rectif ied

the eightt 'cnth-ccnturv concept hacl to do w-ith thc rclation of

reflex movcmcnt to consciousness, that is, rvith ps]chological

matters. It was expressly on this point that Miil ler clisagreed u ith

Hall. In dcscribing a reflex as a movement that fbllorvs a sensa-

tion, Mril ler, l ikc Will is, Whvtt, Unzer and Prochaska bcfore him,

$'as in a sense obliging himsclf to unravel a mvstery: ho$. could a

movcmcnt depend on a sensation rvhen the ncrvous circuit had

trcen broken bv decapitation, thus rcmoving the interconnecting

sensory organ, the brain? Although Miil ler disagreed rvith Whytt,

r rho bel ieved that ref lcx movcments involvecl both conscious

sensations and spontaneous reactions, and although he praised

Prochaska fbr having pointed out that a ref' lex might or might not

be accompanicd by a conscious sensation, he rcgardcd thc rcflex

as the effect of a centripetal action propagated tou.arcl the spinal

cord bv the sensorv nerve, rvhich thcn might or might not con-

rinuc on to the common sensorium and, thus, might or might not

become conscious. Rcflcx movement \ras therefbre one species

rvi th in a gcnus compris ing al l movements condi t ioncd on the

act ion of the sensory neNcs. I la l l , on thc other hancl , fc l t that

onc ought to consider thc centr ipetal (anastal t ic) imprcssion

rvithout relerencc to the brain or to consciousDcss, and that the

conccpts of sensation and cvcn sensiti! i tv ought not to enter into

the conccpt of a reflcx. l he reflex function dicl not evcn dcPend

on scnsorv or motor nen'es but, rather, on sPccific nervous fibcrs

that Hall called "cxcitorrtotor" an(l "rellecto-motor" l lbers. I lall 's

l8I I Roval Socictv PaPer on "Thc Rellex Function of the N'ledulla

Oblong.rta and the N'tedulla Spinalis" exPlicit lY distinguishes reflcx

movement not onlv fi 'orn voluntarv movement directlt controlled

bv the brain but also from the resPiratorY movcment controllcd

by the mcdulla oblongata, as rvcll as fiom involuntarv movement

in i t iated trr c l i rect st imulus ofnervc or muscle f iber. A ref lex

movcment is not a spontancous, direct rcsPonse emanating lrom

a central sourcei i t pfesumes a st imulus appl ied at somc distance

fiom the reacting muscle being transmitted to thc sPinal cord

and fiom thcrc rellected back to the periphcry. I lall orientecl thtr

reflcx concept to\4ard a scgmental and cxplicit l l mechanistic con-

ccpt ion of the funct ions of the nervous system.

This rvas di f f icul t fbr Mi i l ler to acccpt. To be surc, he uas

open about his clisagreement u.ith Prochaska, anrl he ascribed all

rellex movemcnts to a teleological prjnciple ofinstinctivc organic

sel l:prescn ation. But as Fearing has pointcd out, Nli i l lcr's interest

in the phcnomcna of associated movements and radiant sensations

and his elaborate atternpts to explain thc latter in terms of a rellex

lirnction ofthe brain and spinal cord show that hc *as a Iong rvav

from conceiving ofreflexcs as segmcntal and local mcchanisms. In

lact, Mii l ler's obscrvations of associated movemcnts in narcotized

animals and general ref lex convuls ions led him to tuo s imulta-

neous conclusions: reflcx movcmcnts can involve the entire bodv

in response to the most insignificant local sensation, and thc nrorc

extensive a ref lcx ntovement is, the less i t is s lnchronized.

Mi i l ler 's concept ol ' ref lex, u.hich maintaincd a connect ion

196 t97

$'ith sensation - that is, with the brain - as rvell as the possibil-

ity that a local sensation might produce reflected effects through-

out the organism, s idcstcpped most of the object ions that had

been raised against I lall 's ideas. Ha]l had scandalized many physi-

ologists by attributing to the spinal cord a power to regulate

movement sti l l rvidcly bclieved to be an exclusive province of

the brain. [ . . . ]

I t u.as in 185J, fbur Iears before Hal l 's death, that Eduard

Plli lger pubfished Die scnsorischen Functionen des Rtjckenmarks der

ll irhclt iere. The rvell-knou'n larvs of reflcx activity (homolateral

conduction, symmetry, medullarv and ccrebral irradiation, gen-

ernl izat ion) csscnt ia l ly recast, in apparent lv more exper imenta)

lbrnr. l\ l i i l lcr's notion of the association of movements and the

radiation ol sensations. In l ict, Pflnger follou'ed Mril ler in using

the ref lex concrpt to cxplain so-cal led sympathet ic or conscn-

su.rl phenomcna, u hose irtcrprctation had previous)v divided pro-

ponents ol the pr inciple ofanastomosis ol rhc pcr ipheral nervcs

(- [homas Wil l is , Ravmond Vieussens, Paul-Joscph Barthcz) f ionr

bcl ievcrr in thc pr inciple ol a conf luence ol impressions in the

\.nsoriunl .ommunc (.lean Astruc, Robert Whvtt, Joh.rnn August

Unzer, George Prochaska). According to Prochaska, the rellex

conccpr prcscrved thc cxplanation of svmpathies in terms of the

tcnsorium co mune but located the latter outside the brain in thc

meclulla oblongata and spinal cord. Unlike Wh,vtt, Prochaska dis-

tinguished thc Jensorium commune from the soul but continued

to credit it n ith a teleological function, according to $'hich the

reflcx action rvas a fbrm of se lf-preserving instinct (no.tff i ronser-

yat io) . So i t is hardlv surpr is ing that Pf l t iger in 1851 fel t that

Prochaska had had a better understanding of the nature of the

rcf)ex process in 1784 than Hall had managed in 1832-33. For the

samc rcasons that had persuaded Prochaska to hold on to the con-

ccpt of a sensorium communc Pfli iger believed in the existcnce ol

a nrcclrrl lary soul (Rtckenmarhsseelel, rvhich enabled him to cxplain

the purpose of reflex actions. Hall, on the othcr hand, drer" a

sharp dist inct ion betu'een adapt ivc or intent ional movemcnt,

deliberate and stemming fiom thtr brain, and reflcx movement'

rvhich hc characterized as "aimless." Less mechanistic than I lall,

,\4n1lcr had raised the rigidity causcd bv certain generalized re-

l lcxcs as an objection against Prochaska's view, though it is true

that N4ii l lcr n as careful to notc that this occurred onl,v "in a suit-

ably prepared animal." Pfl i igcr's concept of the reflcx must be

regarded as a misleading dialect ical svnthesis i i ts cxper imental

basis rvas as old as Marshall I lall, whereas the philosophical con-

tc\t that made it meaningful rvas as old as Prochaska rvould havc

been. had hc not died in 1820.

In lact , Pfhiger did not succecd in 1851 in f inding a str ict l r

phrsiological solut ion to a problcm that Hal l , rathcr than real l ' -

lacinu, hat l s idesteppcd b,r at t r ibut ing rvhat hc cal led "er<ci to-

motol po\1ers" to ncne fibers. The problcm lav in the rerms "scn-

sation" or "lensit)i l i tv" as ther rverc ust<l in the earliest dcflnit ion.

, r f the rel lex. Wi l l is had said that "rel lex mot ions inrnle( l iateh

lbllow sensation" (notus rellexus est qui d ttn\ionc Pruevia imme

diotus dependens, i l l ico retorqueturl, whereas Prochaska had said

that "one of the common scnsorv funct ions is to rc l lect senst

impressions as motor imptrlscs" (prcecipua Junctio scnsoril com-

munis consistat in reJlcxione impressionum scnsoriorum in mototid\).

Nli i l ler began his chapter on rcflex movcmcnts bv saying, "l\1ore-

ntents that fbllow scnsations havc alvvavs bcen knorln." As long

as pcople continued to speak of "sensation," thev remainecl on

thc terrain ol psvchologv. It rr.as logical to look fbr a seat of thc

psvche, and rvhv not suspect the spinal cord? In 1817, Richarcl

Dugard Craingcr correctlv noted that contcmporarv phvsiologists

appearcd to bcl ieve in thc cxistcncc of tuo k inds of scnsat ion,

onc conscious, the othcr unconscious. Eclrvarcl Georgc Tandr

LiddeJ points out that \1hen Charles Todcl coined the term "affer-

cnt" in 1839, .r major step rvas taken touard distinguishing be-

t$een the two kinds ofsensat ion. Yet i t mav be that the t ru lv

major step came only later, when the subjective concept ofsen-

sibil i tv (/e senr dc /iqf./ur) rvas replaced bv a purelv objective one

defined in tcrms of the histology of receptors.

What is interesting about thc history of thc rcflcx concept

between Pflt iger's rvork and Charles Scott Sherrington's first pub-

lications is its importation fiom physiologv into clinical rvork,

rvhich bcgan rvith Ilall. Thc lattcr was thc first to use the dis-

ruption or disappearance ofcertain reflexes as cliagnostic svmp-

toms. The concept of the reflex arc graduall l took on meaning

beyond that associatcd u ith the schcmatic structure introduced

bv Rudolph Wagncr in 184'1; incorporatcd thus into svmptom-

atologv and clinical examination, it inlluenced therapeutic deci-

sion-making. But as the reflex concept passed lionl the laboratory

into the hos;r i ta l , i t d id not go unchanged. Whi le most phys-

iologists tcnded to look upon reflcxcs as ftrndamcntal, unvarying

mechanisms, a ferv clinicians, among them Emil . lendrassik, who

lbllo*cd up thc uork o[Wilhelm Heinrich Erb and Carl Friedrich

Otto Westphal (1875)bv looking systcmat ical lv for tendon re-

f ' lexes, l lere surprisecl to cliscover that such reflexes rvere neither

constant nor unifbrm, and that thcir abscnct' rvas not necessarily

a pathological symptom. It rvould not be long bcfcrrc physiol-

ogists uould be obl iged to abandon the ide.r of a ref lcx as a

simplc arc cstabl ishing a onc-to-onc rc lat ionship bctwcen st im-

ulus and muscular response.

The general izat ion of cel l theorv, the ident i f icat ion of neu-

rons untler the microscope and technological advances in histo]-

ogv dcmonstratcd, o1-coursc, that ncrves could be decomposed

analvticallv into smallcr - in somc scnsc atomic - structures. The

concept ofa scgrncntal ref' lex ruas therebv corroboratcd. New

cl in ical obscrvat ions thus fbrce( l phvsiologists to considcr scg-

mcnts in thc contcxt of the organism as a lvholc.

When Shcrrington discovcrc<l that the scratch reflex nas not

inertr icablv associatcd rv i th a str ict lv def lned ref lcxogenic zone,

hc laid thc groundrvork fbr a ncu' rtctif ication of the conccpt.

'fhe rcllcx \\ 'a! no\\ ' seen not so much .rs the reaction of a sPc-

ci f ic organ in response to a st imulus as an alreadY coordinated

movcmcnt dctennincd in p.rrt bv stimuli in a certain part of thc

organism and in part [r1 thc organism's global state. Reflex movtr-

mcnt, evcn in i ts s implest , most . rnalvt ic.r l fbrm, rTas a f i r tm ol

bchavior, thc rcaction of an organic v' hole to a changc in its rcla-

t ion to the envlronment.

Although thc *rrrd "integration" did not aPPcar in Sherring-

ton's vocabular l unt i l af ter thc nineteenth centur-v had endcd,

the conccpt ol integration w.1! thc cro$ ning achieventcnt of ninc-

tecnth-c{. 'Dturv neurophvsiologr. Sherrington's rvork on rigidity

duc to <lcccrcbration (1898 ), rt 'ciprocal innervation and svnapses

converged on a tlemonstration of thc l ict that a basic reflcx inrclvcs

mcdul lan' intcgrat ion of a nrusclc bundle into an ent i rc mcnrbcr

through convergence ol af ferent inf luxcs and combinat ion of

antagonistic renctions.' l-he l irnctions of thr: brain Arc an cxtension

ol the medul larv intcgrat i ( )n nf the parts to the cnt i r r organism.

In adapting Hughlings Jackson's concept ol integr.rt ion, Sherring-

ton \ \ 'as intcrcsted not in i ts evolut ionarv inrpl icat ions but onlv

in i ts str-uctural oncs,

I t sccms rcasonable to sav that Slrcrr ington.rc l r ieved, in thc

f ie lc l ofphvsiologv, the dialect ical svnrhesis of thc rcf lex concept

ui th thc conccpt ol-organic total i tv t l tat I i rst Pr-ochaska.rnd then

l\ ' l t i l lcr had sorrght ancl that I ' l l i iger.hacl misle.rdinglv achicvecl br

intcrprct ing the resul ts of h is phvsiological cxpcr imcnts in meta-

phvsical terms,

Bl thc encl of thc nincteent l r centrrr \ , thc relJcx conct:pt h.rc l

thus been purged of anv teleological implications, u'hile it had

also ceascd to be seen - as Hall had sccn it - as nothing more than

a simple mcchanical reaction. Through a scrics of corrections,

it had become an authentically phvsiological concept. IEtuder,

pp. 296-30a)

,l

Cuaprrn Nrn r

Biological Ob jects

A Principle ol Thematic Conserv.tt ion

[75] The historv ofa science rvoulcl surelv fail ofits goal if i t did

not succeed in representing the succcssion of attempts, impasses

and repetit ions that resultcd in thc constitution of rvhat the sci-

cnce todav takes to be its object of interest. Unlike geometrv and

astronomy, terms that are more than trvo thousand vcars old, the

term biologv is not yet nvo hundred vcars old. When it u'as l irst

proposcd, gcometrv had long since ccasecl to be the science of

figurcs that can be drav'.n n,ith a straightedge and compass, while

astronomv had onlv recentlv expancled its scope ofinterest bevond

the solar system. In both cases, the s igni f ier of the scient i f ic d is-

c ip l ine rcmained thc samc, but the discipl ine in quest ion had

broken rv i th i ts past. Bl contrasr, the concept of b io logr, was

invented to characterizc, in retrospecr, a disciplinc that hacl not

yet broken with its past.

The *.ord "biology" occurs fbr thc flrst t ime in .Jean-BaptisteLamarck's Hvdrogdololl ie (1802). When he mentioned the rvord

again, in the preface to his Philosoph;c rcologiguc (1809 ), it $,as in

allusion to a treatisc ro be entit led Ito./ogic, $'hich he never actu-

allv rvrote. Strikingly, this preface is concerned rvith general prob-lems of animal organization "as one travcrscs their entire series

201

l iom rhe most per{act to the most imperfcct." fhe idea of a hier-

archical scr ies of animals, a chain of bcing, indicates that the

object of the ncrv biologv \ \ 'as the samc as that of Ar istot le 's

Il istorid onim(rl ium ancl De partihus anima,lium. l lence, Lamarck's

ou,n invention - modiflcation in the organs through force ofhabit

and under thc inf luence o[changing enr i ronmcntal condi t ions -

rvas explicit lv intendcd to reestablish "thc verv ordcr of nature"

bevond the lacunac and discont inui t ics in the svstem of c lassi f i -

cat ion proposed bl natural ists - in other words, to cstabl ish a

clear progression ancl graclation in organization that could not be

over looked dcspi tc anv "anomal ics."

As fbr the other invcntor of the term and concept of biology,

Gottfi ied Reinhold Trcviranus, the verv tidc ol the book he pub-

lished in 1802, Biololl ie oder Philosophie der l.ebenclcn Notur l ir

Nctturlorscher unrl, ' lrztc (r 'olumc 2 in a six-volumc scries, the last

of q,hich \1as publ ished in 1822), indicates that he had no wish

to separatc or distinguish thc naturalist from thc phvsician as to

their phi losophical or general conccpt ion of the phenomena o[

l i fc . Ihus, at the t r l rn of the nineteenth ccnturv, a new waY of

looking at tho studv of Jir. ing things, which r.:ntailecl a ncw logic,

rvas in fact l imitcd by the tradition.rl association ofthc standPoint

ol thc natural ist rv i th that of the phvsic ian, that of the invest iga-

tor wi th that of thc hcalcr . [ . . . ]

Since the turn of thc nineteenth ccntury, horvevcr, def in i -

t ions ol biologv's specific objcct have been purgcd of valueJaden

concepts such as pt'rf iction or impcrlcction, normalitv or abnor-

malitv. l 'herapeutic intcntions, tvhich once informccl or, more

accuratclv, deformed, thc biologist's vieu of laboratory uork, have

sincc trct'n l irnitetl to tht applications ol biological knorvledge.

llence, it rvould sccm that the clucstion of"normalitv" in the his-

torv of biologv ought to be classcd as a mattcr of historical rather

than current intrrcst . Ishal l at tempt to Prove thc contrarv. To

rhat cnd, I d i rect the reaclcr 's at tcnt ion to the cnd of the his-

tor ical process. For contemporar! b iochemists, the l i rnct ions of

sclflpreservation, self '-reprocJuction .rnrJ sclf:rcgulation arc char-

actcr ist ic propert ies of microorganisms such as bactcr ia. l -he

modt ' l of ien proposed by scicnt ists thcntsclvcs and not just bv

popular izcrs of their rvork is that of th( " f t r l l l automated chcmi-

cal lactorv."ai The organic f i rnct ions arc acknorvlcdged to be

supcr ior to their technological countt ' rparts in rc i iabi l i tv , i f not

in la l l ib i l i ty , and in the existence ol mechanisms fbr dctcct ing and

correcting reproductive errors or l ' lals. Thcse facts make it rca-

son.rble to ask rvhether there is not some principle ol thcrn.rtic

consen'ation at *.ork in thc historical constitution of biologv. On

this v ic*, which contrasts ui th an idca of-scicncc c l . rboratecl bv

histor ians.rnd phi losophcrs in thc cra u 'hcn phvsics dcal t u ' i th

macroscopic objects, biologv is dif lerent l iorn the other sciences,

ancl the historv of biologv ought to rellect that t ict in thc tlur:s-

tions it asks ancl the rvay in rvhich it answers thcm. Iror thc allcgcd

pr inciple of thcmat ic conscnat ion in thc historv ol b io logv is per-

haps onlv a rcf lect ion of the biologist 's acceptance in one rvav or

another o1 thc indisputable fact that l i le, u hatever lbrm i t may

takc, involvc:s sclf:prcscrvation bv means of self:regul.rt ion. l/r/c-oloq) ontl Rationalftr ' , pp. 125-28]

Various Monilestotions of the Biologicol Object

In anLiquit.t '

[76] l hc funclamcntal concepts in Ar istot lc 's dcf in i t ion of l i fc

are thosc of soul .rnd organ. A l iving btxJv is an animatc and organ-

ized bodv. I t is animate becausc i t is organized. I ts soul is in f ;ct

act, lbrm and cn<l. "Supposc that the eve .rverc an .rnimal - sight

rvoul<l l rave bcen i ts soul . . . . Wc must no.rr . cxtcnd our consic ler-

at ion f rom the'parts ' to thc uhole l iv ing bor lv; fbr u 'hat thc

)<) 4 2{] t

departmental scnsc is to the bodily part rvhich is its organ, that

the rvhole facultv ofsense is to the rvholc sensitive bodv as such."a6'fhe organs arc the instruments of thc soul's enrJs. "The bod,r too

must somcho* or other be madc fbr thc soul. and each part ofit

f 'or some sul,ordinate function, to n'hich it is rdapted."a? It is

impossible to overstnte the inf luence ol Ar istot le 's use of the

tcfm o.rtdnon to designatc a l irnctional part (nrorion)oIan animal

or vegetal body such as a hand, bcak. u'ing, root or vvhat have

vou, LInti l at least the encl ofthe eighteenth centurv, anatomy

and phvsi<r l<rgy preserved, rv i th al l i ts ambigui t ies, a term that

Aristotle borrorr.ed from the lexicon ofartisans and musicians,

$,hose use indicates implicit or cxplicit acccptance of some sort

ofanalogv bctwccn naturc and art. l i fe and technics.

As is rvt' l l knou.n, Aristode conceived olnature and life as the

art ofarts, bv *hich he meant a proccss te leoJogical bv i ts very

nature, immnnent, unpremeditatcd and undcliberatcd - a process

that ever! techrr ique tends to imitate, and that the art of medi-

c ine approaches most c losely rvhen i t heals by apply ing to i tsel f

ru l ts inspircd by the idca of hcal th, thc rc los and form ofthe

living orgrnism. Aristotle, a phvsician's son. thus subscribed to

a biological natural ism that had al f in i t ies rv i th the natural ism

of l l ippocrates.

Lifc's tclcological proccss is not pcrfcctlv cfl icicnt and infal-

l ible, houer'gr. ' l-he existence ofmonsters shorvs that nature does

make mistakes,a8 rvhich can be explained in terms of matter 's

resistance to lonn. Forms or ends are not necessar i ly and univer-

sa) ly excnrplarv; a ccrtain c lcviat ion is to leratecl . The lbrm ofan

org.rnisnt is expressed through a rouglr constancy; it is \ahat the

orq.rnisnt appears to bc most of the time. Hence, *,e can consider

a fbrnr to bc a norm, compared to u,hich the exct:ptional can be

characrcrizcd as abnormal. ldeologv antl Rationalitv, pp. 128-29)

i ,t,j '

tr,W

i

In thc scventeenth and eighteenth centuties

[77] Descartes contradictcd Ar istot le 's proposi t ions Point by

point . For him, nature was ident ical u ' i th the laws o{ mot ion

and conservation. Every .rrt, including meclicine, r 'as a kind of

machinc-building. Descartcs prcservecl the anatomical ancl Phvs-

io)ogical concept ol an organ but el iminated any dist inct ion

bet l leeD organi , /at ion and f . rbr ic,r t ion. A l iv ing bodv could serve

as the model fbr an automaton or vice versa. \ 'et therc was an

ambiguity in this reversibil i ty. fhe intention behind the construc-

tion ofan automaton tvas to coPy nature, but in the C.rrtt 'sian the-

orv of f ife the automaton serves as an intell igible equivolcnt ol

nature. There is no rcrom in Cartesian physics fbr an ontological

dif lerence betwcen nature and art. "[S]o it is no Iess natural lbr

a clock constructcd !vith this or that sct of rvheels to tell thc time

than it is lbr a tree wh:ch grcw from this or that sced to produce

the appropr iate l iu i t . "a 'q[ . . . ]' tb begin ui th, tht C.rr tesian \1atch is no less subjer: t to the

l lvs of nrcchanics i t i t te l ls rhe t imc incorrect lv th.rn i f i t te l ls

the t ime correct l t .s( l 5 imi lar ly, i t is no less natural fcrr i man to

bc sick than to be heal thr , ancl s ickness is not a corrupt ion of '

nature.5l Yet thc th i rst that dr ives the v ict im ofdropsy to dr ink

is a "\ 'eritable error of nature," evcn though it is an eflcct of the

substant ia l union of soul and bodv, rvhose scnsat ions, such as

thirst or pain, are stat ist ical lv val id indicators of th ings or s i tua-

tions favorablc or hamrful "to thc consenation ofthe human bodv

rvhcn i t is fu l lv heal thv." ; : This idea is conf i rmed at rhe end of

the "Conversations rvith Burnran" (1648), in rvhich thc metlicirrc

ol the physic ians, not basecl on sound Cartesiarr rncchanics, is

dcnigratcd . rncl r id iculed in lavor of a coulse oI conduct amen-

able, as animals are, to thc s i lcnt lcssons of nature concerning

"sel f - rest i tut ion." "Etery man is capable ofbeing his orvn physi-cian."5l Even fbr Descartes, sellpreservation rcmains the primary

206 )07

rdistinct ive charar: tcr ist ic of the l iv ing bodv. l . l

Llndoubtedly it vr,as Gcorg Ernst Stahl t ho most stubbornly

delcnded, inhis De divct.ritote orqdnisnli er nrc.drlrtn?i (l?06), tht

irreducibil i tv ofthe organism, that is, thc idea that a ccrtain ordcr

ol>tains in thc te lat ions of the parts o1'a mechanism to the r lhole '

A l iving bodr is both instrumentcd arld instrumcntal. lts t ' ff icient

structure lstructurLt, constructio, ordinotio, disttibutio are all used

in paragraph 19) reveals coopcration on thc part of mediate or

imncdiatc rgcnts, - fhe nratcr i r l cotrst i tut ion of the bor lv is sub-

jecr to rapid corruptior, Stahl observcs, horvever, that discase is

an rxcept ional concl i t ion. I Iencc, thr ' re must bc some poler ol

conservation, some immaterial pou'er ollering active resistance

to dccomposi t ion, perDranent l l at uork in the bodics of l iv ing

things. Sc lf:prescrvatio n of the organism is achicved as a result

not ofsonre nrechrnical but ofDatural "autocracr."9a[. . . ]

It is not onlv the histon of anatontv and physiologv that bcgins

u i th Ar istot lc but also the historv ol * 'hat 'uas

long cal led "nat-

ural h istorv," including the classi l icat ion of l iv ing th ings, thcir

orcler lv arrangt 'nrent in a tablc of s imi lar i t ics and cl i f l i rences.

studv of their k inship through morphological comparison and,

llnallv, studv of thc compatibil i tv ol dif lereDt mo(les of e\istcncc.

Natural h istory soughr to cxplain thc c l ivcrs i tv ol l i fc f i r rms able

to coexist in a given environnrcnt. In 17'19 Carolrrs Linnaeus re-

fer-red to this coexistencc as the occonomia ndturdc.l...f

ln the c ightecnth centur\ , the status ol species was lhe lbre-

mclst problem oI the naturalists, as can be leen most clearly of

all in the r'ork ol Conrte Btrffon and I innaeus. fhc latter did not

exper i r :nce as rnuch di icul tv as the tbrnrcr in holding that the

specics ucrr: f ixc(l at creatjon and pcrpctuntc(l from gencration

to gcnerrtion. Buflbn .rttemptcd to resolve the problenr rr it lr his

theorv of "intemll molds" and "organic molecules." Organic mol-

cculcs, hc mairr ta incd, rvere inclcstruct ib le; t l rev sur-r ' ivct l r l re

J.r , , , e.r r , l rcprodur l i r ,n l r "nr qt 'n, rJt ion 1, , ! rnr ' r ' , r l i^n. . rcr unru-

l . r t ing in the bodies ol l iv ing th ings in speci f ic lbrms shapcr l bv

internal nolds. Thc latter, (letermined bv the firrrn ol thc org.rn-

ism, djctatecl thc uar in u 'h ich the parts had to be arranged in

,rrdr:r to lorm a rvholc.

Consider for a moment the intelnal mold metaphor. l\ ' lolds arc

rrsLcl in smelt ing and nrasonrv to inrposc .r ccrrain thrcc-dimcn-

sional shapc. Etvmologicalh, the qrrrd is rclated to "modulus" ancl

"rrodel." In con'rmon usage, it indicatc! a structural norm. ln l iv-

ing organisms, horvever, the structural Dorm cin nccommoddte

irregular i t ies, to nhich Bul f i rn relers on nrore th,rn onc occasion

as anonralies (ltres onomaur). An organic.rnomaly is n()t thc satne

rs . r phvsical i l regular i tv, hr lvevcr. In i t ia l lv , Buf lbn conct ' ivcd

of gencrat ion as analogous to crvstJ l l i rat ion, bLrt u l t inratel l hc

c.rmc to think of crystall ization as a lbrm of organization. I Ic was

unable to avoid associat ing.rnomal ies rv i th degenerat ion, hcnce

u i th the problem ol thc mLrtabi l i tv of specics. On this point ,

BLrf fbn rr as ncrer ablc to achicve cr r fa inn. I le did not regard tht :

i r lca ofdcr ivat i lc species as absurcl on i ts l ic t , brr t hc bel ievcr l or .

prolesscd to bel ieve th.r t o l rscnat ion conl i rmcr l thc tcachings ol

thc Bible. t 5

l ' ierre [-ouis ]Vloreau clt l\4aupertuis rvar bold< r in thcorizing,

pcrhaps because he possessetl lcss extcnsive cmpirical infbrrn.r-

t ion. For him, i t ructr l ra l v. l r iat ion \ \ 'as rhe rule ol organic prc

gtession. ln paragraph ]1 of the Srsrdmc r /c /o nalure (1751). hc sct

lcrrth a theor\'()l genrration bascd on thc existencr ol 'elcment.rrr

lhrticlcs of mnttcr t 'nclolr,crl u ith appetitc and memorv, \\,hose

"arrangcment" rcplocluccs the posr ib l r miraculous srructurc ol

thc f i rst indiv iduals. The phcnomen.r of rescnrblance, misccge-

nat ion nnd nronstrosi tv coul<l bc cxplain<<1, hr , r rgueci , in rcrms

ol thc compatibil i tv or incoDrpatibil i tv of "ar.rangemcnfs" in seeds

nr ingkt i through copular ion. Ihus, I : r tcr , in l tarr{raph -15, he.rsks,

I

2()6 2 ().)

L--an sc not explain in this l lay how liom just trvo individuals the

nrost dissimilar specics could have multiplied? Originallv the; may

havc srcmmcd lrom lbrtuitous productions in rvhich the elcmentary

parts did not retain the order thev occupied in the l ither and mother

animals. l iach degrec oferror could havc prorluced a nrw specicsl

and reprated crrors could havc givcn rise to thc infinite cliversity of

aninrals that rve sec todav.

It is tcmpting to read this text \ ' \, i th spcctacles provided by con-

temporary biochemical and genetic theorv. Order and error occtJr

both here and in contemporary accounts ofhereclitary biochem-

ical defects .rs ground and cause o[ both normality and abnor-

mal i ty. But today biochemistrv and genet ics of fer us a rvay of

interprcting org.rnic abnormalit ies that was rvorked out in coop-

crat ion l { , i t l r t l re Darrv in ian crplanat ion of the or ig in ofspecies

and the a( lapt . r r ion of organisms. Hence Maupertuis 's proposi-

tions should be legardcd more as Iictions than as anticipations

of scient i f ic fheor- ies to corrrr . He rvas unable to olcrcome the

rliff icultr poscd bv rhe natural mechanism fbr nor-malizing differ-

eDces. Both he and Bullon believed that human intervention -

th lough technir lucs of hLrsbandrv or agronomv - r 'as the onlv

!r'a} to stnbil ire rariations * ithin species. l ldeolog.v and Rotionol-

i t r . pp. 129-35]

ln thc ninctccnth century

[78] Thc pubf ication of On the Origin of Species b.v .l,leans ol Nat-

ural Selection; or the Prescrvation oJ Favoured Races in the Struggle

for Ltle in l8 59 occasioned doubts in the minds of somc carly read-

crs because of the traditional mcaning of certain concepts men-

tioncd in the tit lc and frequentlv alluded to in the bodv of the

work, The thtory ofnatural selection statcs that ccrtain devia-

tions l iom the norm can be seen a porfcrioli to provide a tenuous

aclvantage fbr survival in novcl ecological situations [)arrvin thus

subst i tuted a random f i t for a prcordained adaPt. l t ion' Natural

sclcction is eliminative. Disadvantaged organisnrs die; the sun'i-

vors arc all different in one degrcc or another. Thc reader u'ho

takes l itcrallv such DarrT'inian terms as "selection," "advantage,"

"adaptation," "favor" and "disfavor" may Partially overlook the

fict that telcologv has been excluded lrom Darrvin's theory Does

this mcan that all value-laden terms have becn excluded fiom tht'

idea of l i fe? l . i fe and death, success or la i lurc in the struggle lbr

survival - are these value-neutral conccpts ' even i t st lccess js

reducc<l to nothing more than cont inued existencel ' l )oes [ ) ' r r -

r r in ' . langrr . rge rcv,al h i r rhc,ught ordoes i t \ ( rgg(\ t thr t ( \ (n lof

I )anvin a causal explanat ion ofadaptat ion could not abol ish the

"r ital nreaning" ofadaptation, a meaning determined trv conrPlr-

ison of thc l iving rvith the dead? As [)aru'in otrserved. \ ' i lr i 'rt ionr

in naturt r t ru l<l have rcmained ni thout c l lect hat l i t not l r t 'en

tbr rratur.r l \e lect ion. Wh.r t could l imi t the . rb i l i t \ of th is la ' r ' ,

r )perat ing rx,er a long pet iod r l l t in]c lnr l r igorouslr s( r t t t in iTing

thc \ t ructure, ovcral l organizat io l l anr l habi ts ol ever l creatur( ] r

to promote good and rcject evil?;' '

And l )arrv in 's \ \ 'ork ends \ \ ' i th a coDtr i ls t : "uhi lc th is planet

has gone circling on according to thc fixed larv ol gr;vit l, lrom

so simplc a beginning endlcss lbrms most beautiful and most \\1)n-

derlul have been arrd arc bcing evolvcd."

In suggesting that individual variations, deviations iD \tructure

or inst inct , arc usclul because thcv v ie ld a survival adr.rnragc in a

$orld in rvhich rclations of organism to organism arc the most

important ofal l causcs of change in l iv ing beings, l )arrv in intro-

duced a nerv criterion ol'normalitv into biologv, a criterit ln bascd

on thc l iving creaturc's rclation to l i l 'e and dcath. Bv no means

did he eliminatc moralitv f i"om consideration in dctelmining thc

object ofbiologv. Belore t)aru in, dcath u.as ccrnsiclerecl to lre thc

l.i t

fl

regulator of the quantitv of l i f i i (Buflbn) or the sanction imposed

lbr infiactions of nature's ordcr, thc instrument of her cquil ib-

r ium ( l - innaeus). AccorrJ ing to Dar$, in, death is a bJind sculptor

ol l iving lbrms, lbrms elaboratcd without preconceivcd idta, as

tleviations fkrm normalitv are convcrtcd into chances fbr sun ival

in a changed environmcnt. Danvin purged lrom thc concept of

adaptation anv rcfcrence to a preordaincd purpose, but he did not

separatc it complctelv from the concept of nomalitv. In thc spirit

of Danvinism, horvcvcr, a nonn is not a flxcd rule but a transi-

t ive capaci ty. - fhc normal i ty ofa I iv ing th ing is that c lual i tv of i ts

rclation to the environmcnt $hich enablt 's it to gcnerate clescen-

dants exhibi t ing a range ofvar iat ions and standing in a nerv rela-

tion to their rcspcctive environments, and so on. Normalitv is not

a qual i tv of thc l iv ing th ing i tsel l but an aspect ol ' the al l -encom-

passing rc lat ion betnecn l i fc and death as i t af lccts the indiv id-

ual l i f i f irrm at a given point in rime.

Thus, the environmcnt decic les, in a nonteleological u.ay,

rvhich variations rvil l sun i,r 'e, but this docs not necessarily mean

that evo]ution does not tenrl to create an org.rnic order firm in

i ts or ientat ion i l precar- ious in i ts incarnat ions. I lcrcdi tv is an

uninterruptecl dclcgation ol'orclinal pou.er. What dif lcrcncc does

it makc if, in Salvaclor Luria's rvorcls, "evolution operates rvith

threats, not pronl ises"?57f. . . ]The plrvsiologists took thcir inspiration l iom a distinction flrst

madc br Xavier Bichat:

There arc tno kinds oi l i l i phcnomcna: (l)the st.rtc ol hcalth, and

(2 ) tht statc ofsickness. I lence, thcrc arc trvo distinct scicnces: phvs-

io logv, r rh ich is concerncd rv i th phcnomtna of the l i rst state, and

pathologv, s lr ich is conccrncd u ith thosc oi the scconci. l 'he history

ol phcnomcna in w hich thc vital lbrces havc thcir natural typc Ieads

us to that ol phcnomcn,r in * hich thosc lorccs are distortecl. Norv,

in thc phvsical scicncr:s, onh thc l i rst h istorv cxists; thc second is

norvherr: to be lbun<|. Phvsiologv is to thc motion of l iving bodics

\r'h.tt astronomv, drnanlics, hvllraulics, hvdrottatics and stt fbrth. . .

.1re to the motions of incrt bodies. The l:rttcr h.rvc no scicncc that

corrcsponds to thcm ls Pathologl corrcsPontlr to thc Ibrmer.l8

But not al l phvsiologists agreed i th Bichat that there exist v i ta l

fbrces not subjcct to thc lan's of Phvsics. Here I must citc Claude

Bernarcl oncc morc, l )ecause his posi t ion is so up to rJate. He

admit ted, l i rst o l 'a l l , drat v i ta l Phenomena are sub,cct onlY to

phvsical and chemical causes, but hc also held that thc organism

cloelops f iom thc egg according to an immancnt design, a plan,

a rcgul.rritv, u'hich is responsible lbr its ult imatc otganiz.rtion, for

its h.rrmonv, pcrsistencc an(I, i l neetl be, rcstoration.

What Bcrnard dcscribed in imagcs is todat cxplained bv the

theorems ol macromolcculat-biochcmistrv. Like thc mct.rphor o1'

the " intcrnal mold," thc images of "dcsign," "plan," "guiding

idoa" an<l "or<ter" are gircn rctroactive lcgitimacv bv the trrnccpt

ofa program cn(o( le( l in sequcnccs of nucleot idcs. ; ' r l :or the l i r -st

t ime in the historv of b io logv,. r l l the propert ics ol l iv ing th ings -

gro\ \ ' th, organiz.r t ion, reproduct ion, heredi tary cont inui t ! - can

bc cxpl . r ined in terms ol molecular stmcture, c l remical rcact ions,

enzymcs and genes .l l t lcoloo.v aru1 Rationalit.v, 1>p. l j6-)91

ln lhe t*enticth ccntur.t

[79] lhc level o l 'object iv i t \ nt $hich the opposi t ion betuccn

normal .rnd abnormal uas lcgitinrrtc uas shil ied l ionr the surf.rce

to the dcpths, lrom thc <lcvelopcrJ organisnr to its germ, from thc

macroscopic to the ul t ramicroscopic. Nou i t is thc t r . rnsmission

of thc htreditarv mcssage, thc procluction of thc gcnetic progranr,

that ( letermincs .w hat is normal an<l r lhat is a dcviat ion l rom thc

norntal. Some hum.rn chromosornal anomalit:s suclr as mongolism

2rl

can be obsened dircct lv in the c l in ic. Others, such as Kl inefc l tcr 's

srndrome, are to leratrd rv i thout apparent i l l ef lcct and mani-

lest rhemselves onh in spccial ecological circumstances. As for

gcnetic anomalies, I shall mention only "innate errors of metab-

olism" - to usc the phrase that Archibald Edward G.rrrod coincd

in 1909 - that is, specific biochemical lesions that result from

thr presence of a mutant gene, which is called "abnormal" not

ro much because of its statistical rarity as because of its patho-

logical or even fatal e l fects ( for example. hemophi l ia, Hunr ing-

ton's chorea and so on). A new nomenclature ol d isease is thus

established, referring disease not to the individual considered in

its totality but to its morphological and functional constituents:

diseascs ol the hcmoglobin, hormonal diseases (such as hypcrthv-

roidism), muscle diseases and so forth. Gene murations that block

chcmical svntheses by altcring their cnzyme catalysts are no Ionger

intcrpreted as deviations irr l\, laupertuis's sensc but as crrors in

rc.rding thc genet ic "message," crrors in the reproduct ion crr

copying of a text .

The term "crror" docs not implv that scicnce has rcturned to

the Aristotclian and mediet'al notion that monsters are errors of

nature, fbr the failure here is not somc lack of skil l on the part

of the artisan or architect bur a mere copvist's slip. Sti l l , the nerv

science of l iv ing th ings has not onlv not el iminated thc contrast

beoveen normal and abnormal but it has actuallv groundt'd that

c()ntrast in the structure ol l ivinq things themselvcs.no [/deolog,r,ctnd Rotionality, pp. 140-4l]

A New Historical C rux

[80] Perhaps the epistemologist mav norv be allo*'ed to remain

skeptical about dogmatic rcductionist viervs, given nvhat can be

learned i f rvc look at the historv of b io logv, wi thout any sim-

pl i fy in{ a pr io l i assumptions, in l ight of the var ious m.rni festa-

2 r4 2t{

t ions of r r h.r t I h,rve proposecl c:r l l ing the pr inciplc of thcmat ic

conser\'(rt ion.

I ant ic ipatc one possible object ion, horvever ' In looking lbr a

clistinctive concept of normalit) in biology, have I not confuserl

the issuc by consider ing di f ferent orders of b io logical objects i

r\stronomers fiom Sir Will iam Herschel to Eclrvin Hubble rcvoltr-

t ionized their d iscipl ine bv magnify ing their object to an unimag-

inable degrtc, reveal ing galaxies bevond r l rc solar svstem an<l

mct.rgalaxies l rcvond the galaxies. Bv cor ' \ t rdst , b io loSists ha\c

discorered the nature o[ l i fe b1'rr . rk inq thcir objects smal]( ' r , tn( l

smal lcr : l>actcr ium, gene, enrvme. In the preceding discussion,

am I dcaling rvith observations at one level and explanations .rt

another? Normal i tv appcars to bc a propcrtv of the organism,

btr t i t c l isappcars rvhen *e look at the elements th. l t make uP

that organisnr.

At nll lcv( ls, horrever, biologists h:rve idenrif ied ordcring 5truc-

(ur(s th.r t , rvhi lc gcnr ' ra lh rel iahle, sotrret inres l ) i l . The conccpt

ofnornralitr is irrrcD<lcd to rctrr to th,. 'st ortlcring structures. No

such concept is needed in the episternologv of phvsics, Bv intro-

rJrrcing it as I have done here, I in no \1ir! intend to dcnv that biol-

ogv is bascd on phvsics and chemistry. I do intend to Prevent the

coalcscing ol $r 'o propcr lv dist inct approaches to historr ' . In the

history o{ biologr', the pseuclotheoretic.rl content of prescientif ic

conceptu<r l iz . r r ions of structural and tunct ional normal i t \ ' \ t '45

abanclc'ncd, but the conccptualizatiorrs thcnrst' lves lrate heen pre-

senerl, in "displaced" fonr, as inclices ol the objectivc uiriquencss

ofthc l iv ing organism. Dmitrv N{endclevev's per ior i ic table docs

not just i lv l )cmocr i tus 's intui t ions .1 posle ot i , btr t the decoding

of the gcnetic program cloes provicle a portcriori justif lcation of

Claudc Bernard's metaphors. Even ui th in the terrns ofa monist -

indeed a nratcr ia l is t - epistcmolog\ ' , phrsics rem.r ins radical lv c l i f -

fcrent f rom biolo{v, Phvsics r"as pror lucet l , somet imcs at r isk oI

l i le and l imb, by I iv ing th ings subject to s ickness and death, but

sickness and dt'ath are not problems of phvsics. Thev are prob-

lems o1 biologv.

Betseen the bactc'ria in a laboratorv culture and the biologists

rr.ho obscn'e them, thcrc is a rvhole rangc of l iving things per-

mit ted to exist bv the f i l ter of natural sclect ion. I 'heir l ives are

governecl bv ccrtain norms of behavior and adaptat ion. (Jues-

tions about the vital meaning of those norms, though not directly

matters of chemistrv and phvsics, arc quest ions of b io logv. As

Ntar jor ie Crecnc points out, a longside the biochemists therc

is room in biologv fbr a Freclerik Jacobus Buvtcndijk or a Kurt

Goldstein.6r Historv sh<r.rvs that she is right. l ldeolog.v and Ration-

alit.v, pp. 14)-141

I

i2t6

Pa nr Foun

Interpretat ions

I,i

Crr ,qpr rn TrN

Ren6 Descartes

Relotions between Theory and Technology

[81] What r l id Descartes knorv about technologv, and uhat did

hc l rope to learn l iom i t? I I is correspondence, rereacl n i th th is

qucstion in mind, givcs a strong imprcssion of a man r",ith a u'ide

curiositv al>out practical techniques and keen to discover prin-

ciples or larvs that might account fbr thcir cfl icacv. The subjects

that rccur most f requcnt lv in his mcdi tat ions are, o l course, the

gr inr l ing ol lcnses fbr opt ical instrumcnts, the construct ion of

machines and the art of medicine, Yct he also fbund in thc rou-

tincs of peasants and solcliers and the lore of travelers material

l irr comparison ancl opportunities to put his theories to the test.

The influence ol the soil on thc gro\\ 'dr ol transplanted plants,

thc m.rturation of f iuits, the separation of materi.rls o[ diff i 'rcnt

dcnsi tv in the manufacture ofbutter, the rvay a chi lc l 's lcgs f la i l

rvhi le mount ing a horsc, thc r inging of bel ls in ordcr to cause

thunclcr c louds to burst - thcsc commonplaccs of rural l i fe pro-

vic lcd l )escartes rv i th occasions fbr rel lect ion. As a soldier, he

rubbed the t ip of h is pike rv i th oi l and not iccd sparks. And.rs a

rcsi(lent of Amstcrdam, he rvas auarc ofall that a great port had

to offer in the rvav ofpractical and luxurv goods, and ofall that a

popu)ation that each day u clcomecl travclcrs fiom the antipodes

2t9

could tca( h .rbout hum.tn divcrsitv. With astonishment and admi-

rat ion \11 \1atch Descartcs apply his !crupulouslv methodical

intc l l igencc' to the most divcrsc and spccial izrd technical prob-

lerns: smoking chimncvs, watcr pumps and marsh drainagc, mcdi-

cal diagnosis, dnrgs, allcgcrllv miraculous lountains, automata, thc

trajcctory ol cannonbal ls, the veloci tv ofbul lcts, thc strcngth of

a srtord thrust, thc sound of bells. l)escartes's interest in arti l-

lerv, mtrl icinc anrl automata lvas, of course, sharc'rl bv many of

his contemporar ies in France and l ta l t ; but under lv ing his at ten-

t ion t ( ) the most nr inute detai ls ancl problems u,as a comprehcn-

sive c loctr ine incorporat ing the smal lest detai ls and di f f icul t ics

of phvsics and mctaphvsics. Yct his ambition to achi<:r'e mastery

ofthc natural rvorld scems alm()st m(xlest in comparison rvith his

dreams: to rL'store sight to the blind, to vie\i the animals on the

moon ( i1 ant) , to makc men rr ise and happy through medicine,

to l lv l ike a bircl. Nledical observ.rtions are scattered throughout

his *ork. He conlessed to the Marquess of Neucast le that the

primarv purpose ol his stuclies hacl alrvays been to presene health,l

and hc probabll bclir:r 'cd, as Constanti jn I luvgcns rcportcd, that

" that vt 'x ing custom, death, * i l l onc dav disappcar" ( l l , 550). I { is

technical preoccupat ions wi th opt ics can be l i rund in his corres-

pondcncc rv i th David Ferr ier (1529-1638)as rvel l as in the Opt ics.

As fbr his rcscarch and cxpcrimcnts rvith mar:hincrv, apart f iom

the f:rrit ' l trt 'atisc on l if i ing cngincs rvrittcn fbr I luvgcns in 1637,

*c havc onlt Adricn Bail let's account of t)escartes's relations w.ith

Vi l lebressieu, the k ing's engineer (1, 209, 214, 218). B.r i l let l is ts

thosc ofVi l lcbrcssicu's invcnt ions al legcdly <luc to suggest ions

fiom Dcscartes: a \latcr l lump, a * hcr:lcd bridgc fbr usc in attack-

ing fbr t rcsscs, a portablc fb ld ing boat f i r r crossing r ivers and a

$agon chair f i r r thc t ransport of rvoundecl soldiers. This br icf

risumi of l)cscartes's tc'chnological interests, insignificant though

it mav sct:m, is nt'vertheless \\,orth remcmbcring bccause it uas

I

I-l

II

l)cscartcs 's r l i l l ingness to " lo*cr his thought to the least o l the

mechanics ' invent ions" (1, 185)that enablecl h im t() ( ( )ncr ivc of '

the relat ion br: t r ,ecn theor l and pract ice in.r tav that is impor

tant not only lbr understanding his thought but f i r r grasping the

natLrre of phi l ( )s()Phical ref lect ion in gcncral .

I lor l d id l )cscartes conceive of thc rc lat ion betteen theory

.rnrl technologv? lb ans\r.er this questi()n, lct us turn to the texts.

In anv nunrber ol passages he clepJored thc f i i l t r rc ol ar t is . rDs to

It 'arn fi-om rvhat rvas knou n about thc matrria]s ancl phenomena

thcv ust 'd in dai l l 'pract icc. Al l purposive act ion, he maintaincd,

should bc subordinate to i ts associated scir :ncc. I Ic h.rd contempt

lbr technique r l i thout understanding (1, 195) and inventors r ' ' i th

out method (X, 180)anr l rvas cxtremelv rvarv ol ar t isans u 'h<r

rcf i rsed to take his c l i rect ions (1, 501, 506). fhc most s igni f icant

passages in this regard are to be fbund in thc Ru/cr for thc Dircc-

tion (t tfu tl l ind. [:rom thc outsct, I)cscartes contrasts the diversit\

of tcchnological ski l ls u i th the uni tv of thcorct ic:al undcrstand-

ing and proposes using theorv t() achicvc total knou lcdge. As each

acquis i t ion o1 trrr th bccomcs a rule of methocl , thought nrrxts

lnrm truth to truth, : ln(l i t therebv acquires the abil itv to act rt l i-

ablv and cf l ic ient lv. . l h is abi l i tv is thc rcsul t of a susrainecl ar ten-

t ivL 'ncss that thc speci . r l ized art isan, I imi tcd nnd pnrt in l in his

vic ls, set 'ks in r t r in to achicvc. In Rule Five, l )escartes mcnt ions

nm()ng the i l l t rs ions that his r l lethod tencls to c l iminate that o l

peoyrle rvho "stu<lv nrcclranics apart fr()m phvsic.s an<l, r,r, ithout

anv propcr plan, construct n( w instruDteDts. . . ."1 Countering such

prcsumption is t lr is a<lmirablc affirmation <tt Principlcs ol Philoso-

phr ' : " i \ l l the r t r les ol N4echanics belong to Phvsics, so that. r l l

th ings that are art i l ic ia l arc also narural" ( lX, l2 l ) . Th.r t is uhv"onc must l irst cxplain tr 'hat the la.rr.s ol nature art .rnrl h()u nrtturc

ttsuallv behaves bcfirre onc can leach lrorv those laus can be madc

to pr(x luce unusual cf fccts" ( l l , 50). - l i , < lo ui thout rrn<lcrst . rnr l ing

7zc)

the rvhv of w hat he is dc'ing is the lot of the mere technician. To

promise rvithout pcrfbrming is the definit ion of the charlatan.'Ib obtain effects at rvil l through understancling oftheir causes is

the ambition of I)escartes. We learn what is technologicallv pos-

sible bv studving rvhat is theoretically necessary. Thus fhr, there

is nothing in Descartes's philosophy conccrning technology that

does not seem obvious, if bv obvious ue mean something that

has become familiar ovling to modern philosophy's long-standing

intcrcst in a themc that, from da Vinci to the Encyclopedists on

to Augustc Comtc and Karl Marx, became a standard topos.

In [)escartes's thinking, howevcr, thcre rvcre important restric-

tions on the conversion ofknou.ledge into action. I)escartcs saw

obvious "diff iculties" in moving from theorv to practice rvhich

not cvcn pcrfcct intell igence could resolve bv itself. Even given

perfect knowledge, the technological embodimcnt of that knowl-

edge would in some cases contain inevitable imperfections, No

Archimedean mirror, even one polishcd by an angel, could burn

an object a league aw,ay unlcss it rvere made extremelv large (1,

109). Evcn ifan angel were to give instructions, based on theory,

for building a stcclyard balance capable of rveighing objects up

to two hundred pounds, "it is almost impossible to be so precise

in al l aspccts of construct ion that there should be no f iu l t in

the scale, ancl thus pract icc rv i l l d iscredi t theory" (11,.{59). The

instrument must thcrcforc be calibrated empirically, Descartes

rccommends. Five vears after formulating a theorv of lenses, he

$,rote Marin Mersenne that in lensmaking the gap between the-

orv and practicc was so grcat that thcoretical perfection could

nevcr bc achieved ( l l l , 585). Notc that thc threc cxamples dis-

cusscd thus far - mirrors, lcnses and scales - involve the theo-

ries ol optics and levers, u'hich were among thc earliest successes

ol Cartesian science. Even more explicit ly, Descartes held that if

men could not f ly, the problem was not theoretical but practi-

f,

cal: "One can indeed makc a machine that sustains i tsel f in the

air l ike a bird, metaphtisice loquendo, for birds themselvcs, in mv

opinion at any rate, are such machincs, but not ph.vsice or moraliter

logucndo, becausc it would require springs so l ight yet so pou'cr-

l i r l that humans could not manufacturc them" ( l l l , 163).

Descartes never explained his thinking about the diflerence

tretueen science and construction, two human activit ies that his

philosophv seems to suggest not only stem liom a common source

but arc convertiblc, in thc scnsc that knorvledge can be converted

into construction. Hence, it is up to us to clari[v his meaning b,v

looking at the texts and comparing var ious strands ofhis th ink-

ing. Dcscartes maintained that onc should bc able to deduce

empirical rcsults from intuit ive principles that he callcd "sceds

of truth" or "simplc [or occasionally, absolute] natures." An effect

har l not been explaincd, hc hcld, unt i l one could say horv bv an

act of God i t might have been made di f ferent br l t no l t :ss int t : l l i -

gible. The celebrated passage of Part Six of thc Discourse on the

.l4ethor1 in u'hich thc impossibil i ty of completelv deducing elfects

liom causes leads to acknorvledgment of the need to "jtrdgc thc

causes in terms of their ef]ects" clearly inrl icates that technologi-

callv usefirl "forms or tvpes of bodies" mav bc impcdime nts tcr

rnalvt ic dcduct ion. From f i rst causcs, thc scient ist can deduce

"the heavens, the stars, an earth, and even, on earth, \\ 'atcr, air,

l i re and minerals," that is , "ordinarv ef ' fects," "common and

simplc things." But rvhcrcas scicncc trcats matter as homogene-

ous and rv i thout dist inct ive ident i ty, the technic ian, r r .ho relates

mattcr to "otrr use of i t , " t reats i t as part icular and divcrsc -

hence thc need lbr experimcntal trial and crror. I 'he passage in

thc l)iscourse in rvhich Descartes procee'cls from theorv to tech-

nologv is greatly elucidatcd, I thinL, L)v another passage, rlr is onc

from the Prncrples ot' Pbilotoph.r, u.hich proceeds in the other

direct ion, f rom technologv to the()r \ ' :

2)J

l \ lerl ir: inc, \ lcch.rnics an<1. in gt ner.rl, all thc arts in w hich knrnr ltdge

rrf physics rnal bc usclul frave but one goal: to applv scnsitive tndics

1) onc .rn()thcr in such J \ ' iv that, o\\ ing to natrrral causes, \cntible

cii i crs ar. ploduced. In tlr is ue do just as \vcll i l rhc scrir\ ol ca(ses

rhus inagincd is f , r lse as i f i t . l1erc t ruc, s incc thr scr ies is supposcd

to bc s imi lar insolar as i ts scnsible el l ic ts are conccrncd ( lX. 122).

I1, in manv ca\es, practice "discredits thcory," it is bccause "any

application of sensitive bodies to one anothcr," or. in other n'ords,

anv technical synthesisr rv iJ l normal ly include unprecl ictable and

un.rnti( ipatc(l . ' tfects, given that ue are norkirrg .rvith substanccs

about rvhich not cvcrr th ing can be deduced.

Descartes also bclievcd that knorvledge and construction were

rclarqi in an() ther ra\ i howercn things cotr l< l bc bui l r rv i thout

knolr' leclge of the theorv ofhorv thcr rvorkcd, ancl rhis in turn

could providc thcorct ical r )pporrunir ies. This, I th ink, is the les-

son ol the Oprrcr '"hen reread in tht' l ight of thc problcm that

concerns us herc. Optical thcory bcgan u'ith thc invention ofthe

magnitv ing glass, which in i t ia l ly uas the f iu i t of t r ia l and error,

and luck. l 'har in i r ia l success was latcr b l indlr copicd. Yct the

nt's invention sti l l suflered l iom manv deflciencics,.rnd Dcscartes

bel icvcd in thc net 'd fbr scient i l lc srudv ol rvhat consr i tured a

good lens. I le proposed to (leduce the proper shape of lenses from

thc larrs o1' l iqht . Thus, a pLr lc l l forruirous tcchnological d iscov-

erv l r rovidcd th<: occasion fbr "mant good min<ls to f ind out a

number of dr ings about opt ics" (VII , 82). In part icular, i t pro-

vided Descarres $i th the "opportuDit ! to ur i te th is t reat ise"

(v l l . f t2, 159).

According to the Optr..r, knorvlcdge of naturc dcpcncls on tech-

nologt in t \ \ 'o \vJvs. Firsr , technologr provides iDstt-uments. in

this case the nragni f l ing glass, that lead to thc discoverv ol new

phen()mcn,r (Vl l ,81,226). Sccon<l and morc important, thc im-

)) \

Pt rfections crf technoio{v provide "the occasion" fbr thr'orctical

research aimed at rcsolv ing "di f l icul t ies." Science, therefore,

grows out of technology, not in thc scnse that the true is a codi-

l ication ofthe useful, a rccorrl ofsuccess, but, r,rtht r, in the sense

that technological obst.rclcs, sctbacks and failures lead to qucs-

tions about the nature ol thc resistance encountered by human

arr. Obstaclcs to progress are sc(n t ( ) I>e independent ol htrman

desirts, ancl this leads to a search fbr-true knorvlcdgc. Scicnce mav

lr ter c la im to imposc discipl ine on technologies born rv i thout

permission l rom any theor ist . But \ r 'herc do such technologies

ori{inateT Not in the l.rculty of un<lerstandinq, although that fac-

ulft might cnable learned mcn to surpass "the ordinarv artisan"

(Vl l , 227), but , rather, in the exigenr: ics of / /c. Thus Descnrtes,

sho had lonl dre.rmed ol an in la l l ib le nredical scjence, le l t an

urgent nced lbr i t rvhen his hair beg.rn to turn rvhi tc (1,43 5 )andhc sensed that death might deprive hirn ofthc "more than cenrur\'-

old hope" that justi l ied his concern rvith his bodv (1, 507). Befbre

he coulcl u rite the Oprics, moreover. his fail in11 cycs rvhich rvere

easilv deceived had intcrferr, 'd rvith his abil itv to pcrceive uselul

rhin{s. Since " le cannot nrake ourselves a neu body" (VII , 148),

\1'e Inust au{n1ent our internal orq.rns rvith cxternai orgnns (Vil,

148; and supplcment out natural ones with art i f ic ia l ones (Vl l ,

165 ). 1'he impetus to creire new technologics stcms fiom man's

neecls, appetites and wi)l 1lX, Principles of Philovpfir., 12 3). In his

theorv of tht' union of sor.rl and brxlv, l)escar-res rvas careful to

cmPhasize the i r reducibi l i t r of the emot ions, and in his theorv of

crror he stressed the primal importance ofthe u i l l . 1'hese empha-

scs suggest that he bel ievcd that l i fe. uhosc phi losophv consists

in the desire to l ive rvell, cannot be apprehendc<l jn lqnns ofpur.understanding alone, thar is, rv i th in a s lstem ol purelv inteJlec-tual judgnr( nrs. Thus, the convict ion that rechr, iogv cannot bereduced to science and construction cannot bc rtrluccd to trnclcr-

standing, togethcr \1 i th the converse bcl ief that thc uhole edi-

f icc of sciencc cannot s implt be converted into act ion, comcs

do$n to a bcl ie l in the existence of a uniquc "porvcr." l . ibcrt l

and n i l l are not subject to the same l imi tat ions as intcJl igcncc,

not onlr,in thc human mind but also in God, For l)cscartcs, tech-

nologv $as always to some degree n svnthetic and, as such, un-

analvzable lbrm of action, but I do not bclicvc that he vierved it

c()nsequentlv as unimportant; rathcr, hc sarv it as a l irtm of crca-

t ion, though admit tcdlv an inf i r ior one.

If the fbregoing anal,vsis is correct, one (luestion remains un-

ansrvcrt:d: Why is thcrr.: no theory ofcreation in Descartes's phi-

losophr l C)r , to put i t another u 'av, rvhv is therc no acsthet ics?

()l course, it is dif l lcult to dra* anv conclusion rvhatsocvcr l iom

an absence - but there arc grounds fbr asking lr.hethcr l)(:scartcs

nr ight nr) t harc le l t an obscure sense that admirr ing the possibi)-

i t r o l a gencral Jesthet ics might have contradicted his general

the<,,r \ . [or l ) r 'scartes. the intel l ig ib i l i tv o l real i t r der i led f rom

mcchanics an<l mathcmnt ical phvsics. I r r r r h inr , movenrent, a long

s i th extensicrn ancl number, uas a lundarnental , inrui t ivc con-

cept of nhich i r r r ts sale to ncglcct a l l qual i tat ivc anr l svnrhet ic

aspccts. Anrl although hc sa\l.movement as thc source ol all nrate-

rial varietr', he simultaneouslr precluded himself from nising tlre

issue ofdiversif lcation, u'hich is one aspcct of thc pr-oblcm ol cre-

ation. As wc knorl from the Discoursc on thc .Itethod, he candidlv

admit tcd that g.omctr ic analvsis hacl i ts l imi ts, but he mav not

havc rvishcd to ackno* lcrlgc, or admit to himsell, that the impos-

sibi l i tv of a "def in i t ive" nroral i ty (s ince act ion normal]v involves

desire ancl r isk) a lso impl ied the impossibi l i tv of a "del ln i t ive"

analvtic science (as he * ished lris ou n to bc). ["])escartes," Ira-

raur, pp. 79-85 ]

220 2)7

The Theory of the Animal-Machine

Il l2] t)escartes's thcory of the anintal-m.rchine is instTarablt ' l i"om

his lamous tl icttrm, "l think, therefbrc I am." The radical distinc-

r ion bct \acen sotr l an<l bodv, thought and cxtcnsion, impl ics t l re

substantial unitl ol matter, \ ' \ 'hatcvcr its lbrm, anrl thought, uhat-

cver i ts funct ion. l Sincc judgment is thc soul 's onlv funct ion,

there is no reason to bclieve in the cxistcncc of an "animal soul,"

since animals, berefi ol languagc and invention, shor, no sign ol

bcing capable of judgment.a

The denial that animals posscss souls (or the f icul tv of rea

son) does not implv thev arc dcvoid ol l i fe (de f inc<l .1s warmth in

rhe hcart) or sensibi l i tv ( insof i r as the scnsorv f ic t r l t ies depenrJ

,rn the disposi t ion of the organs).5

Tht s.rnre lcttcr I citecl abovc rtvcals one ol tht mor,l l under-

; r innings ol- the theorv of the animal-machine. Dcscart t s t l r res lor

, rn inrals r . l r l t Ar istot lc r l i< l lbr s laves: l re r l tv,r lu is them in order

t{) iust i l \ using thcnr, ls instrumcnrs. " l \1r opinion is t ro more

cruel to animals than i t is ovcr lv piotrs totr . r rc l t l tn, f rcccl l rom

th< sup< rst ic ions cr l the Pvthagoreans, l rec.ruse i t a l rsr t lves thenr

of chc hinr of <r ' imc rvhenever thcv cat r r r l . i l l . rn i tn.r ls." Strrpr is-

inglr', *e fincl thc samc rrgument stood on its hcltl in .r lettcr t i<rnr

Leibniz to Conr ing: i f rvc must look upon animals ls sonrt th ing

morc than machines, then wc shoulc l become Pvthagore.rns.rn, l

g i le up our dominion over the be.rsts.6 ' l -h is at t i tude is rvpic.r l , r i

\ \ t s tern nran. The thcorct ical mcchanizat ion ol l i le is instpar-

ablc l iom the technological ut i l izat ion ol the aninral . N4an c.rn

claim possession ol and masterv over naturc onlr bv denl ing that

nature has anv purpose in i tst : l f , ancl then onlv bv rcgarding al l o l

naturc other than himsel f - even that u hich appcars to be ani-

matc - as a means to an (:n(1.

Such an at t i tude just i l ied the construct ion ol a mechanical

mo<lel of thc l iv ing bodv, inclucl ing the hunran bodr ' - l i r r Dcs-

cartes, thc human bodv, i f not man himsel f , rvas a machine.

Dcscartes fbund the mechanical model he r l 'as looking fbr in

automata, or moving machines.T

ln order to bring out the fLl l signif icance of Descartes's the-

orv, Iet us turn now to the bcginning ofthe Ireotise on Man, a

rvork f irst publ ished in I .cydcn in 1652 in the fbrm ofa Latin

copv and only latcr publ ished in the or ig inal French, in 1654.

He rvrote therc:

Thcsc men rvi l l be composed, as we are, o1 a soui and a body. First

I must describe the bodv on i ts orvn, then the soul, again on i ts own;

and l inal lv I must shorr how these two naturcs woulcl have to be

joined and united in ordcr to consti tute men who rcscmble us.

I suppose the body to bc nothing but a statue or machine made

ol earth, u'hich God lbrms rvith the expl ici t intention ofmaking i t as

much as possible l ikc us. Thus God not onlv gives i t external ly the

colors and shapcs ofal l the parts ofour bodies, but also placcs insir le

i t al l the parts requiret l to make i t walk, eat, breathe, cnabling i t to

imitatc al l those lunctions rrhich seem to procced from matter and

to clepend solely on the intcracting movements ofthe organs.

We sec clocks, art i f ic ial fbuntains, mil ls and other such machines

rvhich, although man-rna<le, seem to movc of their orvn accord in

various rvars; but I anr supposing this machine to bc made by the

hands ofGod, and so I think vou may reasonablv rhink i t capable of

a greater variety ol movcments than I couid possibly imagine in i t ,

and of exhibit ing more art istrv than I could possibly ascribe to i t .8

Reading this tcxt as naivelv as Ipossibly can, I come to the

conclusion that thc theorv of the animal-machinc makes sense

only by virtuc of trvo hypotheses that oftcn receive less emphasis

than they are clue. The f irst is that God the fabricator exists, and

the second is that the existence ofl iving things must precede the

2 2tt

construction of the animal-machine that models their behavior.

In other rvords, in order to undcrstand the animal-machine, one

must th ink of i t as prcceded, in the logical as \4el las the chrono-

logical scnse, by God, as efficient cause, and bv a preexisting l iv-

ing thing, as formal and flnal cause. In short, I propose to read

the theorr of thc animal-machine, rvhich is gcnerall l interPrctcd

as involving a brcak u,ith the Aristotelian conccPt trl causalitY, as

one in \\ 'hich all the types ofcausality that Aristotle invokes can

be foun<|, but not simultaneoush and not rvhcre Aristotle u'ould

have placed them.-fhc text cxplicit ly states that thc construction ol the l iving

machinc is to mimic that of a preexisting organism. The mechan-

ical modcl assumes a l ivc original. Hence, Dcscartes in this text

mav be closer to Ar istot le than to Plato. The Platonic dcmiurge

copies Ideas. The Idea is a modcl of rvhich the nattrral object is

a copt. ' l 'he Cartesian God, ArtiJex matimus, trics to equal the l iv-

ing thing itself. The living machine is modcled on the l iving thing.

Think ofapproximat ing a c i rc le by means of a ser ies of inscr ibed

polvgons, each with one morc vcrtex than the prccc<ling one: in

order to conccive of the passage fiom polygon to circle, onc has

to imagine extending this series to inflnitv. Mcchanical artif lce

is inscribed in l ife in thc same \\ 'ay: in order to imagine the pas-

sage fiom one to the other, onc has to imagine an cxtrapolation

to infinit i-, that is, to God. This is rr,hat Dcscartes appears to mean

bv the final remarks of the above quotation. Hence, the theorv

of the animal-machine is to l ife as a sct of postulatcs is to geom-

etrv, that is, a mere rational reconstruction that onl,v pretends to

ignore thc existence of lvhat it is supposed to represent and the

prioritv of production over rational justif ication.

This feature of Descartes's theorv was clearlv perceived, more-

over, b\ a contemporarv anatomist, thc celebratcd Nicolaus Steno,

'who dclivere<f a Dissettation on the Anatom.y oJ the Brain in Paris

=ii;z

i1

:i z1;=

'!i iiz

?=

: z

=:=

:t+

;iii ==

=1

e';:i ?

:ii : i : t1 :'.i:i=

: :1

= +; tiii.=

, E

?,=

:Z=

i :t1': iilr=

*1, =

:=:=

:il :v

: 1i

i t

E:

e:

E |. .,:

7;.';1

!':a

:,ii1

= ::

z'

i

n it..+

+

t=z

i=i1

a

i -+i! ; t=

:ii=':i=

i1=

z

=' =

:=i;i-i;tii,:i,

ia;ii2

=i-t:1

:7

2:::;i

;; =

, 2 a=,

+i 1; :a

,-i =

i iii= ==

ii=rZ

: ;t ;:-=

,i=

,rz=

:ti:: i;=,1

z,at1

z=

a=

=:, i2

,i; z+

i i: i=:,7

i=

:a2

1

r=u

=

i 1 r', i=

=

ii t = i i-:=

i,

==

_:7

2

i j i 2,;, =

i : i : ;=,1

i, z

i i := =i i i i?

ii7

=z

i'=

= =i tE

; t5 t ; =

i : "i : t=; :i tif ii : ;

i i? ii?

ffiZii;

it ii i: i: i ci i ; 'iis

: i :: y1

:7i:iiliiz

; ;!'+

Z

i ;! =,i=

ii

, liirt ?i =:i7+

!zit+

:i: =

Ei,

i ; i EE

ii2

:,:!=

1,1

;!ii:zi:ii1

!iiil:iiii+:1

:i: *ii i?

'ii I i rTt ?

!:,s

r' 2 +i +A

i i ; =

Z:

; =

It is undeniablv true that certain biological mechanisms serve

certain purposes. To take an example rhat mechanistic bio)ogists

often cite, corrsicler the broarlening of thc fi,male pelvis prior tobirth. Given that the fetus is l-1.5 centimeters larger than the pel-l ic opening, birth would be impossible i l 'a relaxation of the pubic

symphvses anrJ a po51s .. m,rvement ofthc sacrococc;gian boneclid not increase thc diameter of thc apertur.e. 6ivcn a phenome-non rvbose hioloqical purpose is so c lear, one can Jr:gi t imately

refuse to believc that the mechanism that makcs it possible (and

that is essential for it to occur) has no biological purpose. A mech-anism is a nccessarl sequcnce of operations, and to verif i, theprescnce ofa mechanism, one must detcrmine u,hat ellcct thoseopcrations producc. In other words, one must f ind out what theintended purpose of the mechanism is. The shapc and structureof a machine tell us about its use only if we alreadv knou, howntachint's ol similar shapc and structure i lrc used. Hence, we mustfind out horv a machinc rvorks in ordt,r to deduce its functionliom its strucrure. lConnaissance, p- l lsl

The Distinctiveness of the Animo!-Machine

[84] Descartes began bv attempting to forrnulate u,hat he him-sel l cal led a " thcor l o l nredic ine," I that is , a purely \pcculat iveanatomic.al and phvsiological scicnce as r igorous and exact asmathem.rtical physics and.just as reccptive to conversioi into prac-tical rpplicarions, or therapies. Bur rvhat rvas to be deduced liomthe phvsics of the humarr bodv, namely, a determination of,.vitaluti l i ty," lvas in fhct present from the beginning in the subjcct's

principfes. l l :ormation du rif lete, p. 531

[85] According ro Descartes, thc distr ibut ion of rhe spir i tsupon leaving the brain depen<is on several lactors. First are thc

ctlects ofobjects that stimulate the senses, or excitations, which

Descartes compares to thc fingers of an organist touching the keys

1121l)

o l the instrumcnr.r l Second is the posi t ion of the pineal g lan<l

in tc l , r t ion to the brain, togcther r i . i rh rh( stare of thc glan( l 's

ourcr surfacei Descartes dcvotcd a great dcal of t jme to thc rlfects

of thc rv i l l , mcmorv, imaginat ion and contmon sense on thcse

var i . rb lc5.ra The inst incts arc the rhird and last l ic tor a l lcct-

ing the animal spirits. To understanri u.hat Descartcs meant bv

in. t i r t , t . , rcr a l l h i r r j is t int t i , - rn bctrreen rxr t rnt l movem(n(\ an( ljnternal nrovemcnts, or passions-I t Erternal movcments can be

lirrther brokcn dorvn: rbey arc either expressivc (laughing or crv,

ing, for cxanrple), and thus purelv c i rcunrstant ia l , or adal t t ive,

that is, "usef i r l for purstr inp r icsirable th inqs or,rroiding harnrf l )

on(.s,"1r, which is to lbllou"'thc iD.rrrn.f.r of our nature."tr Thus,

kr l l )estartes, thc phvsiological mcchi ln ism that dctcrmirecl thedisrr ibur ion ol aninral spir i ts cman,r t in{ f iom the brajn dtpcnded

on r lhat can only be cal lcd a biological tc lcologr ( the pursui t ofdesirabl t th ings an<l t l re avoidancc of harmlul ones). This rras nota la;rse. Othcr. s imi lar examplcs can l>e lbr ind c lservhere in thcTteetise on,{|on. ln the P m.te cogitdtiones circa l lcncrctionem oni-rnalium, I)escartes invokes the connodo and incomrll,o<!o nltLtrdcas causcs of var ious aninlal movcments, the mcchanisnt of tvhjchis crplaincd in tcrms of animal spir i ts.r r Mart ia l Gucroul t , more-ort r , has poirr ted out the remarkabJc signi l icance ol th<, . l i r rhl,lcditotion.

To sum up. l)cscarres distinguishcd thrce rvpes of f ictors influ-encing thc flou of aninral rpirits: erterDnl an<l contingent l ictors

lscttsory excirations), acquirtrl and individual factors (menrorv)and natural ancl speci l )c l ic tors ( inst incts) . ln th is he shorred aremarkable alertness to the biological phenomenon ,r f interac-tion betlvccn organism and environm(,nt. lf:ormotion <lu rdflcrc,

PP. l r - l2 l

[86] A v i ta l is t pr inciple ofsorts rhus remaircd part of theexplanation of movcmcnrs thar, according to thc original proj-

cct, lvere to bc cxplained exclusivelv in tcrrns of material la,,vs.

Gucroult is correct, then, rvhen he says that l)escartcs began lvith

a conceptioD of medicinc as purc phvsics rvhich he later rejected,

and, f irrthcr, that "one ol his chief rcasons lbr confessing the hil-

ur t ' o l h is nedical project rvas his grr t r r ing convict ion that me-

c h,rnical concepts rlonr: r,r 'ould ncvcr suffice to cre.rte r mcdical

scicncc because che human i ro<lv is nrr t purr c\ ten! ion but in part

. r psrchophvsical substancc."r ' ) Fol l rxving Cueroul t , perhaps, but

morc hol<l l r ' , I uould ask . rvhether the Jt tcnrpt to rcducc animal

biologr tt.r mechanics did not reveal the resistance of vital phe-

nomena to l ir l l cxprcssion in mechanical tt 'rms. I carlier alluded

to thc passagc in the Prrntae co{lit.rtiones in \\ hich comrnoda and

incommodo rdtl lr.rc \rere secn to influence the movements ofor-

ganic parts and even ent i re organisms.ro Truc. Descartes, *ho

pr ided hinrsel l on t 'xplaining *hat rre rroul t l cr l l rhc narural

nppet i res or incl inat ions of animals "solelr in t t - rnrs of thc rules

ofmechanics " ; , rn, ," l l

poinfed our that "brut t 's have no knou, l -

edge of rl hac is a<lvant.rgeous or harmful" - nrcaning that they are

nor consc i lrLrs o1 such things or ablc to .rrt icultrte such knou.lcdge,

so thit !r hat r,tc observe is sintpl\ an associ.rt ion betrveen certain

rnovements and ccrtain cvents thnt enablc animdls to grolr '.21 Here,

horvever, r,r 'c rouch on vvhat is probablv the l imit of mechanistic

explanat ion, fbr . the three aspccts of animrl l i le and dcvclop-

ment - consenation, individuation and rcproductionl) - point to

a distinctire dif ' ference bctrvccn animal-machint's and mcchanical

onts. To be surc, l)cscartes continuallv insistcd on the identit,v of

the t \ \o tvp( 's of machine: "Sincc art copics nature. and peop)e

can nrake var ious autrrmatons r th ich mole rr i thout thrrught, i t

seenrs r<asonable that nature shou]<l cvcn pr-crduce irs own autom-

atons, rlhich arc much more splendid th.rn,ttt i l ici.r l ,rncs - namelr,,

the animal5."l l Another passage expresses the same irlca: "lt is no

less natural 16r a clock constnrctcd rvith this or that set of rvhcels

to tell the time than it is f irr a trcc rvhich grerv from this or that

sccd to proclucc the ipProPriatc lrrrit-"15 But mav \\ 'e not reverse

the ordcr of th is relat i t>n and sav that \ \ 'hatever is n.r t t t r , r l . that is ,

inech.rnic.r l , in thc animal organism is also art i l ic i , l l , g iven that

anim.rl-machincs,'tre itrtontittons constnlcted, as it lrerc, br (lod?

r\nd in construct ing thcse machines, c l ic l Ciod not l l lor ic lc f i r r

th( i r conscr\ ' , r t ion, indi l i r iLrat ior , rnt l reprrx l r tct ion l l r tncthlnical

mcans? ln other \vofds, \vctc not ccrtain te lcological cnds incor-

porated into the assemblage of nlechanical parts? Since those encls

surpass our undcrstanding, holr'cvcr, cannot ancl :houlcl not the

scicncr. ' of l iv ing th ings leave them out ol i ts acc<l t tnt l 'Tht ts, in

posi t ing mechanic.r l cquivalcnts lbr l iv ing th ings, Descartes ban-

ishc<l tcleologv l iorn the rcalm ol human lino* ledgc onl\ ' to rcin-

state i t in thc ( immtr l i r te lv f i r rgot tcn) realm o1 div inr ' lno'v lcdge.

11, rnorcovcr, a p.rorlv madc clock obcls thc same l, l\!s ()1 nlc-

chanics as r r lc l l -mat le one, so that the onlr rval to dist inguish

bcnvecn tht t \ \ 'o is to in\ l r le " thc maker 's r lcsi re" rnt l " tht ' t tse

lbr rvhich t l r . 'nr . rker i r l tendc( l" lq his cr t . r t ionr, i t lo l l<rrvs th.r t , rnr

uorking m.rchinc is .rn asst nrblagc ol parts cttrbodling i P(trl l()se.

What dcf ines the tn,rchine is not thc laus of mr 'ch.rnics that <l ic

tatc hor l i t wor ls but the purPose f i r r r rh ich i t u ' rs bLr i l t . I f an

animal that l iv t 's in th is *or ld is also a nrachinc, i t n lust [ r t ' thc

embodiment ol sonrc purpose. Thc tact thr t thc purpose clucles

both t l re animal 's n\rareness and human unclcrstancl ing does not

al ter rh is statc ol a l l . r i ls in anv l indament.r l \ \ 'a\ , l r ) r r ) ther\ \ ' ise

thcre vvoulr l l>c no di l l i ' rcnct 'bctuccr-r the l iv ing aninr.r l anr l the

<lcacl animaf, bcrrlrt 'n orrrctfur rircnrium antl tJactclio ortuorunl.

Cue rc,ulr , I th inL. r r . rs c le.rr l r . r late th. l r i l . i r ) ct . ,nsi t lc l ing olgan-

isms, rve absrr l t t t rom al l te lcological consir l t r . r t ions, r r rganisnrs

(cisc to b( int l iv is ib le ent i t icsr " l f \ \ 'c rcmole onc hoof l rom a

horse, does i t bccomc l , . rss 'horsel ikc ' th.rn otht ' r l totser l" l ' - Anr l i l ,

in the sptc ia l case of nran. therc is no rr i rv to avoi<l rcc()urse t( )

211 r l t

"God's transcendent purpose, namely, that the lau's ofmechanism

alone should sufficc to engender and preserve machines whose

parts are arranged so as to fir lf i l l the requisite conditions for a

union of bodv and soul, that is, a relation of means to end"18 -

does this not implv, then, as Gueroult suggests, that if rve assume

rhat machines lack this "same organization and interdependence

of parts and whole,"ze we must accept an "incomprehcnsible divi-

sion" betu.een men and animals? Indeed, without such interde-

pcndence, u hich allorvs a mechanical relation ofstructure to be

transformed into a teleological relation of f itness for purpose, the

indivisible functional unitl ' of thc organism becomes inconceiv-

able. Thc inc om prehensible division is tolerable only when pre-

sente(l as an "unf;thomable mystery" that situates man in relation

to Godrs \i, isdom.lo

In short, onlv a metaphvsician could have set fbrth the prin-

c ip les ofa mechanist ic biologv rv i thout fa l l ing at once into con-

tradiction (contradiction that must in any case emerge in the end).

Ferv historians ol biologv have noticcd this, and eren fewer histori-

cally minded biologists. It is more regrettablc that philosophers

have maric the same mistake. lFormation du rdflere, pp. 54-56]

216217

Cg,qlrrn ELLvIN

Auguste Comte

The Montpell ier School

[87] Afier being banishcd to Nlontpell ier fbr his role in the clos-

ing ofthe Ecole Polvtechnique, Auguste Comte took courscs at the

Facr,rlt,v of Medicine, u'here Paul-joseph Barthez had taught unti l

his death ten years prior to Comte's arrival. Thc man r" ho actually

introduced the fathcr o1 positivism to biology uas Henry DucrotaY

de Blainvil le, a former professor at the Musdum and the Sorbonne.

I laving mct him at Claude Hcnr i de Saint-Simon's, Comtc at-

tended Blainvil le's coursc in general and comparative phvsiology

fiom 1829 to 1832. He admired his teacher's encvclopcdic knor" l-

edge and svstematic mind. The Cours de philosophic positive \\'as

in fact dedicated to Blainvil le and Charlcs Fourier, and its fbrti-

eth lesson is f i r l l ofpraisc fbr Comte's erstrvhi le teacher. [ . . . ]

In portraving the eras that prececled the advent of the positivt:

spirit in philosophv, Comte Iikecl to sketch thc historv of biol-

ogv in broad strokes, dralr, ing on a keen awarcness ol the intcr-

relatedness of biological discovcrics that hc took from Blainvil le's

lecturcs. A striking example can be found in the fifty-sixth les-

son of the Cours, rvhich concerns the naturalists oIthe eighteenth

century. l l Comte excel led at g iv ing summarv dcscr ipt ions of the

contributions ofvarious scicntists and at rveighing their relative

importance. Anrong thosc nhom he singled out as prccursors of

positivism rlcrc Hippocrates, Barthez, Bich.rt, Johann Friedrich

N'lcckel, Lamarck and, of course, Claude Bernard. Ihc range of

the citations provcs that Comte uas genuinclv learncd in the sub-

ject, rvhence thc casc vvith rvhich he attaincd.r loftl rtrntage liom

rvhich he uas able to concciv(: of the history ofsciencc a\ a crft icd.l

historv, that is, a historv not onlv oricntcd torvarcl the present but

juclged against thc norms ol'the present. Thtrs, in the fortv-third

lcsson Comte's account of the controversv betrveen mechanists

.rnd vi ta l is ts uas planned to rcvcal the "obviouslv progressive

intent" ol 'the N'lontpell icr vitalists, especiall l Barthez and Bichat,

rr.hosc uork l las so unjustlv clecried at the timc in Paris. Ifrudes,

pp.62-631

[88] In a note in the nventv-cighth lcsson of the Cburr, Comte

hailecl the i l lustrious Barthez as "a f)r more influential philoso-

pher" than Condil lac, and in his prefice to the Nourcour i/dmcnrs

cle la scicnce tle I 'hommc he praiscd it as a tcxt "ol eminent philo-

sophical pouer" .rnd an "cxccllcnt logical theorv," l ir superior

to thc "mctaphvsicirn" Condil lac's Traiti dcs s_t;stimes.ln the fbrty-

thircl lesson, Barthez is praiscd fbr having cstablished "the essen-

t ia l character ist ics ol 'sount l phi losophical nrcthod, af tcr having

so tr iumphant l r denronstrated the inani t l ofanv at tcmpt to dis-

covcr thc pr imordial causes and int imate nature of phcnomena

o1 anv orrler, as rrell as having rcduccd all truc scicncc to the dis-

coven of the actual lau.s govcrning plrenclmenr." There can be

no cloubt rlrat it \\ 'as from a nrcdical treatise published in 1778

that Comtc took thc f lndarnental tenets of h is posi t ivc phi loso-

phr', r lhich hc bclicvccl rvere conllnned by Picrrc-Simon Laplacc's

1796 E\position du slstdme du monde ancl Fouricr's l8)2 Thiorie

onalvtique de la chaleur.

It should norv bc clcar rvhv Comte, * ho characterized Gcorg

t:rnst Stahl's doctrinc .rs "thc most scientif ic f irrmulation of the

metaphvsical state of PhvsiologY"' meintainecl th.rt Barthez's "r' i tal

pr inciplc" pointcd to "a n.rctaphls ical state of Ph)siolog\ lar thcr

remorecl f iom the thcological state tlran the lbrmulation uscd bv

Stahl assume<|." Unlike so manl ol his ou n contcmporarir:s and scr

manl ol Barthcz's, Comte rcfuscd to bc mislecl bv a mere change

of tcrminologv. Hc did not bel ieve that Barthez had merclv sub-

sritutcd a ne\\ ' namc fbr l hat Stahl had called "thc soul." On this

point, hc nracle a prolbund ancl Perrincnt remark: "For so chimer-

ical an ortlcr of idcas, such a chanqc in terminologv alrvavs incli-

cntcs an authent ic modif icat ion ol dre central idea."

Barthez's invaluable historian, his fi iencl Jacqut:s Lordat, points

out that Albrecht von Hal lc l rvas pr imari lv rcsponsible f i r r the

misintcrpretat ion that Comtc avoided. I t r las von I la l ler rvho

\\ 'r-otc in the second rolunrc ol 'his.4ncrtonrico/ l ibrart 'that Barthez

bclieve<l that rvhat he callcd the "r' i tal PrinciPlt " r.as thc ult im.rtc

sourc, 'of thc l i l 'e fbrct : .Jr But in thanking Barthcz lb l sending a

copr ol f r is 1772 inaugural aclc l ress to the Nlontpcl l ier .Facul t r ot

i \ lcdic ine, "Dc I ' r incipio v i ta l i hominis," von Hal ler indicatcd

that he himsclf rvas not so bold.rs to "accePt,l principlc ol a novcl

and unknol 'n nature."

Note, moreoler! that rvhi lc Bart l rez 's r lork uas ccrtainl t one

source ol Comte's philosophr', i t is rt le.rst plausiblc that Barthez's

F.\positi on r:lc la tloc trinc mdtlicrlc, u h ich Lord.rt publishcd in 1 ll l 8,

inlluenccrl Comte's judgmcnt of that rvork. lacqucs l-orclat uas a

profcssor ol anatomv and phvsiologv at Nlontpcll icr r ' ' lren Comte'

'rvho nas banishcd to Nlontpell ier.in 1816, attendtrl courscs therc.

Whcn Comte characterized Barthcz's cxpression "vital principle"

as a mt:rc " fbrmula," hc rTas actrral lv using the same term that

l -orc lat had used in cr i t ic iz ing von l l l l lcr 's l . r i lurc to undcrstand

that thc phrase impl iecl no bel icf in r spccial substancc or ent i t r

rl istinct f}om bodv and soul. Comte encountcrcd the teachings ol'

tht N' lontpel l ier Scl .xrol in i \ lontpcl l ier i tsel l , ancl that , couplcd

2 J6I l9

rl irh his outspokcn animosiry toward certain lcadinq l igures of

the Par is School , nrav ha'c had something to do rv i th the admi-

rat ion that enabled him to form a c lear picturc of Montpel l ier 's

rf octrine. lEtudes, pp. 7 5-71)

[89] Comte rvas able to pcrceive the clirect, authentic insight

into biological realit ics that lay hidden bchind the abstract con-

cept of the v i ta l pr inciple. From Barthez as r"el l as Bichat, he

Ieatncd of the intimate relations among the concepts oforganiza-

tion, l i le and conscnsus. This debt to Barthez may explain Comte's

tcndencr to prescnt him as the sole rcpresent.rt ive of thc Montpel-

l icr School. He overlooked, or pretendcd to overlook, Thcophile

de Bordcu. The idea that thc l i fe ofan organism is.r synthesis o[

elementarr l ives, an idea that delighted l)iderot in D'Alembert's

t)rearn, rvould no doubt have sccmed as unsatisfictory to Comtc

as did the theorv of organic molecules - and he rvould lrave raised

against it the same objections that he lcveled, in the fortv-first

lcsson of the Cours, ar thr l i rst l i r rmulat ions cr f ccl l theorv. l f

Bichat dissuadcd Comte l iom lbl lorv ing Lorenz Oken, Barthez

overshadorved de Bor<leu in his mind. fhc concept ol complex

living things composed of organic molecules or animalcules sug-

gt:sted a misleading analogv bctrvcen chemistry and biologv. t-ife

is necessarily a propcrtv of the whole organism: "'fhe clementary

animalculcs rvoulc l obviouslv be even more incomprehensiblc

than the composi te animal. even apart f iom the insolubl t 'd i f f i -

culrv th.r t one r ' tould therebl gratui tcrusl t create <oncerning the

el'Gctive mode of so nronstrous an association," \ 'ery much in the

spirit of Barthez, Comte held that "evcry organism is by its very

ni ture an indiv is ib le rvhole, n 'h ich we div ide into component

parts by mere intel lectual ar t i f icc only in order to learn more

ahout it and al*avs rvith the intention of subscquentlv reconsti-

tLrtinq the v' holc." The statement revcals as manv taboos as it docs

scru ples. IEtudcs, pp. 78-79]

2+O 141

Biologicol PhilosoPhY

[90] The invent ion of the term "bio)r 'gr" r t i lected a grou ing

a\l,arcness on the Part of phvsicians anrl phvsiologists that their

subject matt( 'r was fundamcntallv dif l i 'rcnt from that ofthc phrs-

ical sciences. The coining ofthe \4ord suggests an assertion ofthe

discipline's autonomv, ifnot ofits indepcndence Comte's biologi-

cal philosophy Provided systematic justi l ic'rt ion firr that assertion:

i t connoted ful l acceptancc of , as uel l as a need to consol idate,

" the great scient i l ic revolut ion rvhich, under Bichat 's Ieadership,

transfcrred overall prioritv in natural philosophv {rom astronomv

to biologr." l rComte was not ent i re lv \ { rong to see the disaP-

pointments he had suflered in his career as consequcnces of the

fact that he, a mathcmat ic ian, had taken up cudgels on behal f o l

the biological school in the struggle to nraintain, "against thc irra-

tional ascendancv of thc mathematical school, the indcpendencc

and digni tv of organic studies." l l

Comt( 's conccpt ion of the mi l ieu iusr i l iecl h is bel ief that b io l -

ogv coulcl Dot be a seParatc sciencc And his conception ol the

organism just i l ied his bcl icf that b io logr must be an autonomous

scicnce. The or ig inal i tv and fbrce ofhis posi t ion l ies in the cor ' -

relation - or, some would sav, dialcctical rclation - bctrveen thcse

t\ro conccPts.

Comte took the Aristotelian term "nril ieu" fiom Lamarck via

Blainvi l le. Al thoLrgh i t nas in common use in sevcnteenth- and

eighteenth-centur.v rrechanics ant l th i phrsics o1 { ' lu ids ' i t ' ras

Comte rrho. b! reverring to the nord's primarv scnse, transldrned

it into a conrprthensive, synthetic conct'Pl that rT'ould prove ust-

l i l to later biologists and philosophers When he suggested, in

the fbrtv-third lesson of his Cours in 1817, that the first duty of

biologv is to provide a general theorv oI rnil ieus, Comte, u ho mav

not have known the u.ork of Wi l l iam E<lrr ' . r r t ls (1824)or [ t ienne

Geof l i<x Sainr- l l i la i rc (1831) in th is are.r , thotrght he r" 'as pr<,r-

cl.riming Lam.rrck's superioritv ovcr Bichat. Bichat's clistaste fbr

the mcthods of the e ightcc nth-ccn tu rv iatromathematicians had

led hinr to insist not onlv that thc distinction betrveen living and

incrt \\ 'as legitimatc but also that the l iving and the inert rverc

flndamentall l antagonistic. Against this, Comte arguecl that "if '

a l l that surrounds l iv ing bodies rcal l ,v tcndcd to destroy them,

thcir cxistence rvould be l i rnclamental lv unintel l ig ib le."r ;

Comte's successive .judgments of Lamarck are revealing, holv-

ever, ol ' the deeper meaning of his biological viel s. l. . . ] Bevond

the first conscquencc of the Lamarckian theorv of the milicu -

n.rmelv, the variabil itv ofspecies and the gradual inccption ofnerv

var iet ies - Comte perceivecl a possiblv monist , and ul t imatelv

mechanist, tenclencv. I l the organism is conceivecl ofas being pas-

sivclv shapcd bl thc prcssurc of thc cnvironmcnt, i f thc l iy ing

thing is <lenicd al l intr insic spontanci t ) , thcn therc is no rcason

not to hope that the organic might somedav be explained in tems

of thc incrt. But hcrc thc spirit of Bichat rosc up in Comte against

thc thrcat of "cosmological usurpation,"16 against thc shouldering

aside of Larmarck's insights in lavor ol 'an uncompromising math-

cmatical approach.

Similarlv, Comtc held, l ike Bichat and follorving his lead, that

thc t issue uas the lorvest possible level o l anatomical analvsis;

he therefbre deniecl that the cell, rvhich he callecl the "organic

monad," could bc thc basic componcnt ofall complex organisms.

I t \1as not s implv that hc uas suspic ious of microscopv, u.hose

techni<1ues werc st i l l rc lat ivclv pr imit ivr ' ; Comte's opposi t ion to

cell theorl *.as primarilv logical. For him, an organism rvas an

indivis;ble structure ofinrl i lr. lua./ parts. Actual l iving things rvcre

not " indiv iduals" in anv simple sense. Nei ther his superf ic ia l

knorvlcdgc of Gcrman naturc philosophv, especiallv that ol Oken,

nor his reariing of Henri Dutrochct (at around the time lle was

prt'paring thc Cours), nor cvcn his reading ol Thcodor Schrvann,

21) 24l

to * hom he .r l ludes, enablcd him to see, in the car l icst fbrmula-

t ions ofccl l theorv, thc l i rst g l immerings of a theor l of "cJcgrccs

ol ' indiv idual i tv." For Comte, thc vcrv concePt of thc ccl l i rnpl ied

a nrislcading analogv bctrvccn organic bodies ancl inorganic com-

pouncls composed of indivisiblc molecules. 17 lEtudes, pp. 6 3-65]

[91] Clear lv, the ic lea undcr lv ing al l o l Comte's posi t ions ort

biologv rvas the neccssarv dual i tv of l i fc and matter. In biologi-

cal phi losophv, the eightccnth centurv bequcathc( l t \ \ 'o temPta-

t ions to the ninetccnth: mater ia l ism ant l l rv lozoism, that is, thc

(loctrine that rnatter is animate(l or that mattcr an(l l i le are inscp-

arablc. Comte, l ikc l )cscartes, bat t lcd on trvo l ronts, and his tac-

tics \vcre, if nothing else, Cartcsian. I 'he matterrl ifc dualism uas

the positivist ecluilalent of thc Cartesian mctaPhv:iical clualism ot'

extcnsion an<l thought. For Comte, dual ism u'as a prerequis i te o1'

rrnivcrsal progrcss, rvhich to him mc.rnt nothing othcr than the

subjugation and control ol ' inert mattcr bv the universe of the l iv-

ing un<ler the guidance of humankind. "Wc are, at bot tom, t : r 'en

lcss capablc ol conceiv ing of a l l bodies.rs I iv ing," rvrote Comtc,

th.rn as incrt . bccause the mcrc n() t ion oi l i lc i rnpl i t s thc cxistcncr

ol th ings nor endo*ccl r r i th i t . . . . L l l t inratc l r , l iv ing beings can c\ isr

onlv irr inerr mil icus, \ l hich pror i<Je rbcnr \\ i th both .r substr;rtc and

:r d i rcct or indirect sourcc ol nour jshment. . . . I t evcrr th ing rrcrc

al ive, no nrtural lau sould bc possiblc, ibr the var i ; rb i l in th.r t is

rlNa\s inherent in vital sp()ntrDcit\ is rcallv l inrited onlr bv the prc-

ponr lcrancc of the inert nr i l ieu. l8

[ : r 'en in bcings rvhert ' tht onl l manif i 's tat ion ol l i fc is vcgetat ivc,

one [ inds a "racl ic.r l contrast bet \ \ 'een l i ie 'and death." Betueen

plants ancl animals thcrc is s implv . r " real d ist inct ion," *hereas

betrvcen plants ancl incrt substanccs thcrc is a "ra<l ical separa-

t ion." The tradi t ional c l iv is ion ol nnturc into threc k ingdoms

(animal, mincral , r 'egetable) al lou,ed one to imagine a gradual

transition fiom one species to another along a chain of being;

Comte therefbre proposed replacing that tripartite scheme with

a ncw one consisting of tu,o "empires" (l iving and inert). He was

convinced that "vital science cannot exist u ithout this irreduc-

ib le dual ism."re

In essence, Comte sau', betu'een Lamarck and Descartes, a par-

allcl that no onc rvould think of disputing today. Perhaps more

perspicacious u,ith respect to the future than accurate in his per-

ception ol the present, Comte anticipated the conse<luences of

the idea that animals can be conditioned bv their environmcnts -

that is, he fbresarv thc possibil i tv oIbchaviorism. Thc assumption

of a dircct muscular reaction to external impressions is incom-

pat ib le, Comte argued, v ' , i th the idea of"animal spontanei ty,

which at the verv least implies that inner motives are decisive."a0

This rvould lead to a "rcstoration ofCartesian automatism, which,

though incompatible rvith the ficts, continues in one fbrm or

another to mar our leading zoological theories."al

Norv rve can sce rvhv Comte ascribed such importance to the

theories of Franz foseph Gall, u'ho argucd that the fundamental

inclinations and drives of human and animal behavior arc innate.

His cranioscopic method, so easv - all too easy - to celebrate or

ridicule, actuallv stemmed fiom his principled hosti l i tv to sen-

sualism. If i t could be shorvn that certain areas ofthc brain were

bv their verv nature asrociatcd \a'ith certain psychic faculties, then

one must ascribe primordial existence to those faculties. Hence,

nothing could have been more alien to Call 's (or Comte's) think-

ing than thc l.amarckian idca that thc biological functions are

independent of the organs that embody them (and may even influ-

ence the development of those organs). True, Gall did map cere-

bral topographv by studving the mental functions of his patients,

but in doing so his intention lvas to rcfutc, not to corroborate,

244 21t

l -amarck's doctr inc. Gal l provided Comte u i th an argument in

favor of innate apt i tudes and, more general l l , of innatc f t rnc-

tions - an argument that Comte elaboratecl into a guarantee of

continued progress through development of a preexisting order.

Comtc claimed to have achieved comprehensive, crit ical in-

s ight into the biologv of h is t ime. l f I have correct lv ident i f ied

the grounds of his self-confldence, it should novv be possible to

state his most important conclusions in a svstematic fashion. First,

Comte believed that he, follorving Georges Cuvier, had eliminated

ti: leologv from biologv: thc "conditions of existcnce" replaced

thc dogma of f inal causes, and the onlv relation assumed to exist

bctu ecn an organism and its environment, or betlveen an organ

and i ts f i rnct ions, rvas one of compat ib i l i ty or f i tness, imply ing

norhing more than viabil ity. "Within certain l imits," Comtc statcs

in the Cours, "everything is necessarily arranged in such a way that

existencc is possible."lr ' I 'he harmonv betu'een fLnction and organ

"does not go bevond what actual l i lb requires."al Since, moreover,

organisms depend on their environmcnts, l iving things arc sub-

jr.:ct to cosmic influcnces. Biologv is thcrefbre relatcd to cosmol-

ogv; lrence, the principle that nature's lalvs are invariable, f irst

formulatecl in astronomy and eventually extendecl to chemistry,

could norv bc cxtcndcd to biologv, thcrcbv invalidating the beliel '

that variabil ity and instabil itv arc essential to organic proccsscs.

Finallv, generalizing a principle borrouecl from Franqois JosephVictor Broussais, Comte held that a l l pathological phcnomcna

could be explained bv the laus of phvsiologv. Thus, he argucd that

the dil lerence betu.ecn health and disease was a matter of degree

rathcr than of kind - hcncc mcdicine should basc its actions on

the analvtic larvs of anatomophvsiologv.

Yet, as even thc Cours made clear, the verv organic structure

of l iv ing th ings consr i tuted an obstacle to fur ther progress in

Positive, experimental phvsiologv. An organism, Comte argued,

is a consensul oforgans and lunct ions. The harmonv th.r t er ists

among the l inct ions ol the organism is " int imart ' in a verv c l i f -

lerent scnse from tht'hartnonv that exists bcnvccn the crrganism

and the mi l icu." l l An organism, Comte maint . l ined, is a uni-

f lcd whole; to disscct i t , to div ide i r into componcnt parts, rvas

"mere intel lcctual ar t i f ice."+5 The biologist , then, must rvork

l lom the general to the speci f ic , f iom the uhole to the parts:

"Ilou can anvone conceire ofthe rvholc in terms ol its parts once

cooperat ion at ta ins thc point of str ict indiv is ib i l i t r l " '16 Betueen

Irnmanuel Kant.rncl Claud< Bernard, Comte onct.again made

l inal i ty, in the guise of total i t ) , an essent ia l e lement ol the def i -

n i t ion of an organism.

This u'as not the onlv place rvhere the positivist method vio-

latecl the principle of rvorking fiom the simple to the complex

.rrrd the knorvn to thc unknorr.n. In celebrating the promotion of

nnnt{)my to the r luasi-phi losophical d igni tv of comparar i lc anat-

onr. n s\ 's tem rhat providcd a basis lbr c lassi lv in! the nrul t i tude

ol sprcif ic fbrm,i, Conrtc was lcd to reject Cur iet's fbnd notion

that thc animal kingdonr ccrnsists ofa number ofdistinct branchcs

rncl to accept instead Lamarck's and Blainvil lc's th('or\ ofa unique

series. Once again, his grourrds for making this choice involved a

suborcl inat ion of the s imple to the complex, of thc bcginning to

tht e nd: " l he studv ol m,rn must alrvavs dominate thc complete

s\steDr of b io logical scicncc, c i thcr as point , r l r le l>rr turc or as

.qoal ,"r ; This is bctaust thc gr. 'ncral not ion of man is " the only

immediate" datum uc hi\ '(.rf Comtc thus clainred to be keeping

laith rvith his gcncral program, "uhich consisrs in al\1ays rcason-

ing fiom thc bettcr knorvn to the lesser knolvn," even though he

insistcd on arranging th< lninral series in ordcr of <lecreasing com-

plexitr - this in order to rca(l thc series as "revcaling a devolu-

tjon l iom man rathcr than r perf'ection fiom the spongc." lt rvould

slrin creclulitv to clrarv a parll lel betrveen Comtc's ipproach here

and thnt ol Kul t ( lo l r js te in, to l ind in rht krrncr a phcnomcno-

logic.rl bioloqv ovant Io lcttre an<l in thc l ltt< r a h itherto-neg lecte<l

posi t iv isr inspirat ion. In l ic t , Comte had an idea, albci t a cc 'n-

f ise<l one, ol r rhere he ,"Tas going. fhe intc l lcctual f lnct ion *as

thc dist inguishing feature of animal l i fe. To interpr.et a l l l i f i 'as a

serics dcvolving from man, the perlect embocliment of that f irnc-

tion, \\ 'as to treat biologv as subordinate to sociologr', fbr thc truc

thcorv ol inrel l igence \ \ 'as to bc fbrrnd, Conrtc bcl icvcd, in soc i -

o logv and nr) t in ps\chologv. IErur icr , pp. 67-71]

[ ! ) ] ] Conrte 's biological phi losophr, that <di f icr . : oI cru<l i -

t ion and lcarning, hid an inrui t ive convi( t ion rvhosc impl icar ions

lvere f i r - reaching. Ihe impetus behind that convict ion no doubr

stemmccl l ionr thc fict that a uto;rian spirit breathed lif 'e not onlv

into the bold Jssert ions ol a brancl-nel sciencc but also into thc

r ime-tcstc( l t ruths oIa phi losophv almost as old as l i fc i t5el f . Sim-

plv put, th is \ \ 'ns thr convict ion that I i f i ' takcs place but does rrot

or ig inare in t ] r t ' r r r r r l r l of the inert . r rhcre i t . r l .anclons to r lcath

in( l iv i ( lu.r l otganisms that stenr l lorn elserr hcrc. "Thc col lcct ion

ol natural l rodies does not lbrm an .r [ 's<r lurc u holc." l -h is bcl ic l ,

combintd rv i th thc idc.r of a cont inuous, l inear ser ies of l iv ing

things culminar ing, logical lv as vvcl l as te lcological lv, in man, uirs

evcrrtuallv translbrmed into the iclca ol l l iocracv as thc necessarv

condition ol Sociocracv. This uirs the positivist cquir'.r lent of thc

old mctaphvsicr l idca ol a Realnr ol l nt ls. f l rudcr, p. 73]

Positivc Poli t ics

[9] ] The super ior i tv ol posi t ive pol i t i r :s "r tsul ts l ionr the l . rct

that it dr.r(or"rJ uhat others lnrcnt." Thc ditcovcrv tlrat the inren-

tor ol positivr. poJirics claintcd as his orr n \\,as that "thc naturalla*.s that govcn the m.rrch of civil ization" are derivecl from thc

laus ofhuman organization. Tb the t 'rtt 'rrt that "thc statc ol soci,t lorganizar ion is esscnt ia l lv dcperrc lent on thc st . t tc ol c i r i l izat iorr ,"

tii;l

I

iJflD(

dI4() ! +'l

social orgnnizat ion is nothing other or morc than an aspect of

human organization "not subject to major t hange" (so far as we

can see). What ne knou.of human organization, moreover, is the

result of a Dethodological decision "to cnvi5lgs rn11 as a term

in rhc animal ser ies, indeed, f rom a st i l l more general point of

v iew, as one ol a col lect ion of organized bodics or substances."

S('eminglv fi i thful to Claude Henri dc Saint-5inron's terminologl.,

Comte gave thc name "phvsiologv" to thc "general science of

organizc<l bodies." But a diffcrcncc betrveen his use of thc term

and Saint-Simon's is alreadv evidcnt. For Crrmte, phvsiology was

not just a discipline recentlv institutecl lbr the study of man as

living being, onc w.hose method could scrvc as a model for the

studv of man in societv; more than that, thc content ofphysiol-

ogy was t() b('come the nucleus ofa ncw scicnce. Physiologv owed

its conrent to nredic inc, ancl medicine taught th is Icsson: " [ -ong

having hoped that hc might learn to repair anr disturbance to his

or-qanization nnd eveD to rcsist anv destructive lbrce, lman] finally

rcalized that his efforts rverc firt i lc as lonq as they did not coop-

er.rtc u'ith thorc of his organization, rnd sti l l more fi-rt i le when

thc nro rvere c.'pposed." And further: "Thc fict that many il lnesses

u'ere curcd in spite ofdefictivc treatments taught physicians that

everv l iving bodv sp,rntaneously takes porverful steps to repair

accidcntal d isturbances to i ts organizat ion." Hence, pol i t ics is

l ikc medicine in that both arc discipl incs in rvhich perfcct ion

reguircs observation. And just as there rvert tr*o schools o[med-

ical thoLrght, so, too, werc therc t$o schoo)s of polit ical thought:

thc "po)it ics of imagination" involvcd "strenuous t ' lJbrts to dis-

cover remc<l ics wi thout suf f ic ient considcrat ion of thc nature of

the disc.rsc"; thc "pol i t ics of obscrvat ion," on thc other hand,

knorr ing " that the pr incipal cause ofheal ing is the pat ient 's v i ta l

strcngth [/orce vita]e]," is content, "through observation, to re-

movc the obstacles that empirical metho(ls place in the rvay of a

n.ltural rcsolution o[ the crisis." The linking of the terms "vital

lbrce" and "crisis" alcrts us to what is going on here: this was

I l ippocrat ic medicine reintcrpreted in the l ight of the Montpel-

l ier School 's doctr ine.

ln Comte's text , thc t r rn "cr is is" took on a pathological and

therapeut ic s igni f icance that i t lacked in Saint-Simon. I t uas a

tcrnr f re ighted with al l thc *eight and deckcd out wi th ai l the

majesty of . r rnedic.r l t racl i t ion. Thus, "nature" rras cont inual lv

invoked as the ultimat(: reason whv unfivorable polit ical circum-

stancc,i failed to prevent "the advancc of civil ization," u hich in

f)ct "ncarlv alwavs profits f iom mistakes rathcr than being <lelayed

bv them." This recourse to nature is so basic that it enables Comte

to naturalize, as it rvere, the most distinctive f 'eaturc ol human

historv, namely, the labor or industrl rvhcrcby societv pursues its

cnds: this Comte describt'r l as "action on nature to modifv it fbr

man's benef l t . " This te leological cnd uas "determincd bv nran's

rank in the natural svstem as indicated by thr l ic ts, something

not suscept i t r le of erplanat ion." [ . . . ]' [ his l imitation of man's porver to kno* ledge ol nature's larvs

and prcdiction of their effects, hcnce to harnessing natural lorces

to human designs, has more in common u' i th the prudcnce of

Hippocratic diagnostics than n ith the demiurgic dream of <lcna-

turing nature through historv.

But reading betueen the l ines ofthe text is not cnough. What

ol the sources that CoDrte dreu on? fhe text quote(l ab,l 'e con-

tains such phrases as "thc polit ical impetus peculiar to the hunran

race" and " thc progrcss of c iv i l izr t ion," lvhich "does not nrarch

in one straight I ine" but, rather, proceeds bl "a ser ies ol osci l -

lat ions not unl ike the crsci l lat ions *e see in thc nt t 'chanism oI

locomotion." And Comte rcrlcrs to "one ol the essenti.rl la* s of

organized bodies," rvhich can be appl ied "cqual lv rvcl l to the

human racc act ing col lcct ivclv or to an isolated indiv idual" - a

$

$It;

i:1

246 21')

LNITEFPP!T

lan' that l inked thc cJclelopment of str ! 'ngth to thc Prcscnce ot

rcsistance. Flom this I venturc tt l conclude that rtcll lrefbre he

addcd Anthelnrc Richerancl's Elinents dc ph.vsiologic and Barthez's

,\burtaur dlimcntr rlc la science tlc I 'homme to thc annals of posi-

tivism, Comtc hacl reatl rr 'hat troth authors had to sal 'rbout ani-

mal movemcnf. Richerand lvrotc of "z igzag movemcnt in the

spacc bcttleen two Parallcl l ines " And Barthcz' in his Nouvelle

micanique cles mrtuvemcnts de I 'homnre ct des onimou\' discussed

.r'o"", ond reciltrocating motions' Comtc also usetl the rvord oscil-

l r t ion. And n hcn ht ' spoke of the pectr l iar impetus leading to

improvemcnts in the social ordcr, hc again ref'erred to Barthez'

tc, thc Uarthez rvho' in his Nouvclle nttcanique' tricrJ to rclute the

irlca that animals novt {br no other reason (han that the ground

repels their ftet And again. it rvas Barthez - specificallv' Chap-

t", F.ru. .rf Nour.n ur Uiments - {iom rvhom Comte [rorrou'cd the

lau relat ing strength t ( ) rc l ls tance-

Tu r.,. r.,p, tht:n, Comte left thc Ecolc Polvtechnique and pur-

suc(l the studv ol biologv' as he indicatcs in the preflce to thc

sixth and final volumc ofthe Cours <lc philosophie Potirife At that

time, he rl lscoverecl and made his orvn an i<lcr o( the organism

that bccamc thc kcY concePt ofhis theorv ofsocial organizat ion'

When Saint-Simor pub)ishecl Dc la phvsiololl ic appliquie d I 'ani-

l ior . t t ion dcs inst i lut iont - ioc,dler in 1813, he did Dot at temPt t r )

imposc a triological model on social structure' f l is concerption of

an:',:,.gonir",l bodv" requircd no such analogv' and his conception

.rf ".. ir"r" in.rplied no ntccssarv relation to Pathology Comte'

on tlre other hantl, fbund jn Barthez' sti l l in a metaphvsical torm'

the iclea that organizcrl svstems at-e to somc crtent self-rcgulating

or autonomous. Anr l f iom a lecture that Barthez gave in l80l '

cnt i t lc( l " l ) iscours sur le g[ :n ic d ' l l ippocratc" ' Comrt dreu the

HipPocri(ic conclttsionr .rl l orgatrisms (or orqaniTations' as Comte

l ikcr l to cal l them)have a sPontaneous capaci tv to preser lc and

ocrfect thcmsclvcs. Bv interprct ing th is cJPaci tY as an j l lhercnt

' ir,rp"r,y ot,tt. notr.,..: ut t"gani' ' tr ion' hc rvas able to kccp l 'r ith

\\ ' i th the PreccPts of Positivism '

On Deccmber 25, 132'+, Conl te wrot t J ' rcr lues-Pierre Fann'-

\ialat: "The state in rT'hich rvc {ind srrcietv ttxla,r is a long rrlv

fiom nom.rl,... Jt is. rather,.r vt 'rv violent statc ol crisis " Bcc:tt lsc

hc vic*ed organization as a normative propcrtl of organisms' he

.,,,,1d ,r,r three diflerent occasions ch'rractcrize 1>olirical l lrojccts

()r ptacticts as "monstrositicS" or "monstrotts" ancl on firur t lcc'r-

sions characterize c<-rn<luct or behal ior as "delective " Thcsc terms

r.erc borrorved lrotn tcratology, a science intimatelv- associatcd

u ith the emcrging l ielrl oI enrbrvologti Eticnn' Ceoll ior 5rint-

I l i lairc's treatisc on l 6 l lonstrLtositis humaincs h'rd b< cn published

in 1822. Comtt ' 's phi losophl c lcar lv impl ics a concept ol normal

as opposet l to pathological t l tvelopment ' In lact ' i l Conrte ' in thc

Piun r/r 's t lr lour scicntjf iguc , invokcs the n'lture of things as lre-

<luent lv as he dt" t ' i t i ' bccause bt " th ings" he means l i fcand bv

,i l i l '",,h" n.""n, a distincrt capacitv to persist in a ",t,tt,n;11" l ircc'

t ion. ' Io borrou aD c\Pression f icqucnt l r emploler l bv Frangois

Perrour, Comte's c(rncePtual iza( ion is " imPl ic i t lv normlt ive. ' ' Bv

rcintc{rating the human into thc organil ' the historY of man into

the histol l of th ings, Comtc besto\ \ 'cd a guarJntec ol ncccssl t \

on tht moral rlcstjnatirlt l o{'t lrc sptcies He rv'rs 'rble to rlo s<r

\\ ' i th()ut contr.rdictir ln rlnlv becattsc, under cover of the positivc

term "nature," hc supcrimposecl an orclcr of meaning on an ordcr

ol larv. i 'A. Comte," EtrrrJcs pfi;L'sophigrcr' pp 29a-91]

The Positi vist DisciPles

f9't] ln the S.vstinrc tle polirtt lue ,positrIc (1851)' Comte rl$cribed

tr.o voune phrsicirns, I)t. L,rtt is-luguste Scgond;rnd l)r ' CharLcs

Robin. as his <lisciples. In l i l '18, the t 'r 'o men fbun<lcd thc Societi '

c lc Biologie, an oryaniTJt ion whcJsc rePorts and jot l rn ' r ls g i re thc

I tol( l

most comprehensive and vivid im.rge rve have ofbiological research

in France over the p.st centurv or more. The Soci6t6's first gov-

crning boald rv;s chaired by Dr. Raver, u,ho later became dean

of the Facultv of l l ' ledicinel Claude Bernard and Charles Robin

served as vicc chairmcnl and Charles-Edouard Brown-S6quard and

Robin u'ere the secretafies. The group's first charter rvas drafted

by Robin, and its f lrst article stated that "the Soci6t6 de Biologie

is instituted fbr the studv ol the science oforganized beings in

the normal state and in the pathological state," The spirit that

animated the fbunders ofthe group rlas that ofpositive philoso-

phy. On June 7, 1848, Robin read a paper "On the Direction That

the Founding Members of thc Soci6t6 de Biologie Have Proposed

to Answer to the Title 'fhev

l lave Chosen." In it, he discussed

Comte's c lassi f icat ion of the scicnces, cxamined biologv's mis-

sion in much thc rame spirit as Comte had done in the Cours de

philosophie porit irc, and noted th.rt one ol the most urgent tasks

facing thc discipl ine rvas to invest igate the nr i l ieus in rvhich l i fe

cxistt 'd. Robin even had a narne lbr this proposerJ subdiscipllne -

"mesologv." When the Soci6t6 cclebrated its f i l t ieth anniversarr

in 1899, the phvsiologist Emi le Gley rcad a report on the evolu-

tion of the biological sciences in France, in which the impetus

that positivism gave to thc subject is frequently alluded to. Gley's

rcport sti l l makes interesting reading.ae

In 1862, Charles Robin became the first person to hold the

chair in histologv at thc FacLrlty o[Medicine in Paris.l0 From that

position he remained faithful to one tenet of Comte's biological

phi losophv in his refusal to tcach cel l theory in the dogmatic

fcrrm in rvhich it had been expressed b,v Rudolph Virchor.. Robin

taught instead that thc ccll rrirs onc ofmany anatomical compo-

nents rathcr than the fundamental component of l iving organ-

isms. In 1855, a studcnt in Robin 's school defended a thesis on

"The Gcncration of Anatomic.rl Elemcnrs." Its author, q'ho rvould

2t2

l.rter translate John Stuarc Mill 's book , '1u1;ustc Comte antl Positit ' ist

Phi losophv into French. subsequcnt lv achjeved a l ime that has

rcnded to overshadow his earlv interest in biologv. His nnme was

Ceorgcs Cl!menccau.

Robin u 'as also, a long u' i th Enr i le [ . i r t16, rhe author of the

Dictionnaire de m'ldecine, uhich in l87l supplanted the series of'

revised edi t ions of Pierre l lubert N\ 'sten's Dict ionnaire. This

reminds us that Comtc's biological philorophl, also left its mark

on the developmcnt of lexicography in Francc as rvell as on the

product ion of cr i t ical edi t ions of medical texts and on thc his-

torv ofmedical scicnce. IErudes, pp.7l-1) l

[95] With an author as careful about t lre meaning of r+ords

as rvas Littr6, one must take l iterally rvhat he said about his per'

sonal re lat ions lv i th Comtc. On at lcast two occasions hc statcd,

"l srrbscribe to the positivc philosophv."sr e also sai<i that hc had

chosen Comte's great book as a "model," ..rdding, "There, hap-

pi l r ' , I tcc l that I am a disciple." t r He descr ibed his al legiance ro

posi t iv ism as a k ind of conversion: "H.1\ ' ing been a mere Iree-

thinker, I became a posi t iv ist phi losopher." ; l When Li t t re c l iecl ,

his journal, La Philosophie pos;ti lc, sought to counter rumors that

l re had converted ro Cathol ic ism bt publ ishing i ts late edi tor- in-

chief 's f inal edi tor ia l undcr the t i t lc "For thc Last Timc": "Tht:

positivc philosophv that kept me fiom being a mere negator con-

tinues to accompanv me through this final ordeal.";a

ll there u,as onc principlc of thc positivc philosophy set fbrth

in the Cburs about which Littre never expressed the slightest rcs-

ervation, and l 'hich he tirelesslv delended, it was the hierarchv

ofthe six fundamental sciences, expressing thc historical progres-

sion of human knon ledge. What intcre stcd him, of course, n 'as

the relat ion ofbiologv to i ts predeccssors. phvsics and above al l

chernistry but he mav have been even morc intcrestcd in the rela-

t ion of sociologv to biologr. This uas the sourcc of h is r l is . rgrcc-

25]

mcnt \\ ' i th Herbcrt Spencer, 'r 'ho

argued in the "Classification of

thr: Sciences" th.rr hierarchv ought to be replaced bv interdepen-

dcnce. Littr! held that no change in the relatire ranking ol the sci-

cnces \4,as possible,5;1nd hg las able to pt ' tsuade Mi l l on th is

point.5.' An immediate consequencc of the hir:rarchical principle

was that importing a mcthod lalid fbr the stu(lY of a lorver level

or stage of phenotmcna into a disciplinc at a highcr level $as "the

greatest thc()retical mist.rle one could nrake "!? Littr6's philoso-

phl ofbiology, bence of mcr l ic ine as rvel l , can br: summcd up in

one briel passagc: "Biological facts must f irst obev the larvs of

chcmistry. Anv correct interPretation must respcct this principle'

But the rcvcrse is not true: chcmical facts nced not obcv the laws

ol biologr, l irr rthich ther lack one thing, nanrelt ' the char' 'rcteris-

tic of l i fe."5"' -fhat "one thing" rvould Pcrsist to thc cnd of Littr6's

lifc: fbr him it \\ 'as an incontrovertible obstaclc, "the crucial dif:

ferencc bct* een mcchanism antt organism."l ' ' Littr i * as, to use

a modern tcrn, .rn implacable entnlv of "reductionism " In 1846,

lbr examplc. in a studv ol Johannes Miil ler's Hondbuclr der Phvsi-

ologie des ,l ' lcnschcn, l- ittre cnnlc to the dcfcnse of thc "irreduc-

ible": "lt is imPortant to dcterminc thc irreduciblc ProPertics of

th ings.. . . I r rcducible mcans that $hich one cannot el lect ively

reducc. In chctr l is t rv. {or in\ t . rnce. ef fect i te l r indecomposable

compouncls are cal led i r redtrc ib le."60 ln 1856, in a major al t ic le

on Franqois l \ { rgencl ie, L i t t re lound that Nlagendie had been

more an oPPonent than a disciple ol 'Xavicr Bichat ln essence'

Nlagenclie had lailed to distinguish bctrveen rhc occult and thc

irredLrcible, thc in lmancnt l l ropert ies of l iv ing matter ' rvhere'rs

tl ichat harl recognizecl the irrcdrrcible rvhile crorcising the occult '

N{agendie had been unable or unr, i l l ing to stntc a c lear Posi t ion

on thc reclucibil i tv olbiological phcnomena ro the la\a's ofPhYs-

ics and chemistrv or on thc i r reducibi l i tv of v i ta l organizat i t rn '

L imri uas also cr i t ical of l . ( ( tn Rol tan. thc author ol the medi-

cal thcorv knon n as "organicisnr," f irr ncglecting thc irretlucibil-

i t l o l the propert ies ol l iv ing mattef . Notc, bv the r , 'av, that both

Litrrc's Dicriorrxrirc de lo longut fron6oire and his Ditt ionnaire dc

rnr'r/ccine contain artic]es on thc rvord irr1ducti6lc. ["] ittrc,",4crcr

du Colloque Em;le l. i ttr i, I 80 1 - l,\ E l, pp. 27 l-7 )l

[c)6] ln rvhat rt 'spccts did Xavicr Bichat influcnce Emile Littri '

. rnd other posi t iv ist physic ians such as Char les RoLr in (not onlr

rJ i lect l l . ' but a lso through Auguste Conrtc)? To bcgin u i th, thcrc.rlas his celebratccl distinction betr,.een tu<r fbrms ol l i f c, vegeta-

r ivc ancl sensi t ivc (or animal) , the lat tcr being subordinate to

the l , r rmer. L i t t rc al luded t() th is di i : inct ion in his.rr t ic le on

Flanqois N{agencl ie, rT 'here he cr i t ic iztd his subjcct l i r r nor having

rcspccter l thc orcler in rvhich the luDct ior)s ought to be studicd:

in Phsiololl ie, N'lagenrlic had taken up thc sensor\ l lnctions bciirrc

consider ing nutr i t iorr .6r l lut thc main th ing that the posi t iv ists

tqrk trom Bichat uas his contcntion that thc tissues rrcrc the ulti

m.rre elenrents oI anatonr ical an.r l rs is, a v icu' that tcn<ler l to push

thc nerv scicnce ofhistol,rgv irr ont- rJircction rather than Jnother.

l3 ichl t 's v ien s, repented bv Comtc i r r the l i ) r t \ - f i rst lesson of the

Coars, cxplain thc pcrsistent skcpt ic ism ol I : rcnch phvsic ians in

the l i rst hal f of the nirrctcenth centur ' \ ' \ ! i th respcct to cel l thcorv

rncl microsclrpic techni<1ucs, *hich rrcrc disparag<<l in l i ror <r l

ruch hir to logical ntethods as r i isscct ion, r lcs iccat ion, maccrat ion

and treatment rv i th acic ls. l iuc, the micrrscopes avai lablc at the

t imr *cre mcr l iocre, an<l Louis Ranvicr noter i in his 1876 inau

gural lccturc at thc Col ldge dc France that Bichat had been r ight

to be rr ' . r rv of thcm. Neverthclcss. posir iv ist phts ic ians t l isplavcd

Persis lent host i l i tv to microscopr, part l r in ol tcdicntc to I Ienr l

l)ucrotar rle Blainvil lr 's authoritativ(' Cous de ph.vsioktgie ctinenlc

(l l l29). Rcn6-1 hi:ophile l lyacinrhc I-ainnec also numbert'cl among

thc instrument's cletrectors. Th.rnks to N,larc Klcin's rrrrrk on thc

hist , r rv ofccl l theorr . rhelc is n<r nec<l ro ht l . r t r<rr f tc,bin 's oPpo-

fi2 5.+

l5t

I-

sition t() anv lorm of research that claimed to go beyond * hat he

took to be the basic constituent ofthe anatomv (tissue). Even as

late as 1869, ten years after the publication ofRudolph Virchow's

cefebrated $'ork, Robin n,rote in la Philotophie positive that the

ccll r*ar a metaphysical construct and conmented ironically on

"thc allcgcdlv tl pical or primordial organic ct' l l ."6l When Littr6

reviewe<f Robin's .lnatomie ct physioloqie cellulaites in rhe s,lne jour-

nal in 1874, he accepted his lr iend's doubts as facr. Yet in an l8?0

articlc on the "()rigine de I ' id6.e de justicc," Littre had discussed

trl 'o kinds of brain cells, affective ancl intcllcctualr Was this a the-

oretical conccssion or a merc stylistic convenience?61

In u hat respects, moreover, did Frangois-loseph-Victor Brous-

sais influence Littra (either directlv or through Comte)? Surely,

[ . i t t r i ' inher i ted Broussais 's stubbornness in defending the theo-

ries of physicrlogical medicinc, l 'hich were b.rsed on a bclief in

the identitv ol thc normal ancl thc pathological. as rvell as on a

refi lral tcr vierv disease as introducing lnl nerv lunctional pro-

cess in tltt organism (a case made even beforc Broussais by _lohnHunter). Litt16 thus accepted and championed what Comte called

"Broussais's Principlc." In the prelace to the second edition of

l lddecine et midecins, Littrd stressed the nccd for medicine to

revise i ts thcor ies in l ight of physiology's having at ta ined the

positive stage of development. Pathologv had thus become "phys-

io logv of the disturbed state," and this, I i t t re argued, was an

"essential notion." This Broussaisist dogma would later prove to

be onc of the obstacles to undcrstanding nricrolriology. But for

the moment, let us ask ourselves rvhat thc practical effects o[this

revolution r1'crc. lD an 1846 article containing a nevr translation

ofCelsus, I i t t re uas not af ia id ro \ i l i te that "so long as physiol-

ogv lrns r)ot fullv constituted as a scietrce, there remained gaps

in which hypothescs could emcrge. But no'r, rhat it has become,

almost bt'fore our eves, a science, cvcry nredical system is dis-

credited in advance."6i l"Littre," Actes du Colloque Enilc I ixri,

t 80l-1881, pp.271-751

[97] Li t t r6 set f i r r th his v iervs on hvgiene in a comncntar!

<tn the Traitd <l'h.v11iine puhliclue et privdc b.t l\4iche I Livv, the lbr-

mer chief phvsic ian of rhc Alm6es <l 'C)r ierr t and ( l i rcctor of the

Val-de-Grice hospi ta l , * 'honr Li t r6 descr ibcd as rn "rnr incnr

author," although Jcan-Nlichel (luarrl ia sa* him rs nrcrre r. ' l a rher

or ic ian than a scholar. Publ ic hcal th had been a l i re l r merl ic l l

subspecial tv in Francc sinct the vvork ofJcan-Not l l la l ld and

Franqois Emmanuel Fodi ' rd ear lv in thc nineteenth ccDrurv; i t

ha<l prolitcd from the cxpcrience ol such militarv phv5icians as

\i i l lerm6, rvho had served as surgeon-major in Napoleon's armr'.

This medical subsp{ci . r l tv had no doubt lent crcdence to rhc

not ion ofmi l ieu, f i rst put fbru.ard in t l re rvorks of Blain. ' . i l le and

Iamarck. I Ivgiene, accor<l ing to Li t t r i , is the science <rf ' . r t t ions

and react ions betrveen nr i l i , :us.rncl organisms, humanr includer l .

, \s f i r r mi l ieu, L i t t r ( i norcd in l i i58 that the ternr har l n rrc l rn icr l

rncaning, and hc gavc a detai lcd r lc l ln i t ion in nranv rrspecrs rcmi-

niscent of thc table ol phvsical agents thar Blainr i l le h,rr l ta l lcd

"rxternal modif iers." l 'hr : scient i l ' ic c laborat ion ol tht rvorr i

"mi l icu" in thc ninetet 'nth centurv requirccl the part ic i ;>at ion of

a number of scienccs that had achievecl the stage of "1>osi t iv-

i t \ " ' - phvsics, chemisrrv and biologv. Thc terrn also scrvcd in

Part as an ideological suLrstitute for thc notion ol "climat(," !1.hich

h.rd been used extensivelv br c,ighteenth-centurv authors, p.rfric-

ular lv Montesquieu. According to I i t t re, hou'ever, the stut l t o l

ntan's orvn mi l ieu uas rhe ptovirrce ol sociolcrgr as mu< l r . rs of

pl ls ics or biologr, so that rhc prescr ipt ions ol "pr ivate hrgienc"

could c la im onlv r h jstor ical r r r cmpir ical rathcr thaD ,r ther)

rct ical b1si5.c5 H,rv ing r l r i t t tn sevcral ar t ic les on the cl ro lera ol

l l l32, the contagiousDess ,) i equinc glanclcrs and the transmissionof thc plague, Li t t r i ' c , ru ld hardlv l i i l ro commcnt on L6r ' r 's

2t6 2t l

obscrv.r t ions on cndcmic in( l epidcmic diseases. Not a word \vas

sai<l a[xrut cr io logic! involv ing n\ icroorg.rnisnrs, a l though the ar-

ticlc on "l cptothrix" in the Dicfionnairc' rJc rnldeclne reported on

Casimir l)avaine and Picne Frangois Olive Raver's rcscarch on the

anthrax bacil lus, and Littrd surelv knc\4 about this vvork orving

to his relat ions rv i th Raver. I t $,as not unt i l 1880, in an art ic le

ent i t led "Tlansrat ional isnre," that L i t t r i nrcnt ioned " the c i rcu-

lat ion ol in l ln i tcsimal l r smal l [creaturcs] that causc in lect ious

dir"ur".",un but bv then it uas no longcr possible to ignort' l-ouis

Pasteur's *ork, Nevertheless, Littre's rcmlrks on public hvuiene

in the third articlc are g'orthy ol attention. l:or Littr6, historv.rnd

sociologt serve as instrumcnts of anal \s is. I i t t r i sccms to harc

been particrrlarl l alert to sociomedical issues associatcd rl ith the

r ise ol int lustr ia l societ l . l lc str ikes of f a f i le phrase, rcminiscent

of Saint-Simon: "Civ i l ized man.. . has assunrcrJ rcsponsibi l i tv fbr .

administer ing the earth, and as c iv i l izat ion rdvances, that ardu-

ous administration deman<ls cver more inge'nuitl and industr\."6?

I lurrrn l i l i , t l rough, suf fcrs f rom the unant ic ipatcd vet inevi-

tablc efti 'cts of thc conll ict bctrveen rvork and nature. "l l .rving

bccome so complex, industrics cannot do rvithout thc oversight

of a higher agcncv that appr-eciates thc dangers, prescr'r 'es the envi-

ronmcnt. and does nor leave such importanr issues to thc scl f l

interest ()l l)rivnte irrdir iduals."r'3 Thus, I ittr i ' had some pcrtincnt

remarks t() offer on thc subject of ccologr, rcars before the word

rvas coinerl." ') And no one can deny the claritv or couragc rl ith

\\ 'hich he cxpressed his astcrnishment that no civil izcd nation had

vet seen f i t to establ ish . r ministrv of publ ic hcal th.70 ["Li t t16.".4(?s du Colltrquc Entlc Littt i , l l l0l-l8E/, pp. )16-i1)

f98] We can no longer avoid a br ieIsunc] of the re.rct ions of

Littr6's contemporarics to rhis biological philosophv. I itt le atten-

tion ncc<l be pai<i to the inevitablv biascd juclgments of ofl lcial

spiritu.rl i \ts such as Paul lant't .rnd Fdme Caro; horvever, gre.rter

2 t lJ l5e

i m p()rt.rDce must bc .rtt.rchtrl to varit rtts .rrt icles thJt .rPPeired i n

Clrrrles Renouvit 'r 's journal, Io Crit ique pbi.lostT,irigue ' the vcrr

t i t l t ofu 'h ich \1as arr t iPosi t iv ist . ln l8?8, the iournal prrbl ished

thrL'c articles bv Pil lc,n on biologv an<l positivism, two ol rT'hich sct

Cl.rr,rde Bcrnartl up trr Comtc's judge . In thc samc lear Renouvier

poserl, and answered in the ncgativc, rhis qucstiot't: "ls the Cours

lc phlotophic positirc \ri l l abrcalt of st icrrce J" Clltrde Ber.D,lr.d $as

proposcd as an i r lc , r logical ant idotc lo Ciomte. No I t r ie l account

c.ln (lo iusticc to tht rt ' lations betrveen l. ittr6's biological positiv-

isnr and Bcrnard's guiding philosophv. On the onc h.rnti, Bcrnartl

' r 'a, . r f i rundcr of ancl part ic ipant in the Soci6t6 de Biologie along

rvit h R.rler, Loui:-Atrgustc Scgoncl ancl Charlcs Rotrin' r. 'ho dr.rltetl

i ts ch.rr tcr in a l ianklv Posi t iv ist spir i t atr<l tonc. I i t t r6 's journal

Lo Philosophic po.rJtivc sho\r'e(l great interest in Bern.rtd's rlork,

publ ishing, in tht ' r 'ear ol h is death, a verr ' l ra lanccd art ic lc bv

Nlarhias l )ural ancl . rn art ic lc br ' [ . i t re on dt ' tcrminisnr. fhese

lacts rn.r l mu<ldr thc ! r 'nt( rs, b( t t ther t lo not just i lv anr ' [ r l l t r r inq

of rhc I ines, l i r r , rs r t tent ive reat lers,r l Bernarcl a l rcat l r knolr ' , hc

sc.r'celv concealed his hosti l i tv to Corr)te's dogmatisrl. That hos-

ti l i t l is cxprcsscd opcnlv at thc cncl ol Bern.rrcl 's most trit lelv read

\,,ork, thc lntroduction i I'iludc de lo ni<lccine ctpirimentcrlc: "Posi-

t i \ isnr, \ \ 'h ich in rhe nrnre ol-science rejects phi losophi ta l svs-

lc l l rs. err t i ls the\ ( lo br being suclr a srstcm." l )csl t i te these

reser\at ions, of \1.hi(h Li t t r i r rv.rs pcr icct lv $c] lauarc. he several

times praised Bornarcl's methods an(l the principlcs that inspirecl

them. l l is 1855 art ic lc on Nlagcndic cn<ls rv i th . rn acknorr ' lc tJg-

mcnt ol Bcrn.rrd's \ul)criority orcr his rcachcr. l lrc thirteenth cdi-

tiol rrf thc I)i( ienndirc tlc nit lr in,: corrtnirrs n nuntl)( r ()l ,trt icles,

obl i , ruslv ur i t ten l l I i t t rc, \ r 'h ich rel ; r impl ic i t l \ or (xpl ic i t l t '

to Bernarr l . Whi le thc art ic le on "()bservat ion" seems rathcr

to summarize thc r icrrs ol Conrt t . thosc on "Expel iencc" and

"Erpcr inrentat i<rn" .u-c cond.ns, ' r t i ( )ns of t l r t ' r ' ierr s ol l lernard.

"Experimentation" ends rvith the sanre conrparison that Bcrnard

borrorved from Gcorqcs Cuviel the observer )istens, tht'cxpcri-

mcntcr qucst ions, Thc art ic le on "Medicine" ment ions Bernard's

namc in thc r i isctrssion of exper imental medicine. In Bcrnard's

tcaching and conc('ption ol l i fc, Lirtr6 no doubt saw argumcnts

capablc ofsupport ing his orvn personal convict ion that biologi-

cal phenomena could not bc rcduced to physics and chemistry.

["Littr6," ,4ctes du Colloque Emile Littt i , ]801-1881, pp. 279-80]

CH,rt ' r rx Twtt ! 'F

Claude Bernard

A Philosoph ical Physiologist

[99] A philosophical phvsiologist: arr.rnsed in that order, thc t\ao

*.ords cry out fbr an immcdiatc correct ion. Phi losophical hertr

does not mean inclined torvard metaphvsics. Clatt<le Bernard nevcr

claimed - as a phvsiologist and in thc name ol phvsicr logY - to

q.r bclontl expericncc. He h.rd no Patience wirh thc it lea o{ rrleta-

phrsiologv, mcaning the clainr to kno* nor jttst tht lar,s, or invari-

ants, of thc organic lunct ions [ )ut the verv cssence ol that p last ic

lbrce *hich rvc rcf i ' r to as l i fe. But nei ther did hc cvcr intend to

l imit b io logical sciencc to the nrerc rcPort ing of expcr imental

resul ts. Rather, bv "phi losophical phrsiologist" I mean a phvsi-

ologist rvho, at a given stagc in the e"olution of a rvell-established

science, cxplicitJv rccognizes the fact that sciencc is above all .r

method ofstudy and research, and w.ho sets himsclf the exprcss

task, thc personal responsibi l i tv that can be assigned to no onc

clse, ofproviding that method r ' , i th r fbundat ion. In th is sense,

thc philosophical rvork ol the phvsiologist Claude Bernard pro-

vidcd thc fbundat ion l i r r h is sci< nt i f ic rvork. lust as ninetecnth-

centurv mathematic ians s<.t themrclv(s the t . rsk ofexplor ing the

loundations ol mathematics, r<-r too did a phvsicrlo{ist take it upon

himsel f to establ i rh thc l i rundar ions , r f h is discipl inc. ln both

cases, scicntists assumed rcsPonsibil i tv lbr u'h.rt h'rd prcviouslv -

in the tinre of Descartcs as rvell as of Plato antl ' ' \r isrotle - been

the task of phi losophv. Btr t the fbunclat ional u 'otk of tht ' mathe-

nrari( irns rvas vetl dif l i :rent from that of Bcrnarcl. \\brk on the

l i runr lat ions oi mathcmat ics has c,rnt inucd tver s incei i t has be-

comc an integral part ofmathenratics itseJf By contrast, the trail

blazcrl bv Clauclc Bernard has been ncgJcctr:d bv latcr phvsiolo-

gisrs - so ncglectcd, in fact, that rvhcn phvsiologists todav feel

rhc rr t ed to just i lv d ist inct ive asPects of thcir rvork, thel f ic-

qlrent l ) , and sometimcs anachronist ical l l , ro lv on the l 'ork of

Bcrnard himsclf . ["Claude t3ernard," Diologue, pp. 556-57]

[100] In the feu l ines that Claucle Bcrnard clevotcd to Francis

Bacon (laudaton bv conventjon and crit ical bv conviction' though

less so rhan Bcrnard's contemPorarY von Liebi{) ' he noted that

"there itcrc great exPerimentalists befolc thefe lvas a doctrine

<r l erpcr iment.r l ism." fhere can tre no dott t r t thr t he mcant th is

maxim to applv t . r h imsel f . An explanat ion t rn he lbund in his

nc'tebools: "Lrervonc follou s his ou n prth. Somc undergo lengthy

preparatir,,n anrl lbllou'thc path Jaid out for them. I took a tu'ist-

in{ r()ute t() science.rnd, abandoning thc l)eatcn Path, exemPted

nrvsell lrom all thc rulcs." What rulcs did this rran rvho had learned

the exper imental method in the shadou ol Frrngois Nlagendic

think hc had cxcmptcd himself from? 'l-he ans\lcr can be gleaned

fiom thc namcs of trvo phlsiologists u hom llc quotes on scveral

occ.tsions: I lemann von Helmholtz, torvarcl rrhom hc rvas alu'ays

respectfir l, and Emile Du Bois-Reymond, krr u hom his admira-

tion rlrs less unalloled. Thc rules Bernald had in nrind rverc those

of m.rthenr.rt ical phtsics:

I t h.rs bccn sr ic l th.r t l l i r t rn<l *hat I "asn' t lorrk ing l i r ' . rvhercrs

l lc lmholtr l iunr l onlv *h.rr bc ' . , rs

l , rokinu l i r r . Ih is is crrrrcct . but

t 'xr' lusionarr prcscript;ons ;rrc h,rlnrl ir l. \\ 'har is phrsiologr i ' Phvs-

icsJ Chcmistrvl Who knorrs? Ic is [x ttcr t(l t lo anatonlr. f iohannes]

tr ln l ler , IFr iedr ich] Ticdcmann an<l I l ) : ro ie l Fr ier l r ichl Eschr icht

r(rre disgustcd.rnd turnc(l to anitorn\.

tn orher u'c-,rds, rvhat Bcrnarcl rvanted tas a rvav,rf t l ,r ing researclr

in phvsiologv bascd on assutrrptions.rn<l principlcs stcmming from

phrsioJogv i tscl f , f iom the l i r ing orqanistr , rathcr than on Pr in

ciplcs, v iervs ancl mental habi ts iml)ort f ( l l rom scicnces as pres-

t ig ious, and as indispensable to the r lork ing phvsiologist , as evcn

phvsics and chemistrv.

l here is a chronological { ic t $ hosc importancc cannot be

over-stated: CIaudc Bcrnard al ludecl ro rhc dist inct ivc chara(tcr

of phvsiological expcr imcntat ion in publ ic f i r r thc f i rst t in lc orr

L)(cembcr 10, 185'+, in the th i rd l (ct t r r .c r) f . l course on exper i -

nrent.rl physiologv applied to ntedicinc, rvhich he cleliverecl at thc

Coll i{e de France in his la.f.rppearance therc as l\ lagcndic'r sub-

st i tutc. ln rh.r t l t 'c ture. he ret ierrecl tht ' t rpcr imerrts l r t< l the con-

( lusir)ns r( porte(l in the doctolal thcsis he harl delended the vear

l>elirre on a ner,vlv discovere<l iLnction ol thc l iver in humans.rnd

rnimals - thc abi l i tv to synthesire glucose. " l t is surpr is ing,"

Brrnard noted, "that an organic lunction ol such impor-tancc.rn(l

so rt:adilv obsen'ed uas not discovcrcrl socrner." The reason for this

f . r i lurc, hc shoued, las that ncar l -v al l prcviot ts phvsiologists har l

at tempted to studv dvn.rnr ic f t rnct ions lv i th mctho<ls borror led

fiom anatomv, phvsics ancl chemistrv: such mctlrotls, though, rverc

incapablc of l ie ld ing nerr knouleclgc a[ ,out phvsiological phc-

tromena. The onlv $av to cxplain an,rrganic htnction is to obsen'e

ir in.rct ion in the onlr p lac<'uhcr< i t nrcrninglul lv exists, to ui t ,

r l i th in the orgarr ism. From this, Bcrn.rr<l r l t ' r i r t r l . r pr- inciplr . o l

r l l r ic l r tht ' lntroduct ion, publ ishc<l t leven rcars Latcr, nr ight f . r i r lv

l re cal led thc elaborat ion:

26 ]

Neither anatomy nor chemistrv can ans\,\ 'cr a question of phvsiology.

What is crucial is experimentation on animals, rvhich makes it pos-

sible to obsene the mechanics ofa function in .r l iving creature, thus

lerding to the c l iscovery of phcnomcna rhat could not have been

Prcclictcd. xhich cannot be studicd in anr other \\nv.

Thc lcctures at the Colldge de Fr.rnce fir l lo*'ed Bernard's com-

plct ion o1 *,ork on his doctoratc, so th! assert ion that " there

rvere great experimentalists bcfbrc thcre rvas a doctrine ofexper-

imental ism" and thc insistence on having le l t " the beaten path"

\\ 'ere more than literarv flourishes; thev rvere generalizations of

the lessons Bernard had drawn from his orvn intellectual adven-

turc. Nothing else is worthv of the namc "nrcthod." As Gaston

Bachelard has rvrittcn in I6e,\ter Srientrfc.Splrrt, "Concepts and

methods al ikc dcpend on empir ical resul ts. A ne$'exper iment

mav Icad to a lundarnental change in scient i f ic th inking. In sci-

ence. aDy'discoursc on nctho( l 'can onh l te provis ional ; i t can

never hopc to <lcscr ibc the def in i t ive complexion of the scien-

tif ic spirit."rr Ncrtnithstanding Bachelrrd's dialectic,l l insistcnce,

i t is bv no means clear that Bcrnard hinls( '11( l id not succumb to

the bcl ief that hc rvas descr ib ing the "def in i t ive const i tut ion of

the scientif ic spirit" in phvsiologv. Yet he clearlv undcrstood, and

taught, thnt physiology vvould have to changc bccause it had seen

something De\\r, something so ncrv that it lbrc,. 'd Bernarcl to agree

rvith thc jurlgnrent that some had uttered in clit icism of his rvork:

that he had forrnd 'r 'hat

he $'as not looking l 'or. Indeed. one might

even go so fir as to sav that hc had lbund thc opposite ofrvhat he

rvas looking tbr. IFtucJci, pp. 1-+a-a6]

The lmplicqtions of a Porodoxicol Discovery

[101] 1h( importance, then and norv, o l the leqons su let phd-

nomines tlc la vic communs ou\ dnimau\ cl dur r'1gy'f.?u.,r stcms first

161 265

of a l l l iom the fact that , behind this plain t i t lc , Bern.rrd svstem'

ilt ically pursued the consc<luences of a discoverY that rvas a sur-

l)risc to him and a paradox to his contemPorarics. That discoverv

uas sct fbr th in the doctoral thesis hc dcf 'encled rrn, \1,r lch 17,

185l : "Recherchcs sur une nouvcl le lbnct ion dt t lo ie consid( ' rd

commc orgaD(' Productet t r dc mat i i re sucr i t chez I 'homnrc ct

chcz les animaur." ' fh is thcsis r lethroned the do-qma accorr l ing

to uhictr . rn imals, being incapable ofsrntht 's iz ing thc nutr i (nts

tht:v nced, must ingest vegctable matter in orclcr to obtain them.

Bcrn.rrd, in his uork on glvcogenesis, showed that that thc l iver can

slnthcsire glucose and, thcrcfbre, that animals need not obtain

thjs substance fiom plants. IPrcfice, 1.cqons, p. 9l

f102] For our purposes, i t is not important that Bernard ob-

taincd his resul t bv dint of f larvs in his chemical analvt ic tcch-

niqucs and rough apploximat ions in his mcasuremenrs, Tl-rc f ic t

that he dctected tro glrrcose in thc portal vein bt t t r l i r l r letect i t

in thc srrperhepat i< rein led hinr to conclude - an( l then to !er-

i lv - that rhc l ivcr not. ,n lv !c(r( tes bi le but also ptoduccrs the

glucose that is t 'ssent ia l to 5ustaining l iv ing t issue and cnabl ing

various pnrts of .rnimal organisms, in particul.rr th(' muscles, to

clo thcir rvork. \et Bernar<l 's l i i rh in his ver i l icat ion procedure,

thc fimous "clean liver" cxpcriment, rvas .rlso greatcr than the

accur.rcv of his methods \\ 'arrantcd. His genius, horvever, rvas to

I tave grasped at on(c thc s igni f icancc, impl icat ions and consc-

quenccs of h is disco' t ' r r .

First , he urrrJr : rstoor l that l re had taken the l i rst step touard

thc solut ion ol r 1>ro[r lenr rhat dated back to the t ' ighteenth

<enrurr: \\ 'h.rt \1'.rs th{ f irrlctiori ,rf the so-ca)lcd ductlcss gland-.

(or.blood lessel g l . rnds) such as thc thvroid? Bcrnlrd solvcd this

problcm thr,rugh.r ser ies ol exper imcnts intende( l to detrron-

strate the ne\\ 'concept of " internal secret ion" 11855), a phrase

that onlv a 1c\\ 'vcitrs trrl ir:r 'rvould havc lrccn taken as.r contradic-

t ion in terms, an impossibi l i ty as unthinkable as n square c i rc le.

Second, and morc important, Uernard understood that he had

lrit upon an argumcnt c.rpable of exploding a theorv flrmlv estab-

lishcd in the minds of contemporarv chemists. Whatever misgiv-

ingr orre mar har, , r l ' , . t t t i l lustr . r t ivc ( ompJr i \on: \ , . r comprr i ron

here is i r resist ib le, Whcn Gal i lco obscrvcd spots on the sun, he

dclivcrt 'cl a clecisive blorv to the old Aristotelian distinction be-

twccn the sublunarv rvorld, supposeril,- susceptible to generation

and corruption, and thc supralunarv rvorld, supposedlv cternal and

incorruptible. Hc taught mankind to scc analogous things in anal-

ogous uays. Similarlv, rvhcn Claude Bcrnanl discovcrerl thc gly-

cogenic l irnction of the l iver, he deliverecl a clecisive blorv to thc

old dist inct ion bet l een the plant ancl animal k ingr loms, accord-

ing to u 'h ich plarr ts can and animals cannot synthesize s imple

organic compounrJs, in part icular hydrocarbons. l lc taught thc

human t'vr.: to scc l ifc in a nc\\ rvav, rvithout rl istinction betrvccn

plant and animal.

In thc fbrtieth fesson of the Cours tle philosophie positivc, Auguste

Comte had \ \ ' r i t ten in 1818 that rvhi le the:r t ' ncrc hun<lrcds of

*avs to l ivc, there \ \ 'as probablv onlv one \1iv to c l ie a natural

dcath. In 1851, Cl:rudc Bernard proved tlrat there rvas no clivision

ol labor among l iv ing th ings: plants rvcrc not csscnt ia l as suppl i -

crs of thc glucose ni thout rvhich animals cannot l ive. lhe t rvo

kingdoms do not lbrm a hierarchl, and there is no teleological

subordination ol one to the other. l his discovcrv pavcd thc rvay

fbr a gcncral phvsiologv, a scicncc of the l if 'e lunctions, and this

cliscipline immecliately gained a place in thc academv alongside

comparative phvsiology. From Bernarcl's doctoral thcsis to the last

courses he gave as prolessor ol general phvsiologv at the i l lusa'um

(published in 187ti as Leqons sur les phinomincs de la vie communs

du\ onineux ct ou\ vil ldtdu\\, his *ork rvas all aimed at proving

the val id i tv ol a s ingle guiding pr. inciplc, rvhich rnight be cal led

philosophical, or, to usc a term Jess suspcct to thc scienti l lc mind,

n.rctaphvsio logical. That idea can bc summecl up in a scntcncc first

\ \ ' r i t tcn in 1878: "Thcrc is but one uav ol l i fe, one phls io logv,

fbr all l iving things." ["Claude Bcrnar<l," Diologuc, pp. 560-621

1103] In the eightccnth centurv, Immanuel K.rnt argued that

thc condi t ions undcr *hich phvsical scicncc \ \ 'as Possible $crc

the trrnscendental condi t ions ol knowlcdgc in gcneral . Later, in

Part Irlcr o{ thc Critiquc oJ Practical Rcoson, entitled "The Criticlue

ol- le lcological Judgment," he modif lcd th is v ieu, acknouledg-

ing that organisms rvere total i t ics lvhose analvt ic dccomposi t iot t

and causal explanation rvere subordinatt ' to an idea ol'f inalitv, thc

governing principlc of all bioJogical rcscarch. According to Kant,

thcre coul<l be no "Ncrvton o1 a blac]e ofgrass." ln other rvords,

the scientif ic status of biologv in thc cncvclopedia of knou ledgc

could never compare *ith that ofphvsics. Belbre Claudc Bcrnar<|,

b io logists uere fbrct 'd to choose betueen idcnt i fv ing biologv

ui th phls ics, in thc manner ol the matcr ia l is ts ancl mechanists,

or raclicallv distinguishing benvcen thc tuo, in the manncr ol the

frcnch naturalists and (lerman naturc philosoplrers. Thc Nervttln

of the l iv ing organism rvas Claucle Bcrnarr l , in the sense that i t

l las he rvho realized that l iving things providc the kt:v to deci-

phcring their o* n structurcs anrl f irnctions. Rcjccting both mech-

anism .rncl v i ta l ism, Bernard uas ablc to c levelop tcchniques ol '

b io logical cxpcr imcntat ion sui t t 'd to t l rc speci l ic nature of thc

objcct o l studv. I t is impossible not to be struck b! thc t or t rast ,

pr.obablv unrvitt ing, br.:tuccn the lblloll ing two p.rssagcs. In 1c(on.t

sur lcs phinomincs ph.rsique; dc la yie (l-csrons of Dcccmber 28 and

10, l8 l6) , I - ranc;ois, \ lagendie rvrote, " l set the lung rs a bel lous,

the t rache.r as an air tubc, and thc glot t is as a v ibrat ing recd. . . .

We h.rve an optical .rpparatus firr orrr eyes, .r musical instruncnt

fbr our voiccs, a l iv ing retort lbr our stomaclrs." Bcrnard, on thc

othcr hand, in his Colr icr t /c notc.r ! wrotct "The larvnx is.r lar lnx,

1\ i7

and rhc lcns of the eve is the lcns of thr cvc: in othcr rvtrrds, the

mcchanical and physical conditions ncc('ssary for thcir existence

arc satisfled onlv rvithin thc l iving organism." Thus, rvhile Bemard

took {rom Lavoisier and l-aplacc bv u'ay of l\lagendic *'hat he him-

sel f cal led thc idca ol "detcrminism," hc *as the sole inventor

ol the lriological concept ol the "internaI cnvironrrrent," the ton-

ccpt that f inal lv enabled physiologv to become a determinist ic

science on a par wi th phvsics but wi thout succumbing to fasci-

nation with the phvsical model. [Erudes, 148-49]

The Theorcticol Foundotions of the Method

[104] lhe unusual , rnd at the t ime paradoxical , natr . r rc of11hat

Bernarcl had "inadvertently" discovered vvas n,hat enabled hinr to

conceptualize his earlv results in such a way as to cletermine the

course ofall his fLture rcscarch. Without the concept ofthe inner

environnrent, it is impossible to undcrstaDd Bernard's stubbon

advocacv ot a tcchniquc that he did nor invent but to rvhich he

lcnr ncvr ' impetusr rhe technique ofv iv isect ion, rvhich he was

obliged to del'end against both emotional outragc and the pro-

tcsts of Romantic philosophv. "Ancient science rvas able to con-

ceivc only of thc cxternal environment, but in order to place

biological science on an experimental fboting one must also imag-

inc an interndl envircnmcnt.I believe that I rvas thc first ro express

this idca clearlv and ro stress its importancc in understanding the

need lbr experimentation on l iving things." Note that the concept

of the intcmal cnvironm('nt is given here as the theoretical under-

pinning ofthe technigue ofphvsiological experimentation. In 1857,

Bernard $ rote, "The blood is made lbr the organs. That much is

true. But it cannot be repeated too olten that it is also madc by

the organs." What alloued Bernard to propose this radical revi-

sion ol hematologv u'as the concept of internal secrctions, wlrich

he had fbrmulated trvo vears carlier. Aficr all, there is a consid-

cr.rble ctlerence bcnveen the blood's rclation to the lun(s .rnd

its relat rn to the l iver. In thc ltrngs, the organism intcracts \\ i th

thc inorlanic world through the blood, rl hereas in the l iver thc

organisn intcracts rvith itself. Thc point is important cnough that

it bcars epeating: rl i thout the idea of intcrnal secretions, rherc

coulrl bt no idea ol an internal environment. ,rnd s ithout thc idca

ot an in:rnal cnvironment, there could bc no autononrous sci-

ence of:hvsiologv. Iftudcs, pp. 1,17-,18]

[l05 The concept of the intcrnal envinrnment thus dependul

on the I ior fbrmulation of thc concept ol internal sccretions; it

a)so dep:ndcd on cel l theorv, whose cssent ia l contr ibut ion Ber-

n.rrd acc:pted cvcn as he greu' incre.rsingiv skeptical of the thc-

orv oI t l , : lbrmat ive bl . rstcme. Cel l theorv 's crucial contr ihut ion

was ils irsistcnce on the Jutonomv of the anatomical components

of comJ ex organisms and their funct ional subordinat ion to rhe

morphoogical rvholc, Bcrnarcl squarelv cnrbracccl cel l theon:

"This ct I thcorv is more than just a word," he \1rote in his lcqors

sur ltr piinomines alt I(1 | ie communs au.\ (1nimau.\ et aut riqitoux.

Bv so dtrng, he rr,as abl<r to portrav phvsiologv as an experimen-

tal sciene rv i th i ts o* n dist inct ive methods. In l ic t , cel l theorv

made it rossiblc to undcrstand the relation betrveen the part and

the uhr e, the composi te.rnd thc s imple, in a rvay that di l le led

sharplr :-om tlre nr.rt lrenratical or nrechanical model: the cell rc-

vealed a.vpc ofmorphological structure quite dif l irent l iorn that

of carlie "artifacts" and "machines." It became possible to irnag-

ine rvay, o l analvzing, dissect ing and al ter ing l iv ing th ings using

mechnn - 'a l , phvsical or chcmical techniques to intervenc in the

econom ol an organj t u holc * . i thout inter l i l ing * ' i th i ts esscn-

ti.r l orgaric nature. The fifth of thc I4ons de ph.rsiologic opiratoire

containr a numbcr ol crucial passagcs on this ne$ conc( 'pt ion

of the ri lation betrlccn the parts and the ruhole. First, Uernard

explainr that "al l organs and t issues are nothing but a combina-

z 1,9

t ion of anatomical elements, and the l ife of thc organ is thc sum

ofthe vital phcnomena inhcrent in each tvpc of element." Sccond,

hc points out that thc converse of this proposition is f i lsc: "ln

attempting to analvzc l ifc bv studying the partial l ives of thc var-

ious kinds ofanatomical elements, wc must avoid an error that is

all too casy to make, rvhich is to assume that the nature, form

and neecls of thc total l i f 'e of thc individual are the samc as those

of the anatomical clements." In othcr uords, Bernard's gcncral

phvsiologv grerv out of a comtrination of the concept of the inter-

nal cnvironment rv i th the thcorv of the cel l , rvhich cnabled him

to dcvelop a clistinctivc cxpcrimental method, onc that vvas not

Cartesian in stvlc yct conceded nothing to vitalism or Romanti-

cism. In this rcspect, Bernard rvas radicallv dil lerent f iom both

Gcorgcs Cuvicr, the author of the lctter to Nlertrud that sen'eri as

pref)ce to Cuvier's I elons d'anatornie conrpar&, and Auguste Comte,

the author of thc fbrtieth lesson of thc Cours de philosophie positive

and a fi i thful disciplc ofBlainvil le's introduction to thc Cours de

ph.veiololTie ginircle et comparie. For all three of thcse authors -

Cuvicr, Comtc and Blainvil le - comparativc anatomv $'as a sub-

st i tute for exper imentat ion, rvhich thev held to be impossible

llecause the arralvtic scarch fbr the simple phenomenon ino itablv,

or so thcy bcl icved, distorts the essencc of thc organism, rvhich

l i rnct ions hol ist ical lv. Nattrrc, bv cxhibi t ing ( in Cuvier 's rvords)

"near lv al l possible combinat ions of organs in al l the c lasses of

animals," a l lorved the scient ist to drar, "vcry plausible conclu-

sions concerning the naturc and use ofeach organ." Bv contrast,

Bcrnard sarv comparative anatom! as a prerequisite for develop-

ing a gencral phlsiologv on the basis of cxPeriments in comPara-

tivc phvsiologv. Comparativc anatomy taught physiologists that

nature laid the groundrvork lbr phvsiologv bv proclucing a vari-

ctv ol structures lbr analvsis. Paradoxicallv, it was the incrcasing

incl iv iduat ion of organisms in the animal ser ies that macle the

analvtical studv of f irnctions possiblc. In the Principes de mitlecine

c\peimcntdle, Bcrnar<J nrote, "For analvzing l i lc phcnomcna, is

it bettcr to studv higher or lo\\ er animals? The cluestion has bcen

e\anrincd fiequentlv. Somc sav that the lor, er animals are simplcr.

I do not think so, and, in anv case, one animal is as complcte as thc

ncxt. I th ink, rather, that thc highcr animrls arc s inrpler because

rhcy are morc l ir l lv differentiated." Similarlv, in Notcs diroclies

he obscrved that "an animal higher up the scale exhibi ts morc

highlv dif l i :rcntiatecl vital phenomena, rvhich in somc wavs arr

sinrplcr in naturc, \4 hereas an animal loller dou'n thc organic sc.rlt:

cxhibits plrcnomenn that are more confiscd, Icss fLllv cxprcssed,

an<l more di l l lcul t to dist inguish." ln other rvords, the more

complcx t l re organism, thc mor( 'd ist inct the phvsiological phe-

norncnon. In phvsiologv, r l is t inct means di l lerent iated, and thc

firnctionallv distinct must be studicd in thc morphologicall l com-

plex. In thc clementarv organism, evcn'thing is cor-rfirseri because

e'ervthing is confbunded. l l the Iaws of Cartcsian mcchanics are

best studicd in s implc mlchincs, the lavvs ol Bernardian phvsiol-

ogv are best stucl ied in complcx organisms. IFrur lcr , pp. l4c)-51]

Life, Deoth and Creotion

ll06] All of l lernarcl 's lork bears traces ol thc stru.qglr that \r 'cr1t

on in his mind benr,een his profbund but not unconditional admi-

rat ion f i ) r Xavicr Bichat and his s inccrc grat i tude lbr the lessons

hc hacl lcarned fronr Frangois Nlagenclie. l l t Bcrnard lbttnd a rvav

to reconci le the t rvo mcn's conf l ic t ing phi losophies of b io logv

u ithout compromising cither. I lc did this trl pcrsistentlv cxploit-

ing his ou n firndamcntal experinrents and the ncrv concepts he

hat l been obl iged to l i r rnrulatc in ordcr to intcrprct h is resul ts.- l 'ht :

upshot r las a " fundamt'nral conccpt ion of J i le" incorporat-

ing tuo lapidarv proposi t ions: " l i f i is crcat ion" ( I t t65)and " l i f i '

is <leath" ( 1875 ) .

)70 271

Lile is dcath. I ly this Bernard meant th.rt a rvorkin{ organism

is an organism engagcd in the process of dcstroving itself, and that

i ts funct ions involve phvsical and chemical phenomcni that can

be understood in terms of the laws of(nonl iv ing) matter.

Was this a mechanist positionT Absolutcly not. Norv that chcm-

istrv rvas.r positive sticnce, the various fornrs ofenergr had been

uni f ied bv a lan'ol consenat ion, and thc erplanat ion ofelectr ical

phenomena had nccessitated the formulation of the new concept

ofa " f ie ld" - i t uas no longer possible to be a str ict nrechanist .

l\ lore than th.rt, Bernard fbund in his concept of the internal envi-

ronment vet another rcason not to be a mechanist. lr lechanisrn

implied a geometrjc representation of things: the mcchanist phv-

sicians of the eighteenth ccnturv had rcpresented the organism

as a machine composed of interkrcking parts. But Bcrnard did not

think of organisms as machines, although hc continued to use the

phrase m.rciine rivonte (n'ithout in any rvar being bound bv the

nretaphor) . fhe intcrnal environnrent rvelds the parts together

in a wholc immediatc lv accessible to each onc. The organism is

not rooted, as $.c represent it, in metric space. lndecd, the exis-

tence ol thc internal environment nssurcs the "highcr" organism -

so-cal lccl bccause i t possesses rn internal environment - of an

"obvious indepcndence," "a protect ive mcchanism,".rn "elast ic-

itv."72 Thus, the relation of the organism to the environment is

nDt one of passive depenrJcnce.

What is morc, it u'as becausr Bernard rvas not a mcchanist -

and knerv that he was not seen as one - that hc alrvavs insisted

that scieDce in general , and his phvsiologv in part icular, w.erc

detcrntinistic, and firrther, that he rvas thc [irst (as indeed he was)

to introduce thc tcrm "determinism" into the language ofscien-

tists and philosophers. Thc macroscopic organism's relative inde-

pcndence of thc enr ironmr'nt was cnsured by the determinatc

<lependence of its microscopic elcments on the intctn:rl environ-

172 )7)

nrcnt. Bcrnard thus rtjected any attcmPt to Portrav his doctrine

as.r k ind of v i ta l ism or as somehorv implving that I i fe ' is exempt

lr ' , ,m tht la ' r r o l 'physir . anr l chent istrv.

Lilc is crcation. I{ Bernard 1lns not a nrcch.rnist, rvas he not a

materialist insofar as hc attempted to base thc lar"'s of l iving things

crn those of inert mattcr? Thc ansu'er is no, l. lecaust' he insisted

that " l i le is crcat ion." What dir l he mcan bv th is?

The phrase "l ife is death" acknorvledgetl the porver of phvsi-

cal .rncl chemical laws over what is org.rrrc in l iving organisms.

The phrase "l if 'e is creation" ackno" ledgcd thc distincti 'eness o1

thc organism's organi/qtion. Vital crcation, organizing st'nthesis -

these terms referred to that asPect of l i f 'e that Bernar<l also callecl

"cvolution," though not in the Darrvinian sensc, sincc it reti 'rrccl

onlv to crn(ogcnet ic <le.elopnrent. I t was the onc l )henonrenon

of l i fe u'ith no nonorganic analoguc: "lt is uniquc, peculiar to l iv-

ing th ings. ' Ih is cvolut ionary svnthesis is nhat is t ru l \ v i ta l in

l i ' ing th ings,"Tr Bernarr l appl icd thc ternr "organic cre.r t ion" tL)

l roth chcrnical svnthesis, or thc const i tut iotr o l protoplasm, and

morphological svnthesis, or the rcconstitution of substanccs de-

stroved bv the f i rnct ioning of tht organism. C:rcat ion or. \o lut ion

r,ras the l iving cxplession o1'tlrc organism's nt c<l to strttcture nlat-

ter. ["Clau<lc Bernard," Dtdlofu,r, pp. 566-68]

[107] ln Bernard's most carefullv 'r itten tcxts - thc Introdttc-

tion. the Rdppott ancl L,r Scienrc etpirimcntolc - he distingLrishcd

bet*cen / . r r ,s, u hich are general and appl icable to al l rh ings, anr l

lorms or proccsses, rvhich are spccil ic to organisms. -l.his spccil icitv

is somctimcs termerl "nrorphological," sometinrcs "evolutionarv."

In fact , in Bernarcl 's lcx i<on, erolut ion refcrs t . r the rcgul . r r devel-

opment ol an inclividu.rl l iorn inception to nraturity. Tlrc mature

lorm is the sccret imperativc ol the evolutiorr. In thc /ntroduction

ht states rhat "ep( c i l ic , erolut ion,rn, phls io logical conr l i t ions are

rhc qukl prop um ol [riological sci(nc(i," and rhc Aapporr confirnrs

th is r ie l : " l t is obvious that ) i r ing th ings, br.narure evolur ion-

.rrv and regenerative, diffel raciicailv f iom inorq.rnic subst.rnces,

rn( l the v i ta l is ts. l re correct to sav so."71 Ihc di f lcrcncc betrveen

biologv and thc othcr sciences is that b ioJogv takcs account of

the guiding principle of vital evolution, of thc "idca that expresscs

thc naturc of the l iving being and the vcry clscnce oll i fe.",-t

The notion ofan organic guiding principle mav vlell havc been

the guiding pr inciplc ol Claude Bernard's phi losophy of b io logy.

Th,rt nrar be uhv it renraincd sonrervhat vague, masked bv the

1'cry teflns it used to e\pfcs5 thc idca of organiz.rtion - vital idea,

vi ta l < lcsign, phenomen.r l orc ler , d i rcctcd order, arrangemcnt,

orclering, r ' i tal prcordering, plan, blueprint, ancl fbrntation, among

others. Is it too audacious to suggest that with thcsc concepts,

cquivalent in Bernard's mind. hc intuit ivelv sensed rvhat rvc might

norradavs cal l thc ant i random charactcr of l i fc - ant i ranclom in

the sensc not ol indctcrmin.r te but of ncgat ivc entropr i A notc

in thc f iopporr sccms lo supl)ort th is intcrpretat ion:

Il spccial marerial conditions i lrf nccr'ssarv to crclte spccil ic phc-

n()mcn.t ot nutrit ion or er()lr it iou, that docs not mean that thc Iarv

ol ordcr and sLlccessi()n th.rt givcs mcaning t(), ()r crcatr!, rel.rt ions

lmong phcnomen,r contes lrom mattcr itscll. lb arguc thc contrarv

u ouic l bc to la l l into tht crudc crror ol the rnater ia l isrs.

In anv case, therc cnn bc lo doubt that Bcrrr.rrd, in thc lnlrorluc-

tl<rn, identif icd phvsical nature l ith disor<lcr, .rnd rhar he rcgarded

rhc properties of l i fc as irrprobable relative to thore of martcr:

"l Iere as alrvavs, evcrythjng comcs from the idea that creates and

guides al l th ings. Al l natural phenomena express themselvcs by

phrsicochemical means, but those means of cxJlression arc dis-

rritruted haphazardlv l ikc charactcrs ofthc alphabct in a bor, lrom

rrhich a l i r rcc extracts thern in order to express rhe most divcrse

thought or tnechanisms."t6 Recal l , too, that heredi tv, uhich u,rs

sti l l ln obscure conccpt an(l ber'ond ntan's reach in 187(r, neltr-

theless scentecl to Bernarrl an essenti.rl clcmcnt of thc lar, 's ol nrttr-

phology, of ontogenetic cvolution.tt Am I stretching u'ortls, then,

ordistort ing Bernard's mcaning, i l l suggest that , in his onn rT'ar

and in del iance of the rc igning supr.emacv of phvsical concepts

in biologr, he uas fbrmtr lat ing a con(.(pt s imi lar to rvhat todar 's

biologists, educatcd l rv cybernet ics, c, ] l l the genet ic cot lc i 'Tht '

\\ 'ord "co(le," after all, has multiplc mcanings, ancl rvhcn Bernarcl

\rrore that the vital f i)rcc has legislati|e l)(,rers, his mrtaplror nr.r\

l rave bcen a harbingcr of th ings to come. [3ut hc gl impsr:<l onlv a

part ofthe tirture, for he docs not seem to have guessed that evcn

inf i r rmat ion (or, to usc his tcrm, legis lat ion) rer lu i res a ccrtain

quant i tv ol energv. Al though he cal led his ( loctr ine "phvsic;r l

v i ta l ism," ls i t is lcgi t imate to ask rvhether, g ivcn his not ion ol

phvsical Iorce anr i h is f i i lure t r i grant the "v i ta l idca" the status

ol a lbrce, he real l r uent berond thc nrctJt)hvsic.r l v i ta l ism that

he con<lcntned in Bichat. I f ru l i r . pp. 158-6{] l

The ldeo ol f tpcr imentol Medicinc

[108] Just is certain phi losophcrs bel ie 'c in an etcrnal phj loro-

phv, many phvsicians cven today Lrclic'r ' in an etcrnal ancl primor-

cl i . r l medic ine. that of l l ippocrates,- fo \ome, thcn, i t mry seem

rlclibrratclr pr)\ '()cative that I datc the I 'eginning ol modcrn mcrl

ic ine f rom the Irronrcnt rrhcn cxper imrnt l l nredic inc r lcclarer l

\ \ 'ar (JD thc Hi l lpocrat ic t rar l i t ion. lb do s<-r is not to ( l i r ip.rr . rge

l l ippocrarcs. In f ic t , Claude Bern.rrd m.rc le f ree ust 'o l Conrrc 's

larv of t lrree stages ol' lruman clcvcloprncnt. He acknon ledgcd rhat

" thc stage ol exper imental mecl ic ine dcpent led on a pr ior evolu-

t ion." ' - ' ) Yet, whi le histort shows l l ippocr.r tc! t . ) have bccn the

founder ol olrscnation.rl mt:tl icint., cor-rct rn tirr the firturc is lblc-

ing merl ic i r re not t ( ) rcnounc( l l i l tpot r . r tcs but to <l ivest i tsc l l o l

fl

171 )l \

his meth,61j . The t l ippocr ' r t ic method r las to relv on nature;

,,rb...r '", ion, lnedicine ua: Passive, contemplative and descrip-

tive. Ex[)cri l-.,ntal medicin, is aggressive science' "With the aid

,rf th. .ri ,i r" . 'rrr^"ntol uir 's' man bccomes an inventor of phe -

nomena, -a

1 man in the fa.lory of creation and there is no l imit

to the p\ow( h.rt hc may t' l tain ovcr naturc "8L BY contrast' an

observat j . rn rc ience "prei icts ' rvatchcs' a\oids, [ rut act ivelY

ahorg.r rr.r,- rg."8l ln Ptrt).trlar' "observational medicine exam-

ines, obs."r.r,. 'nd explains i l iresscs but does not touch ri iscase "

When I l ; l ip. . rates] aband. xed Pure exP( 'ctat ion to administer

remr.die.- i . r . " l * tou. ' to ( ourag( nJturt ' \ . ' \ tn tcndencics. t t r

t ro. ,"n . t i i . " , . . rhrouglr i ts r . : r lar Phase'" '^ ' [ r ' rnard appl ied the

, l . , . ig.r"1.1on f ipPocrat ic" r ' ' any.modcrn doctor uho fai led to

-ok. .u, , . in, . , , Pat ient h is: 'P pr ior i ty, and rvho $as concerned

above all 1 al ',r inc and .1.rr '. ' diseascs - rvho chose diagnosis ancl

nroqn(, \ j i - d l r<Jl lnenl . ' ( \ ' \ \erc ( l te n"rsolol i ' ts : Thomas

S1d..nho,r , . , , ' ' . rnqois Boi 's i de Sauvager r lc la Cr ' r i r ' Phi l ippe

Pi,r t . l . . , * . r - .nr . . " - fhtrophi l , l tacint l r r laFnnlc ' anr l a l l rhe oth-

ers u h() hellhat (l iseases .xrc essences that manifested them-

selves mraortri lcn tlran not imPure fbrnr' In;ddition, Bernard

brancle.l , asoft naturalistsr thc phvsicians, including Rudolph

Vircho*...7, uiu since the 5;r' ofGiovanni Battista Morgagni and

Bichat, . pai,nked fcrr e116 lical relations bctn'een changes in

anatomir ioal ,c.r tcturcs and.: lectable synlPtoms in thc hope of

mokin. f,[,gic.rl anator rhe basis of a .nerr

scicnce of dis-

\^J\ lo L , f ! ' t l " t t

n i ) \ ' ,1r . s and r l ' r . r r r , r r r r i th parh, , logical

rn.r(onr\ . / f 'a, l , ,1 , l is ' a ' :her" ' r re onI r ' rg ' rn ism' in normal

, / ldrard, u l r r ) r l i , ' t hcl ieve in the er i ' rencc ofdis-

di- . . za

Fq, - 7f ""ar<1'

l i . . ;4qt i r i r r , rhe utr-r te goal of cxper inrcnt. r l medic ine

l 'ndi t iorrs ' 11 J iseasc is just I d istLrrbancc in the

ilcst themselves in pathological Phenomena."85 "Whatcvcr cxists

pathological ly must present and explain i tscl f phvsiological ly."86

fhus, it follou's that "the experimental phvsician shall bring his

in[]ucnce to bear on a clisease once he knorvs its cx.rct dctelrnin-

I rm, that is , i ts proxintate cause."87 I t uas indecd t ime to sal

fireu,ell to expect.rnr nrt 'dicine. Pierre lean (ieorge C.rbrnis had

c;rrl ier distinguishctl lretrveen the Ancicnts' art oI obsen'ation.rnd

the lVloderns'art of exPerimentation. Bernard sarv the historl ' of

scicnt i f ic merl ic ine in s imi lar terms: "Ant iqui t r does not seem

to have conceivecl of the idea o[exper imcntal scicncc or, at anv

r.ate, to have believecl in its possibil i tv."stl But insteacl of l inking

mcdicine and obscrvation to the Ancients, as Cabanis did, Bernard

urgc<l medicine to set out on the Path of experimetrration tou'ard

a l i r ture of dominat ion and porver. "To dominatc l iv ing nature

scient i f icalh, to conquer i t for the bencf i t <, f man: that is the

f i rndamental idea of thc cxpcr imental ph\s ic ian."8 ' r The idca of '

crpcr imcotal mecl ic ine, the dominat iou of l iv ing nature, s 'as

the opposi tc of thc l l ippocrat ic ic lea as expressed in thc t i t le o1'

Toussaint ( lu indanr 's 1768 treat ise, " l -a Nature oppr imee par la

m6decine moderne."eo [Etudes, p. l3l]

[109] Bernard took from Frangois Magendie not onlv thc namc

of the ne* discipl ine he rvas about to creatc but also a certain

iclea of u'hat its content should be: namel-v, that the subject mat-

ter and method of phvsiologv should bc the s.me as thosc of

pathologv. ln one ol his legont sur les phinomincs phrsiques dc lo

vic ( l )ecember 28, l8 l6) , Nlagendie statecl that "pathologl is . r lso

Phvsiologr ' , For nre, patho)ogical phenonrcna are nothing but

modified phvsiological phenomena." As a thr. 't 'retical proposition,

this rvas not a nerv idear in the earlv part of thc nineteenth cen-

tury, even a modestIy cultivatecl phvsician rvoulcl have associated

the idea that pathologv is a subset ol physiology rvith the sti l l pres-

t ig ious name ofAlbrecht von Llal lcr . In thc prcfact ' to his 1755

case.

t inct

or abnor, /

organisnr l

cxpcri r.ttr1,

)\ i., logicJl l irr.:: )ns. Experimental medicinc is the[l,yri.r lt l l ,,f-. m.,.bid. "Phvsiological Ia'r 's man-

,t.

fl

)76 277

f:rcnch transfation of von Haller's De pdrtibut corporis humani

sentientib$ ct itr itabil;bus (1152), l\ '1. Tissot rvlote, "lf pathologv's

dcpenclence on phvsiologv \\ 'ere better knortn. there l l 'ould be

no need to lre]abor the influence that the rre\l discovery ought

to ha\e or) the art of hcal ing. But unlbrrunately ue lack a u 'ork

entit led ./hc ,lpplicotion ol ' [hcory

to Procticc, so I have ventured

to c\pfes\ a feu thorrghts conccrning rlrc prnctical bcncfits ofirri-

tabi l i tv ." ' l h is i tat(mcnt is l i r l lorvcd bv.r scr ies of obscnat ions on

the adnr in istrat ion of opium, tonics, purgat ives and so forth. To

be sure, this \\ 'as a mere "system," rvhereas l\ lagendic claimcd to

bc able to rcad, and to te.rch others to reacl, the nntural identity

of phvsiologv and pathologv in thc facts thcmselves, indepen-

clent ol anr interpretat ion. Yet i t took a mtr l i r .a l svstem, indeed

the last ol 'the medical svstems according tr) B('r|-|ard,el to reveal

thc i r lca ol crptr imental medicinc, thar is, the iden that the meth-

orls of thc lal 'rrr,rtrrry and thc methods ol thc clinic are one and

tb( \a l r l r ' . Bui l t on thc ruins of rhe grel t Dosologies, th is idea

tt t r r t , d rr t , , l i , inr ' l ronr . r .pecul . r r ive sr i r rnr inr , r a prrrgrqrsive

science. ' l he svstem Bcrnar( l had in mind. rhat which paved the

uav for a medicine \\ ' i thout svstems, v'as Franqois-Joseph Victor

Broussais's. [ftudcs, p. 135]

[110] ln recogniz ing that Broussais had demol ished the idca

of pathologv as a science ol 'c l isease dist inct l iom thc scicnce of

phvsiological phenomena, Bernarcl d id nor r( ' l incluish hjs o\ \ 'n

claims to ol ig inr l i tv , *hich lav in his hal ing been the f i rst to pro-

post basing a scient j f ic mcdic ine on an exper inrentrJ physiology,

lJur rvhat r l id he nrr le ol 'Magendiel ' In 185-1, r 'hen he I l l led in

Idr.Nl . rgendie at thc Col l r )ge cJc [ i r ; rnct ' , h is f i rst *ords rrere that

" the scient i l ic mecl ic ine I am supposed ro teach does not cxist ."

In 1865. hc noted t l rat "exper imental or scicnt i f ic mcdic ine is

nou' conr ing together on the basis of phvsiologv, . . th is c levelop-

mcnt is no\1 certain."') l In the Princrpcs, he sutnmecl up the tlvent)

vcar i that had passcd since his f i rst course. ' ) l He rvas surc that

progress had been ma<le: "l anr the lbuncler of cxperinrcntal med-

ic inc." Nlagcndic had blazed a t ra i l , according to Bernatd, but he

had neithcr set a clestination nor tlcvelopecl a mcthod. Nor coulcl

hc hrve, bccausc he l . rc led the mcans to bui ld a br idge bctuccn

the laboratort anr l the c l in ic, t ( ) provc thJt r l lect ivc t rcntnrent\

could be d<r lucet l l tonr the rcsul ts ol 1- lbrr io logr. Whlt sustainr ' r l

Bcrnard in his path-breaking < ntcrpr ise \ \ 'as the ar larcnt-ss of just

such a possibi l i t r ' , of just ruch.r rcal i t \ : "1 th ink th.r t rherc arc

no\l cnough facrs to pr<rur cleJrlr that phvsiologv is rhc baris ol '

mccl ic inc, in the sense that.r ccrtain number ol patholot ical phc-

nomena can nou be tracecl b.rck to phvsiological phenonrena,.rnd

it can be shovvn, mr)reovert that the salrlc lar,s govt:rn both."'r1

Stated morc clearlr, Bcrnard's cl,rim to have founrlcd a tl isciplinc,

o.cn though hc cretl irs othcrs u ith h.rr ing thc idca l irst anrl ,r l,tain-

ing thc ear l iest r rsul t \ . rcr ts ()n the phvsiop.r tholoql of <l ia l r t ' t t 's ,

that i \ , u l t imatel ! , orr thc di \ ( ( ) \ ( r l o l the glrcogcnic l i rnr t io l r

ol thc l ivcr- f...1 For [Jernard, thc ex pcrir.rrc n t.rl crpl.rn.rtion ol thc

mechanism ol d i . rbctes <lcm,rnstratecl the val id i r r o i thc pr inciplcs

sct fbr th in thc /nrrrr i luct ion o1 1865: the pr inciple (r f rhc ic lent i tv

o1 thc lans ol hcal th and disease; thc pr inciple of thc <leterrr in-

ism o1 biological phenomcn.r ; and thc pr inciple ol the speci l ic i tv

ol b io logical funct iorrs, th. t t is , thc dist inct ion bet*een the inter-

nal . rn( l cxtemal en\ i ronnrcnts. Io f6und exper imcnt,r l nrecl ic ine

\ras to demonstrate the consisto)cv anr i comprt ib i l i t t o l these

pr inciples. Jhat r lonc. Bern.rrd rvent on to rc5cLre the rreu t l is<: i -

p l inc f rom i t \ ( l ( t ract()rs, the olr l - fashioned \ \ ' \ temat ists incr i t r i -

<.rbl! rrerlt led t ' irhcr t,t onroi<rg) r,r to vit.r l isnr, bt slrrlrving thern

that thcse s.rnre pr in<. ip l< s crrulr l crplain the rer\ , phenonrena on

rvhich thcv bascd thcir object ions. 1\ lagcnt l ie 's ! r \ l ( \ \as ver\

dil lcrcnt f iom Bcrnarrl 'r: l \ ' lagcndie h.rd asscrtcd rrurhs, rcllrte(l

crrors, pronouncet l judgments - l i r r h im, ] i fe uas r nr<,chanical

h l

)78 27't

phcnomenon and vitalism an aberration. The discoverv of inter-

nal secretions, the fbrmulation ofthe conccpt ofthe internal envi-

ronment, the demonstration ofcertain regulatorv mechanisms and

stabil ized parameters in the composition of that environment -

thcse things enabled Bernard to be a detcrminist rvithout being

a mechanist, and to understand vitalism as an error rather than a

fbllv. In othcr rr.ords, he found a u,ay to change perspectives in

the cliscussion of phvsiological theory. When Bernard proclaimecl,

wi th a sel f -conf idence that could easi ly be mistaken fbr smug-

ness, that thcre r+,ould be no more revolut ions in medicine, i t

rvas because he lacked the mcans to descr ibe phi losophical ly

what he r+'as conscious ofhaving achieved. He did not know rvhat

to call his idea of expcrimental mcdicine; he did not knorv how

to sav that he had brorrght about a Copernican revolution. Once

it could be shou'n that the internal environment aflbrdcd the

organism a ccrtain autonomv rvith respect to changing conditions

in the external environment, it also became possible not only to

refirte the misconceptions ofvitalism but to explain horv they had

come about in thc first place. And once it could be shown that

the proccsses responsible fbr thc svmptoms ofa disease such as

diabetes cxist in thc normal as well as the pathological state, it

bccame legitimate to claim that the proper approach to under-

standing disease was to understand health. At that moment, the

culture's attittrdc tolvard diseasc changed. When peoplc belicved

that diseases \i,ere essenccs with a nature all their orvn, their only

thought r+,as, as Bernard said, "to be warv of them," that is, to

strike a compromise rvith thcm, But rvhcn experimental medi-

c ine c la imcd the abi l i tv to determine the condi t ions of heal th

and def ined disease as a dcviat ion f iom those condi t ions, at t i -

tudcs torvard disease changed: mankind no.rv rcjccted i l lness and

sought to stamp i t out . Thus, cxper imental nrcdic ine was but

one form of the demiurgic drcam that al f l ic ted al l the indus-

28o 28r

tr ia l ized societ ies of the mid-ninetcr:nth ccntury, when science,

rhrough its applications, became a social fbrce. That is rvhv Ber-

nrrd rvas immediately recognized by his contcmporaries as one

of those *,ho symbolized thc agc: "i le \r 'as not lmerelv] a great

phvsiologist, he was Physiologv," Jean-Baptistc Dumas told Vic-

ror L)uruv on the day of Bernard's ftrneral, thcrcby transfbrming

thc man into an inst i tut ion.

It may even be that Bernard, in all modestv, identif ied him-

si:lf u ith phvsiologv. When he staked his claim as the firunder of

cxper imental medicine, hc s imply c lemonstrated his alvareness

that it was his own research rvhich had cnabled him to refute the

vari()rls objcctions raised against the nerv disciplinc.

Bcrnard kneu'that he had invented neither the term nor the

project of experimental medicine but, by reinvcnting the content,

he had made the idea his or+,n: "Modern scirntif lc medicine is

thcrefbre based on kno* lcdge of the l i le of the elements in an

internal environment. Thus, it relies on a dif lerent conception of

tht : human body. These ideas are mine, and this v iervpoint is

essent ia l lv that ofexper imental medicine."et l lowcver, no doubt

remcmbcring that he had written in the Intrcduction that "art is

1, sciencc is rve," he addcd: "Thesc neu'icleas and this nelv point

of v icrv did not spr ing lu l l -b lown from m,v imaginat ion. l 'hey

camc to me, as I hope to shorv, purelv because of thc cvolution

ofsciencc. My ideas are therefore f i r morc sol id than i f thev had

bcen mv orvn personal v iews and nothing more." [ . . . ]

At several points in thc forcgoing account, I have u rittcn that

"Claude Bernard did not know how to say" this or that. Some-

onc might object that I am substituting for.r,r 'hat hc actuallv said

rvhat I th ink he should have saic l . Iam perf 'ect lv ui l l ing to con-

cede that I do not share the admirat ion of somc commentators

lor Bernard as a \\,riter; pcrhaps my crit ics u.i l l concedc that, in

attempting to situate Bernard's lntroduction historically and con,

ceptunl ize i t epistemological lv, I havc givcrr h im prcciselv the

credit he dcscn'cs, sincc cvcrvthing I say is lrorrorvc<] l iom him.

As Victor (-ousin, a philosopher I do not customarilv quotc, onct:

put i t , " l -anrc i t never urong. Thc onlv pnrbJcnr is f inding out

uhat const i tutes a c la im upon i t . " [ [ rudcs, pp. ] lE-.+l ]

The Limits of Bernardian Theorv

I l l l ] Thcre can be no doubt that the accunrulat ion ofknorvlcdge

in such basic discipl incs as pathologi(al . rn.r tom\, h isrologv and

histopathol<rgv, phvsiologv and organic chemistry nccessi tatcd

painl i r l revis ion of manv of the at t i tudes tot lar( l d iseasc that thc

cightccnth cr:nturl bcquc.rthcd to the niDeteenth. Olall the dis-

c ip l incs, i t rvas phvsiologv that most dircct lv chal lenged the nat-

uralistic palarl igm, rvhich rightly or rvronglv clainted rhe authority

of a l l ipPoclatic tradition revampecl to sUit contemporary tastes.

Whi l r insist ing on thc fundamental idenr i t r o l - the normal and

rhe parhological , ;>hvsiologv promised ro r iet luce modt 's of . t rcat-

Dren( fronr knorr ledge of their pracrical t ' f lc< ts. Being an cxperi-

mental scicncr: , l ike phvsics and chent ist , rvhose resul ts and

techniques it usecl, physiologv rvas nor onll not antagonistic to

thc idca of a scient i l ical ly based medicinc but actual ly cal led

fbr the rat ional izat ion ofmcdical pract ice. The term "rat ional-

ism" las in lact rv idelv usecl to charactcr izc thc medicine of the

future; one of the flrst to usc the term in this $av was Charles

Schiltzcnberger in Strasbourg, u'ho in 184.1 .rdlocatcd the appli-

cat ion to ntedic iDe of*hat he cal led "erper i r lent . r l r . r t ional ism,"

u hich as l . r te cs lE79 hc st i l l prcf i ' r red to Bern.rrd 's "erpcr imen-

tal ntc<l ic inc." ' r ( ' In 18.16, thc Gcrmarr j rkob Henle publ ished a

I lan<lhuch dcr ratrcncllen PotholoSlie. Ar thc time, Claude Bernard

rTas sr i l l . r r r rung doctor, and i t rvas not unt i l thc lU60s that he

took up thc ternr "r.rt ionalism," fbr cxarnPle in his Pincipet de

midecinc crpirimentoic (1irst published in 1947) ancl in his notcs

252 2Rl

K

firr a proposcrJ work on problems raised bv the practice of mcdi-

cine (preserved at the Collt lge dc France). "Scientif ic cmpiricism

i5 the opposite of rationrlism and radicall_v dif ' ferent l l .om sciencc,

Sciencc is baset l on thc r . ' r t ional ism ofthe facts. . , . N4crJical sci-

rnce is thc science in uhich u 'c rat ional ly ancl exper imental lv

cxplain <l iseases in orcler to prcdict or a l ter their progrcss."qt

r\norhcr lbrmularion is cr'( 'n cl( ' irer: "J\' ledicine is the art ol heal-

ing, but i t nrusr becorne thc scicncc ofheal ing. The art o l he.r l ing

is empir ic ism, Tlrc science ol heal ing is rat ional isnr."J8 ln a rvork

( levoted to cpist tntolcrgv, the author ui l l pcrhaps l rc l l lor led to

cxprcss a prefercnce lirr thr: ternr "rationalitv" ovcr "rationalism,"

rvhich is out of place bcvond the historv of philosophv. In .rnv

case, Emile l-ittr i and Charlcs Robin's Dictionndirc tlc rnidecine

contains an art ic l ( ' ( )n "rat ional ism" that is rcal lv a r lc l in i t ion o1'

"rat ional ," rvhcrt i t is statecl that a r . r t ion.r l t rcatm(nt ol an i l l -

ness is one l>.rsed on pl inciples of physiology and rnarontr ' . . rnr l

not on mere cmpir i< isnr. l h is del ' in i t ion ol a rar ional thcrapr is

rcpeated lertratint in the lUTtl [) icLionndirc Jt ltt l ttnqut Jranqoiscundcr "rat ional i l ' . " [ . . . ]

There is no erenrpl . r rv f igurc, no c lassicr l per iod, in rhc his-

torv of rat ional i tv. Thc ninctct 'nth centurv taught the t \ \cnt ieth

that everv problenr requires an appropriatc mcthod li lr i ts solu-

t ion. In mcdic inc as in othcr f ic lds, rat ional i tv r .eveals i tscl f af icr

thc lact ; i t is not g i l t ' l r in advancc but rel lected in thc mirror ol

succesr. Bcrnard somet iDtes lbund i t d i f l jcul t to acccpt thnt not

everv rat ional method l rJd t , r rcsemble his, rvhich ht : consir lercd

paradigmat ic. His cf i t i ( i \nrs of l tudolph Virchorr anr l cel lu l . r r

Patholo{\ ' r ter t h.rrsh. Al th,rugh l r . a1>plrrr t r l ofLouir P.rsrer.rr 's

rclitation of rhe rhettrl oI spontaneous gener.rrion, hc nr.r '( r imlg

intd hovv fiuit l ir l gernr rhcorv .rvoulcl provc in rrr.rring <liscase.

i \n obscssion rv i th tht <lognr l that a l l d iscascs are no-vrrrrs in or i

g in proved to bt 'an obstacle to rat ional unrJcrst ; tnt l ing ol in l t 'c

rtion.rnd contagion. Whi le i t is correct , as Bernard c la imed, that

thc ncrves exert an influcncc on infectious clisease, it would have

becn bcttr:r if he had ncvcr '* 'r itten that "a nervous paralvsis can

produce .r septic discasc."ee I lere the physiopathological tvpe of

rationalitv leads to an explanation of symptoms, but it was Pasteur

and Heinrich Flermann Robert Koch rvho developed a different

tvpc of rat ional i tv capable of ansrver ing quest ions of et io logy.

Extreme phvsiologism had i ts l imi tsr for proof one nccd only

consider t he rear-guard action u,aged bv Elie de Cyon against the

triumphalt P.rsteurians in his study of Eticnnc-Jules Marev, the

author ol a fittle-known rvork entitled Essai de thiorie phsiologique

du choldru (18651.t00 Marey rvas perf'ectly rvell an'are that "the

search lbr an absolutelr ef'fective medication or certain prophy-

laxis" l lould reguire the idcnt i f icat ion of rvhat hc st i l l ca] led a

microscopic pnrasitc.r{)r Thc advcrb "absolutell" and thc arJjec-

t ive "ccrtain" rcf lcct the Bernardian concept ion of rat ional i tyr

the vcner.rt ion of <lcterminisnr lcd to outrigbt rcjcction anrl scom

[br .rttempts to introduce concepts of probabil itr ' .rnd sraristics

into nredicine. But at least Marel nas fullv arvare that knou.ledge

of the role of rhe vasomotor nervous svstem in circulation and

c.rlcrrit ication uas not enough to suggest an anticholera therap)'

more "ut ional" than the many medicat ions already tested em-

piricallv on the intestinal and pulmonary lorms ofthe disease,

The publication of Marey's article may be taken as a recogni-

t ion ol the l imi ts of Bernardian rat ional i ty. Meanrvhi le, the man

* ho boastcd of its univcrsal validity could rvrite, "l do not believe

that medicine can change the lar'r 's of human mortality or even

of the mortalitv of a nation,"l0.l ancl elservhere, "Mcdicine must

act on inr l iv iduals. l t is not dest ined to act on col lcct iv i t ies or

pcoplrs." r0r [Etudes, p. 393-96]

PRRr Flvr

Problems

284

CuaPrrtr l ) l t l r lN

Knowledge .1 nd the Liv ing

\cirntr ' . rn, l l i l t

The Vitolist I mperqtive

I l l2] Vi ta l ism as dcf incr l by thc eightccnth'centurv N{ontpel l ier

phvsician Paul-Joseph Barthez ex1>)icith clrimtrl to lrc r continu.r-

t ion o1 t l re Hippocr.r t ic t radi t ion. This l l ippocr,r t ic ancc5try u,as

;>rob.rblv morc important than thc rloctl irc's other ibrebear, r\ris

totel jnnism, lbr uhi le v i ta] ism borrorrcr l nruch ol i ts tcrnt inol-

ogt f rom Aristot le, i ts spi t i t \ r ' rs.r l \ r ' .1\ ' \ l l ippocrat i<. Barthcz put

it this rvav in his r\rour'caur 1[lnurts dc Ia :cicnce dc I 'homne (1778):

Bv nran's "r ' i ta l pr inciple" l nrcan thc causc,r l a l l the phenl)m{na

ol l i le in the hunran bodr'. Tht n.rnrc 11ivr.n co rhat cause is ol rel.r-

t iveN l i t t le importancc and nrav bc choscn at wi l l . I prc l i : r " r i t : l

principlc" becausc this suggcsts I less citcumscribed notion than the

rcrm iLnpctum ldcicns (ro svopuov) that I l i l)pocr:rtes uscd or th.rn anv

ol thc other tcrms that havc been usr,l i() (lenl)tc th(' cause o1 thr

l i l i ' l incr ions.

\ r i ta l ism rvas in one rcspcct.r b io logr lor phvsic ians skept ical

of thc heal ing pouers of mtr l icar ion. ; \ccordjng to the l l ippo-

crat ic theorv of ndturc me(l tLotnr, the dclensivc renct ion of theorganism is more iml)orrnnt rharr d iagnosing thc c;rusc t t f thc dis-

ease. B\ the same tokcn, prognosis, though dependent on diaq-

nosis. is rht r lominant art . l t is as importaDt to ar) t i ( ipate the

course ol a discarc as to ( l ( tcrminc i ts causc. Because nature is

thc first phvsician, therapv is as much a nt,ittcr ofPrudence as of

boldness. Vi ta l ism and natural ism werc thus inextr icably associ-

atcd. Me(lical vit.r l ism rcllcctcd an alnrost instinctive rvariness of

the hc.rl ing .rrr 's po\\ 'ers o\ei l i l ;. There is 4n analogv to be drau n

herei thc contrast betr teen nature and art is rcminisccnt ofAr is-

tot lc 's c()ntrast bctrvecn natural movement and violent move-

ment. Vitalism lvas .rn expression of the confldencc among the

living in lry', of thc nrin<l's c.rpacitr ', as l iving consciousness <-rf l i [e,

to ident i l \ ' rv i th the l iv ing as l ike rv i th l ike.

These remarks suggest the fb l loning obscrvat ion: r ' i t l l ism

ref lcctcd an endur ing l i [e- imperat ive in thc consciousness of l iv-

ing human beings. - fh is was one reason tbr the vagueness and

nebulousness that mcchanist b io logists and rat ional ist phi loso-

phers sa'r 'as <lcfects of i t . r l isr doctr ine. l I r ' i ta l ism u'as above.r l l

an impt ' rat ivt , i t r ras onl l natural thr t i t should have sorre di f -

f icuftv expressing itself in determinate formulations. fConnais-

ronce, p. 86]

IJ l3 l Indccd, Emanuel Radl rccognized that v i ta l ism \r ' rs an

impcrarile r.rther than a nrcthctd and more ol an ethical slstem,

pcrhaps. than a theorv. l Man, he argued, can look at nature in

t\\ 'o uays. l le fecls that he is a child of n.tture and has a sense of

belonging to something larger than himscl f ; hc sces himsel f in

nature and nature in himself. But he also stands belore nature as

bcfbre.rn undef inable al icn objcct , A scient ist u 'ho feclr f i l ia l ,

s\mpathetic sentin]cnts to\\ 'nrd nature rvil l not regarrl natural phe-

nomen.i as strange and alien; rathcr, hc n i l l l ind in them li l-e, soul

and mcal ing, Such a man is basical ly a v i ta l is t . Plato, Ar istot le,

Calen, all medieval and nlost Rcnaissancc scholars rvere in this

scnsc vit.rl ists. Thev rcgarrled the univ<rsc as an organism, that

is, J harntonious s,-stenr obetlient to cert.rin larvs and dcclicatecl

l , ) | r r lJ in.rds. Tht" , r .nccircr l , ' l tht ln* l rc ' a ' ln orglni , ' r r l part 1

ui l l ) i \ uni \ef \ ( . a r , ' r t , ' l , , l l in l l t l unirer.r i org.rrr i 'm. r l l o l I

lh,rst 'cel ls u,crc uni l icd bv . rn intcrnal symPathv. I t thtrcf i r rc

scenre(l Datural to thcm that the fate of the Partial organ should

bt: t,ound up vvith rhe Irtovements ol the heavens.

Such an inrerprct.trion mat rT cll bc l<-'drlrt lbl the ;rsvchoanal-

rs is ol knoulcdgc. l -hat i t mav havt 'somc rncr i t is strggcstcd bv

its convcrgence u'ith Walthcr Ricsc's contmcnts on C()nstantin

von N1rrnakovr"s biological theories: "ln von Monakort' 's ncuro-

biolo{r ' . rnan is a chi l< l of naturc lh<t nevcr lcavcs i t r nrother 's

hrt,rsr."l fhere can [.c Iro doubr that, fcrr thc vitalists. the lunda-

nrental b io logical phenomenon \{as generat ion, u hich conjured

up ( rrtain imagcs anrl poscd ccrtain problems that, to onc rJcgrcc

or anothcr, inf lucnced thc rcPrcscntat ion of other phcnomcna.

A \ i ra l is t , I rvoulc l v. 'nture to suggest. is a person \vho is more

likcll ro pondcr thc problcnts ol l i fc trv conrcnrplatinq.rn cqg rhan

br trrrning a udncJr or opcrating tlrt bcllrurof a fdrgc.

Vi ta l is ts uere conl ic lent of thc spontanei t l of l i f i : and reluc-

tant - in somc cascs horr i f icd - to th ink of i t . rs spr inging f iom a

nature conccivcd ofas.r ser ies of mech.rnical processes,rnd, thus,

parar lor ical l l rcduced to . r conger ies ol devices s imi la l to those

rr h ich hunran bcings had createcl in thcir ( luest to r lerconre the

obstacles that naturt- had placecl in theil uav. Tvpical ol thcsc atti-

tudcs uas a man l ike Jean Bapt iste van I lc lmont. f . . .1

\ ian l lc lmont t lcnied l )cscartcs 's (ontent ion that the lbrces

ol narurc arc uni f ied. Fverv being, he.rr-qucd, h.rs b,rrh i rs or, ,n

indiv idual lbrce ancl the f i r rcc ol i ts speci ts. Naturc is an t 'ndlcss

hicrarchv of f i r rces . rnd f i r rms. This hierarchv compriscs sccds,

lcavens, pr inciples.rnd i t icas. The l i r ing boclv is organized as a

hierrrchv of orcliCr.' l hc tcrm rir<hc, I irsr principlc, borrorr.cd fiom

f'aracclsus, describ,..<l an organizing, corrrmancling powef, some,

288 2l l9

thing rather nrore akin to the general ol an army than to a work-

man. lt marks a return to the Aristotelian conccption ofthe lrody

as subordinate to the soul in the same sensc as the soldier is sub-

ordinate to his captain or rhe slave to his master.l Viralism attacked

the technological version of mechanism at least as much as, and

perhaps even more than, it did the theoretical version. IConnais-sance, pp. 88-89]

Il l4l It may scem absurd to argue that vitalism rvas in fact alerti le doctrine, particularlv given the fact that ir al\1a.is portrayed

i tsel fas a return to ancirnt bel iefs - a tendency qui te evidcnr in

the naive penchant of nrany vitalists to borrorv Greek terms for

the rather obscure entit ies thev felt nbliged to invoke. The vital-

isrr of the Rcnaissance wns in one sense a retum to Plato intended

to counter the ovcrly logicized medieval version of Aristotle. But

thc vitalism of van Helrnont, Georg firnst Stahl and paul-.loseph

Barthez has been called a return beyond Descartes to the Aristotle

t>f De anima, For Hans I)riesch, the case is patenr. But ho*, is this

return to rhe Ancients to bc interpreted? Was it a revival of older

and consequently t imeworn concepts, or rvas it a case of nostal-

gia for ontoJogically prior intuit ions, for a more direct relation

bct{'een inrention and objr'ct? Archaeologv stems is nruch from

a nostalgia fbr original sources as fiom a love ofancient things.

We are more apt to grasp the biological and human significance

ofa sharpened fl int or adzc than ofan electric t imer or a camera.In the realm oftheory, one must be sure ofa theorv's background

and development to interprct rcversion as rctreat or reiection as

reaction or betraval. Wasn't Aristotle's vitalism already a reaction

against thc ntechanism of l)emocritus, and rvasn'r plato's final-

ism in thc PrSoddo a reactioD against the nt('chanism ofAnaxagorasi,

In anv case, there can be no doubt that vitalists rvt'rc after a cer-

tain pre tec h nological, prelogical naivetd ofvision, a vision ofl i l ;

as it uas befbrc man created tools and language to extend his

29.J 291

rcach. Thar is rvhat Th6ophile de Bordt'u, the firsr grt 'at theorist

of thc Nlontpcl l ier School , mcant u hen he cal led van Helnront

"onc of those enthusiasts that every centurv needs in order to

irsround thc scholastics."i lConnaissance, pp. 91-921

The Tech nological Model

[115 ] The rrord "mechanism" comes f iom the Crcck unxqvn, or

device, rvhich combines the trvo senses ofruse (or stratagem) and

nrachint'. Ptrhaps the trvo meanings are actuallv one, Is not man's

in lcnt ion and use of machines, his technological act iv i ty in gen-

eral, rvhat l{egel calls the "rq5q of reason" in Section 209 ofhis

I-ogic? -fhis ruse consi!ts in accomplishing one's or",n cnds bv

mcans of intermediatc objccts act ing upon one another in con-

tormitv ui th their o$n natures, The essence ol . r machine is to

bc a mediation or, as mechanics say, a Iink. A mechanism creates

nothing, and therein l ies its inertia (trc..r), vct it is a ruse u hosc

construct ion necessar i l r involves arr . As a scient i f ic Dtethod and

phi losophv, mechanism is therefore an impl ic i t postulate in.rnv

use ofmachines. The success of th is human ruse dcpcnds on thc

Iack of any similar ruse in Nature. Natlrre can be conquercd bv art

only i f she hersel f is nor art : only a man namcd U)r ' rses (No-Man)

is capable oI devising .r scheme to get the uoodcn horse insidc

the gatcs ol Trov, and he succeeds only because his cnemies are

forces of nature rathcr than clcver engineers. l he ruses br rvhich

animals avoid t raps are ol ien adduced as objecr ions to the Car-

tesian theoty ofthe animal-machine. In the lbrervorcl to the N.'$,

Essa,vs, Leibniz oflers thc ease lvith \a,hich animals are trappcd as

evidence lor Descartes's contention tbat thev are capablc only ol '

responding to immediate sensat ions ( \1hat we would todal cal l"condi t ionecl rcf lexes") . Convcrselr ' , I )escartes's hypothet ic.r ldescription in the Mcditations of a deceptive Goci or evil gcnitrreff 'ectivelv translbrms man into an aninral surroundecl by traps. If

(iod rrscs hunran ruses,rgainst humankind, man descends liom the

sr.r tus of l iv ing creature ro th.r t of mere inert obiect . Is the the-

() f \ 'of thc l iv ing machinc iust such a human ruse, rvhich. i f taken

liter.rlh, rvould prove that there is no such thing as l i l i ? But rvhy

then, i f animals are mcrc machincs, i fnaturc is merclv one vast

machine, does thc domination of animals and nature cost human

beings so much et'fort? [Connairsoncc, p. 87]

l l l t ' ] Nlcchanist phi losophers,rnd biologists took machines as

a -11iven,

or. i I the,v studied rhc plol ' lcnr of machine- l>Lr i ld ing at

al l , s,r lve<l i t bv invoking hunran calculat ion. Thev rel iecl uPon

the engineer or, u l t imatelr ' , as i t seemcd to them, the scicnt ist .

Mislcd bv thc ambiguit,v of the tcrm "mechanical," thcv looked

upon machincs as nothing more than Jeifi-ed theorems, theorems

made concrete bv thc relativelv trivial opcration of construction,

nhich. thel bclioecl, involvcd nothing more than the application

ofkno*ledqe in f i . r l l consciousness of i ts l imi ts and l i - r l l certaintv

of i ts el lects. ln ml v ierv, houerer, thc biological prob)err of thc

or-q.rnism-machinc cannot bc tr(ate(l separatelv l l-om tlrc techno-

logical problem rvhosc solut ion i t assumes, namcly, the problem

ofthe rc lat ion betwcen technology and science. The usual solu-

t ion is to say that knowledgt is pr ior to i ts appl icat ions both

logicallv and chro nologically, but I shall try to show that the con-

struct ioD of machines involv i t rq authent ical lv biological not ions

cannot bt 'unclerstood rui thout rer is ing th is v ic$ of the rc lat ion

betrr .een scienct and technc, iogr. 1. . . ]

T,r a scrupulous observer, l iv ing creaturcs other than vertc-

br.r tes rarclv exhibi t structures l ikc ly to suggcst the idca of a

mechanism ( in the technical sense). To be surc, lu l ien Pacott t :

notes that thc arrangemcnt of the parts of the c,r'c and the movc-

mrnt of thc eveball correspond to rvhat mathcmaticians u ould call

a mechanism.5 Perhaps a l 'e* del in i t ions arc in orcler. A nrrchine

is a r lan'nrade objcct that dcpcnds. lbr i ts essert ia l f i rnct ion(s).

on one or mote mcchanisms. A mechanisnr is r conf igurat ion ol

nol ing sol ids rT hose conf lgt t rat ion is nraintaincr l throt tqhout i ts

ntovemenr; or, to put it anothcr rvar',.r mcchanism is an assenr-

blv of parts rvhosc relation to one anothcr changcs over timc btrt

is per iodical l r restorcd to an in i t ia l conf igtrrat ion. Thc assemblv

consists in a svstem ol l inkagcs uith fixed dcgrees of f ict 'dom:

fbr example, a penduJum or a cam-dr ivon "alvc

has onc dcgree ol

ficedom; a \r 'ornl gear shaft has l lr>. Thc nraterial cmboclimcnt

of thcse dcgrees of l reedom consists in gui<les, that is , str t rct t t rcs

l imir ing the nlovement of sol i t ls in.ontnct . The movcntent of nnY

rrachine is thus a f lnct ion of i ts structurc, and thc mcchanisnr

is a funct ion of i ts conf igurat ion. fhe t i rndamental pr inciples ol

a gencral thcory of mcchanisms (as detinecl herc) can be fbuntl

in anv stantlarcl vvork, lbr example Franz Rculeaux's Kinemutics,

(u 'h ich rvas t r . rnslated from German int t ' Frenclr in 1877). [ . . . ]

Tht point o l th is br iefrevie$ of thc lunr lamentals ol k incm,rt

ics is that i t a l lorvs nrt to point up the parar l rx ical s igni l icance

ol ' the fo l l , rn ' ing pr ' , r t r lem: Whr ( l i ( l sc ie nf is ts use machines an<l

mcchanisms as modcls lbr undcrstanding ()rganic stnrctr l res nnd

functions? On< problem lvith anv mcchanical model is its source

of cnergr'. A machine, as dcfined abovc, is not sclf lcontaincd: it

must take enclgt f iom somclhcre and translbrm it. We alvlavs

think of moving machines .rs connectcd rr i th somc sourcc ol '

cnergv.?

[ :or a Ionp t inre, thc cncrgr rhat \et k iDenrat ic machines in

mot i ( )n c. lnre f rcrm thc muscular el lbr t of hLrmans or aninrals. ln

that stage, ir r|ar,:rbviouslv tautological t<,r cxplain the movcntent

of a l iv ing th ing bv comparing i t to thc movenrent ol 'a ntachin"

clependent on muscular efbrt fbr i ts sourcc ofencrgv. Histor i -

cal lv, therelbrc, as has l requent l l bctn shou'n, therc could bc

no mcchanical esplanat ion of l i fe Iunr: t i<>ns unt i l mcn had con'

structed nutoDrntnl thc vcrv uort l suggests l roth thc miracul , , t rs

192 j.J l

quality of the object and its appearance of being a self-contained

mechanism rvhose cnergv does not comei immediately at any

rate, f i<-rm the muscular el 'fort oI a human or animal. IConnois-

.sonce, pp. 102-10,11

[117] Ar istot le, I th ink, took a custoDaly wav o[ looking at

animal organisms, a sort ofcultural a p oti, and raised it to the

)evel ofa conccpt ofl ife in general, The vocabulan ofanimal anat-

omv is fLll of terms for organ5, parts and regions of organisms

based on technological metaphors or analogies.8 The dcvelopment

of the anatornical vocabulary in Greek, Hebrew, l-atin and Ara-

bic shorvs that the perception oforganic lorms rvas shaped in part

bv technological norms.e This cxplains whv phvslologv was tra-

ditionallv rcgarded as subordinate to anatomy. For follorvers of

Galcn, phvsiologv u'as the science of the use of thc parts, dc usu

portium- Frcm Will iam I larvev to Albrecht voD llaller and beyond,

moreover, the science of organic functions !r 'as called anotomia

onimora. Claude Bernard was ; Iorceful crit ic of this way of look-

ing at things. though ofien rvith more rhetorical energy than prac-

tical consequences. As long as technologv served as the source of

models fbr explaining organic functions, the parts of the organ-

ism were l ikened to tools or machine parts. l0 The parts wcre

rat ional ly conceived as means to the organism's end, and the

organism itself was conceived of as a static structure, the sum of

i ts parts.

The standard histories m;v rvell overemphasize the contrast

between Aristotelianism and Cartesianism, at least as far as their

theories ol l i l i are concerned. To be sure, thrrc is an irreducible

differencc betrveen explaining animal movcntent as a consequcnce

ofdesire and giving a mechanist explanation of desire itself. The

pr inciple of inert ia and the conservat ion of momentum led to

an i r reversiblc revolut ion in natural science: $, i th the theory

ofstored energv and delcrrc<l (rt i l i i .ation, l)cscartes rvas ab)t- to

294 29\

rrfute the Aristotclian conception of the relation benveen nature

and art. AII that notwithstand ing, it remains true that the use of

nrechanical modeis tcr represent l iv ing organisnrs impl ied that

thosc organisms were conccived as necessarv and invariant struc-

turcs of their component parts. The implicit idca of order was

th.rt ofthe u'orkshop. In part f ivc ofthe Dtucourrc ctn thc f,|ethod

l)cscartcs discusses a work that he nevcr publ ished, Le l londc

1"1-hc World," though it was.rctually about nran): "Ishorved tht'te

u'hat kind of u'orkshop the ncn'es ancl muscles of the human bodl'

must constitute in order that the animal spirits have the strength

ro move the l imbs." Later, in discussing thc behavior of animals,

h<' sars, " l t is nature that acts u i th in them, according to the dis-

p<rsit ion of their organs." Workshop, disposition: t lresc rvere tech-

nological concepts before thcy became anatomical ones, Fron't

Andreas Vesalius, [)escartes borrowec] a conccpt that was actually

in iairlv rvide use iD thc sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that

of thc t 'abrica corpo s humani.ln a ]etter to Marin i\ lersenne, a

rc[erence to Vcsal ius lb l lowed this statemenr of pr inciplc: " fhe

numbcr and the orclerlv arrangement of the nerves, veins, bones

and other parts of an animal do not show that natrrre is insufficcnt

to fo6 11"-, providcd vou suppose that in evervthing nature acts

e\act l r in accordance ui th the laus ofmechanics, and that these

l.rvvs have been intposcd on it Lry Ccrd."lL This inrocation of Cod

the mcchanic, apparentlv intended onlv to rule out anv vital tclc-

ologv, f i-rl lv merits Ravmond Ruver's acerbic rcmark thar thc more

pcoplc thought of organisms as automata, thc more thev thought

ofGod as an l ta l ian engineer. 1. . . ]In short, both Aristotle and Descartcs based thc clistincrion

betu'cen the organism and i ts parts on tcchnological lv condi-tioned perceptions of macroscopic animal structrtres. Thc tech-nological model reducecl phvsio)ogv to a matrer of deduct ionfiotn aDatoml: an organ's funcrion coulrl be deducerl l lorn thc vr.ar

l-

it \\ 'as put togcthcr. Although the parts \!ere seen, in dynamic

terms, as suborri inate to the rvhole,.just as the parts ofa machine

uere subordinate to the uhole machine, that functional subor-

clination led to a vie\\ ' of the static structure of the machine as

mcrclv the sum of i ts parts. IEtudes, pp. 323-25]

The Social Model

[118] Thc fbrcgoing concept ion las not scr iously chal lenged

until thc first half of the nineteenth century, u,hen two things

happcncd. I i irst, trvo basic ri iscip)ines, embrvologv and phvsiol-

ogv, uhich had been struggl ing to def ine their o\ in dist inct ive

methods and concepts, achieved the status ofcxperimental sci-

cnces. Sccond, thcrc w'as a changc in thc scalc ofthe str-uctures

studicd bv morphologists; or, to put it anothcr rvav, ccll theory

l as introducecl into general anatomv.

Lealing aside the regeneration and reproduction ofAbraham

temblev's fimous plant-animals and Charles Bonnet's observa-

tion of parthelogenesis in plant l ice, no biological phenomenon

\l-as morc diff icult fbr eighteenth-century theorists to interpret in

tenns ol technological modcls than that of morphological dcvclop-

ment, or the growth f iom seed to adul t fbrnr. l l is tor ians of b io l -

ogy ficqucndy associatc the epigenetic vierv of rlevelopment u'ith

mechanist biologv; in so doing, thcl ncglcct the close and all but

obligatorv association of mechanism rvith prcfonrationism. Since

machines do not assemble themselves, ancl s ince there arc no

machines fbr creat ing ( in the absolute sense)other machines, the

l iv ing machinc must in onc rvav or anothcr bc associated u ' i th

rvhat cighteenth-century thinkcrs l iked to call a machiniste, an

invcntor or bui ldcr of machincs. I f no such bui lder uas perccp-

tible in the present, then there must have been one at thc incep-

t ion: thc thcorv of a sced rv i th in a seed and so on, ad inf in i tum,

\\ 'as thus a logical response to the problem that gave rise to the I

thcorv of prefbnr.rt ion. Dcvclopment then bec.rme a simplt 'mat-

tcr of increasing sizc, ancl b io logv becamc a k incl ofgeometrv, as

I lenr i Gouhier once rcmarkcd about the concept of containment

in Nicolas dc l\4alcbranche.

Whcn Caspar Friedrich Wolfl shorvecl (in 1759 and 1768) that

thc c lcvclopment of an organism involvecl the emergtncc ol a

series ol nonprefbrmcd stnrctures, honever, it became ncccssarl

to restore responsibi l i tv fbr the organism's organizat ion to the

organisnr itself. That organism uas not random or idios-vncratic,

antl .rnoma]ics were unclerstood as l i i lurt 's to dcvclop or to Pro-

gress bevond a normallv intermecliate stagc. I lcnce therc must be

some firrmative tcndcncy', rvhat Wolfl 'called a nr.rus formolivus and

Johan Frie<lrich Blumenbach callcd a 8i/. luntlt l. i .b. ln otlrer rvords,

it \\11s necessarv to assumc an immanent plan of organogt'ncsis.' I -hese lacts unr ler l ie Kant 's theorv of organic l inal i tv and

totalitv as set lorth in tht'. Crit ique of Judgmcrr. A machine, Kant

savs, is a $ hole rvhosc parts exist fbr onc anothcr but not bv one

.rnother. No part is madc fiom anv other; in l ict, nothing is m.rde

ol things of the same tvpe as itsclf. No machinc possesses its o\\ 'n

formative energv.

A litt le more Lhan a hundr.cd vcar,j ago, Claucle Bern.rrcl devcl-

opcd an iclentical theorv in his Introduction i I ' l tudc dc la mdtlccinc

expirime nnle ; "Wh.rt characterizes the l iving mlchine is not the

nature of i ts physicochemical propcrt ies, complex though thcl

mav bc, but rhe creation ol that maclrine, u hich dcvclops belore

our evcs under condi t iotrs pecul iar to i tscl fand in accordance

rvith a definite iclea, * hich cxprcsscs rhc naturc of t lre l iving thing

and the essence of l i ft i tsclf."rr Like Kant, Benrarcl gavt'the name

"iclca" tcr the morphological (i ptioi, a\ it \\ 'ere, that dctcrmines

the formation ancl shapc of cach p.rrt in relation to all thc rcst

through a sort ol rt 'ciprocal causation. An<l again l ikc Kant, Bernard

taught that natural organizar ion cannor bc thought o{ as being in

296 197

any \r 'ay akin to human agency, Stranger sti l l , after ruling out, on

explicit grounds, any possibil i tv of a technological model of or-

ganic unity, Kant hastened to suggest organic unity as a possible

model for social organization.l l Bernard used the converse of the

same analogy when hc compared the unity of the multicellular

organism to that of a human society. ffrudes, pp. 325-27]

fl19l Claude Bemard accepted cell theory, as he had to in order

to make experimentation in phvsiology possible. He elaboroted the

conccpt of the internal environment, and that, too, r,vas a neces-

sary condition for experimental physiology. The physiology of

regulat ion (or homcostasis, as i t has been cal led s ince Walter

Bradford Cannon), together u-ith cytologic-morphology enabled

Bernard to treat the organism as a rvhole ancl to develop an ana-

lytic science oforganic functions u,ithout brushing aside the f)ct

that a l iving thing is, in the truc sensc of the rvord, a synthesis.

Bernard's most important remarks on the subjcct that concerns

us here can be found in his Ieqons sur les phdnomines de la vie

communs oux animaut et aut vigdtaux, based on lectures he gave

at the Mus6um in the final vears of his l i fc. Thc structure of the

organism reflects the exigcncics ofl ife on a more basic level, that

of the cel l . The cel l i tsel f is an organism, ei ther a dist inct indi-

vidual or a constituent of a larger "societv" of cclls forming an

animal or plant. The term "sociery," which Rudolph Ludwig Karl

Virchou and Ernst l lcinrich I laeckel also seized upon at around

the same time as Bernard, suggested a model for the organic func-

t ions very di f ferent l rom the technological model - namely,

an cconomic and polit ical one. Complex organisms \r 'ere now

thought of as totalit ies comprising virtuallv autonomous subor-

dinate elements. "Like society, the organism is constructed in

such a wav that thc conditions of clcmentary or individual l i fe

arc respected."l l Division oflabor l las the lar" for organisms as

rvell as fbr societies. Conceived in terms of a technological model,

an organism rvas a set of strictly rclated basic mechanisms; con-

ccivcd in terms ofan economic and polit ical model' though, an

organism was a set of structures that grew increasinglv complex

and diverse as thev assumed spccialized rcsponsibil i ty fbr origi-

nallv undifferentiated functions. Between the levcl of the elcmen-

tarv cel l and that of man, Bernard explained, one f inds euery

degrec of complerity as organ combines with organ. The most

highlv developed animals posscss multiPlc systems: circulatory,

respiratory, nervous and so on.

Phvsiologv $'as thus the kcy to organic totalization, the key

that anatomy had failed to provide. The organs ancl systems of a

highlv diff 'ercntiated organism exist not lor themselves or fbr

other organs and systems but for cells, the countless anatomical

radicals, lor u,hich thcy create an internal environment whose

composition is maintained in a stcady state by a kind of feedback

mcchanism. Bv jo in ing in associat ion and inst i tut ing a k ind of '

society, the basic elemcnts obtain the collective means to l ive

rheir separatc l ive ' : "1[one could at everr momcnt cre.r l ( an envi-

ronment identical to that u,hich the actions of nearby parts con-

stantly creatc fbr a given clementarv organism, that organism

l'ould l ive in ficcdom exactly as it l ives in societv."rs The Part

depends on a u.holc that exists solelv in order to maintain it. Bv

refcrring all functions to the cell lcvel, general phvsiologv pro-

vided an explanation lbr the fact that the structure of the rvhole

organism is subordinatr to the functions of each part. Made of

cclls, the organism is also made for cells, fbr parts that are them-

sclves less complicated rvholes.

The use of an economic and pol i t ical modcl enabled nine-

teenth-century biologists to understand rvhat the use ofa tech-

nological modcl had prevented their predccessors from grasping.'fhe

rclation of the parts to the n,hole is one of irretrdtio, (a con-

ccpt that latcr met r ',. i th success in neurophvsiologv), r ' i i th thc

298 299

Y

survival ofthe P.rrts l)eing the ultimatc cnd: thc parts \\ 'ere scen

n9 lqrnger ns instrunrents ot 'p icccs but as i t . , i r jdudlJ Ar a t ime

* hcn u hat rvould later become ccll thcorv rvas sti l l at the stage

of philosophical specul.rt ion and prclintinarv microscopic explo-

ration, the tcrm "monad" lvas oficn used fbr the atonlic compo-

ncnt of an organism; it rvas onlY latel that "monad" lost out to

"cel l . " Augusre Comte, i t t fat t , re j tcted rvhat he cal led t l re " the-

orv of monads" and rvc nou'cal l cel l theorv.16 The indirect but

real influcncc of Lt' ibniz on the earlv Romantic philos<-rphcrs and

bioiogists u ho drcanrerl up cell theorr allolvs trs to sal ol the celi

rvhat Lcibniz said of the monad, namely, that it is a Pars totalis'

It is not an instrument or a tool but an in(l ividuil l ' ' l .sublcd in rela-

tion to its lunctions. Bernard ficquentll uses the term "harmonr"

to convev rvh.rt hc mc.rns bv "organic totalitY." lt is not too diff i-

cul t to dctr . 'c t thetein a l i int echo of Lt ibniz 's phi)osophl ' And

so, .r ' i th the recognition of the cell as thc baric morphological

c lcmrnt of a l l organized subst.rnces, the meanin{ of thc concept

oforganization changed: the ,r 'hole rn;ls no longer a stl 'ucture of

interrelated organs but a totnl izat iorr of indiv i<luals.17 Simul-

taneousl \ , thc r l t rc)opmtnt rr l set theorr changed the t l - ' ld i t ional

mat l remat ical mcani l tg of thc tcrm "part ," just as the c levelop-

ment of cel l theorv chrngcd i ts t radir ional anatomical meaning'

lErrrr lcs, pp. 329-31]

The Orgonisnt Is lts Own /l lodcl

[120] Did thc tcchnique o{ in v i t to cul ture ol 'explanted ccl ls '

r"hich ' ras

perfected bv Alcxis Carrc l in l9 l0 but innented bl

J. , \1.J. Jol l l in 1901, olTer erper imental prool that thc structure

of the organism is an rnalogue of l iberal socictv? Claude flernard,

s ho died thirn vears e.rrl icr, h.rd indee(l suggerted such 'rn anal-

ogr, using the societt of his orvn timc as a model The organist't ' t

ensured that the conditions nccessarY to maint.rin thc l i le ofindi-

viclual cells n'ere satisfled; l]crnard had hlpothesizcd that those

coDdit ions coul t l a lso bc sat isf ied uhcn cel ls wcre tnkr l l ot t t o l

thr i r associat ion wi th other cclJs, provided that an aPProPri ' l tc

. r r t i f ic ia l environment rvas crel ted. Btr t rvhat did i t actual l t 'mean

lirl the cell to l ivc in freedom, that is, l ibcr'rted frorr the inhibi-

t ions and st imulat ions stemming l ronl i ts integrat i ( rn into thc

or{nnism? In ordcr f i r r l i f i i r l rcedon ro rcpl ic ' } te l i fc in societv

".r.rctlr ' , th" ccll nould havc to be provided u ith an cnvironmtnt

thlr agcd as i t d id. t lut thcn the l i fe ' r f

thc cel l nould l l roceed i r r

paral lc l r ' , i th changes in tht ' . r r t i f i t : ia l cnvironment; i t \ \ 'ould r i r ) t

be inclcpendent. I iurthermorc, l iving in fieeclom rcn<lcrecl a cell

uni i r to rcturn to:ocietv: thc l iber ' r ted Pi l r t i f revoc'rblY lost i ts

chrracter of bcing part ofa u holc. I-t ienne \\blf l renrarks:

No nt t fmPt ro afrr tc an;rssociat ion ol prct i ' ruslr t i i ' is ' rc iatcd ct l l t

has bet 'n ablc to teconsti tutc strt tctural unin' Analvsis hrs nevcr bccn

succectlct l bv sr nthesis. Rv rn i l logic'r l ebur( " l langtrage' onc oltcn

.rppl ics rhe tcrnr " t issuc cul turc" t ( ' i t )arc l l ic prol i l i r ' l t ions oi ct l ls

that do not rcl lecl ci thel thc \truclure or cohcsion ol the t issuc l iom

rr hicb th,rv ar, t r lcn.rr

In other wot-<ls, Jn otganic elcmcnt can be c'r l lcd 'rn clcnlcnt onl l

in i ts un<l issociated state. Thc si tu.rr ion rccl l ls I lcgt l 's o l rscl la-

t i<rn in his lo,gic thrt i t is thc rvhole I ' t 'hich creatcs the relat jorr

lntong i ts pJrls, \o thi l t rr i thoLrt thc rr holt thcrc are tro parts'

Expcr imental embrvologv and cvtologr thus correctct l the

coDcept o{ organic structurc. Bcrnald hatl .r l lo*ecl himsell tr t lx:

undulv in l luencet l l ) \ - a social modcl ' rvhich al l in r l l amotrntcd

to l i t t le morc than a mctaPl lor . In react ion against thc use of

methanical n lodels i t l phvsioloqv' Bern'rrd r ' r r r t r . ' : "The larrnr is

the larvnx. ancl the lens of the evc is thc lcns of the eve: in othcr

rrrrql5, 1l-r" mcchanical and ph1'sical condit ir lns necess.rrv f irr their

iI1,

loo lol

to assert an .lrbitrar.y prcdicate ofa given objcct. The flxitv,rfrep-

ctit ion ol bt' ing constrain\ thought to i( lentirv ot .rssertion. The

natural hicrarchv of cosmic forms rcquires the hierarchv ol defi-

nit ions in the realm ollogic. The conclusion ofa svllogism is nec-

essan bv v i r tue ol rhe hicr : r rchv according to xhich a spr:c ies

dominated by i ts genus becomes a dominat ing gcnus in relat ion

to an infer ior specics. Kno\ l ledge is therefbre the rvor ld marle

into thought in th<'soul , an<l not dre soul th inking up the rvor ld.

l f thc essencc ofa l iv ing th jng is i ts natural fornr. i t fo l lous rhat,

things being as they arc, ther' are knon'n as thcy ire and for u.hat

thev arc. The int,: l lect is identical rvith those thinqs that are intel-

l ig ib le. l 'he rvor ' l r i is intel l is ib le and, in part icular, l iv ing th ings

arc inteJl ig ib le, because thc intelJ ig ib le is in the rvor ld.

A f i rst major di l t icul tv in Ar istot le 's phi losophv concerns the

rclat ion betnccrr knou. ledge and being, in part icular between

intell igcnce and life. lf one treats intell igcnce as a function ofcon-

remplat ion and reproduct ion, i f one gives i t a placc among the

lctrms, howevcr enrinrnt, on( therebr sjtuates (thlt is, l intits) the

thought of order at a particular place in the univcrsal order. But

hou can knou leclgc be at once mirror and object, reflector and

rel lect ioni l I the del in i t ion of man.rs i r , rov, \oyrxov, or reasoning

animal, is a naturalist 's <lcfinit ion (in thc samc sense thar Carolus

Linnaeus r lef ines t l re rvol fas canis lupus or thc mari t ime pine

a\ pinut nor t intd\ , thcn scicDce, and in part icular the scicnce of

l i fe, is a l act iv i t r of l i fe i tsel f . One is then fbrccd to ask what

the organ of that act iv i t l is . And i t lb l lo$s that thc Ar istcr te l ian

rhcorr of the act j \e intc l lect , a pure fbrm rv i thout organic basis,

has the r' l}ect of sep.rr.rt ing intcll igencc from li l i :; i t lcts some-

thing fronr outside (BupaBev, in Aristotlc's terms)enter the human

eBrbrv(),,I\ through a tlorrrwat, nlntelv, thc e)itranatural or tr.rn-

sccndent porver to makc sense ol the cssent ia l lbrms that indi-

v idual beings embc'dv. Thc theorv thus makcs the concept ion of

conceprs ei ther something rnorc than human or else somcthing

rransccnding l ife ( tuPravitole\.

A sccond di lTicul tv, $hich is in l , lc t an inst . rnce of thc f i rst ,

concerns the impossibil i t l of accounting for mathematical knovvl-

,.:dgc in terms crl a biological function. A celehr'rtecl Pnss'lgc ol

the .l l ,:toplr,t sics states that mathematics has nothing to do rvith

final causes,l0 rvhich is cqtrivalent to iaving that thore ar( intel-

l ig ib le rhings that. r r .e not fcrrnls in thc ProPer sense of the u 'ord '

and th,rt knou ledqe ol thost- things has nothing to do rvith knorvl-

edge ol l i fc . Hence, thcre is no m;thematical rnodcl of the l iv-

ing. Althc,Lrgh Aristode desoibes nature.rs ingcniotrs, creatit 'c and

invent i \c, i t should not then be conl lated rv i th the c lenr i t r rggof

the l inraeus. C)ne of the most astonishing propositions of Aris-

rot lc 's phi losophv ol 'b io logv is tbat i r makes not lhe art is ' rn but

the art rc sponsibl t for rvhrt is procluced. What curcs the I )nt ient

is not the phvsic ian but ht 'a l th. I t is because thc fbrm "heal th" is

prcscnt in medic.r l act iv i t l that me(l ic ine is, in f . rct , the c ' r t rse of

thc cure. Bv art,, ' \r istotle neans thc unretlective purposc ol a nat- I

ural logos. Nieditating on the exnmPle ofthc phvsician vvho lreals

not because he is a phvsic ian but becattsc hc is inhabi te<l and ani-

mated bl the lbrrn "heal th" 'one mighr s ' r ) ' thr t the presencc ol

the conccpt in thought, in thc fbrm ol an encl rcPrcscntcd as

a mo<lcl . is an e piPhcnometton-. Ar istot le 's anr i -Platonism \ \ 'as

rct lectcr l in his depreciat ion ol mathematics: r l lathen)at ics was

clenied access to thc immancnt act i \ i tv o l l i le, $hich is ( ;od's

essent ia l at t r ibutc, and i t l l ' . rs only through kn<rrv ledge (rhat is '

imitation) oi that immanent .rctivit\ thtt l lan coul(l hope to lornr

an idea ofGod. I I ru.7cs, pp. ] i6- ]8]

Nominol isnt

[122] A f i r r ther di f ] icul tv of Ar istotel ianism concerns the onto-

logical and gnoseological starus of individualitv in a science of l i fe

l ' )4 lo5

bascd on conccpts. lf the individual is an ontological reality and

Dot simplv an imperfection in thc realization ofa concept, what

is tht' significance of the order of beings represented in the clas-

sif ication bv genus and species? If the concePt ol a l iving being

ontologicallv presides over its concePtion, what mode ofknowl-

edge is thc individual capable ofl2 A system of l iving fbrms, if

grounded in being, has the ineffable individual as its correlate;

but an onlological plurality ofindividuals, ifsuch a thing exists,

has a concept, a fiction, as its correlate. There are trvo possibil i-

t ies. Is it thc universal that makes the individual o l iving thing as

u,ell as tfris potticular l iving thing? Ifso, singularity is to l i fe as

thc cxception is tcr the rule. The exception confirms the rule, in

the sense ofrcvcaling its existence and content, fbr the rule, thg

violat ion oI rhc rule, is lvhat makes the singular i ty aPParent,

indeed glaring. Or is it the individual that lends its color, weight

and flcsh to that ghosrlv abstraction, the universal? Without such

a gift, "universal" uould have no me.rning in "l i fe," and u'ould

be an enrptl rrord. The conll ict between thc individual and the

universal as to their rcsPective claims on "being" bears on l if 'e in

all i ts fornrs: the vegetab)e as well as the animal, function as rvell

as fonr. i l lness as rvell as "temperament." All approaches to l itb

must be homogeneous. l l l iving specics exist, then the diseases

ol J i ' ing th ings must also form spccies. l f only indiv iduals exist '

then there ,rrc no species ofdisease, only sick individuals. If l i [e

has an inrmanent logic, then anv science of l i f 'e and its manifes-

tations, $hether normal ot Pathological, must set itselfthe task

of discovering that logic. Nature then becomes an enduring set

of latent relations that must be brought to l ight. Once uncovered'

ho*.ever, those relations offer a reassuring guarantee of validity

to the natur.rl ist 's ef'forts to classifv and to thc physician's efforts

to heal. In fhe Hktorv oJ Madness and Birth oJ the Cltnic, Michel

Foucaul t br i l l iant lv demonstrated horv the methods of botany

ll!lrI

it

st 'rvccl as a model fbr nineteenth-ccnturv phvsicians in develop-

ing their nosologies. "The rat ional i ty of u,hat thr t 'atrns l i le," he

\\ 'rote, "is identical to thc rationalitv of l i f 'e itsell-." But there is

rationalitv and rationalitv.

l -he matter ofuniversals u 'as, ofcourse, an important issue

in medieval philosophy, thcologl and polit ics. Here, horvever, I

shall approach this question only indirectly, bv r",ay ofa few briel

remarks on nominalism in the philosophy of the seventeenth and

eightccnth centuries. Nominalists ovcr the ages have relied on a

varicd but unchanging arsenal ofarguments. Becausc they n'ere

not alrvays engaged in the same struggle, horvcver, diflerent nonri-

nalists chose different \r 'eapons fiom that arsenal. Yet all,r l tht'nr.

f iom Ockham to Htrmc bv uay of Duns Scotus, Hobbcs, Locke

anrl Condil lac, shared one common purpo5c - to show tlr.rt uni-

r '. 'rsals are merely a u,ay of using singular things and not in the

n.rrure oI th ings thcmselves. Ockham cal lecl universals "supposi-

t ions" (r l rat is , posi t ions ol subst i tut ion); Hoblres cal ler i them

"arbitrarv impositions"; LocLe called them "rcprcseDt.rtions insti-

ruted as signs." Yet all agreed that concepts *crc a hunt.rn. rvhich

is to sar', factit ious and tendcntious, processing oferperience. We

sar "human" becausc we do not knou, if we have the right to say

"intellectual." I lolding that the mind is a tabula rasa docs not give

one thc right to say that a tabula rasa is a mind. Nominalists look

upon sharcd propertics of individual things as an authenric equiv-

alent to universals, but isn't doing so tantamount to dor)ning a

mask of false simplicity? A trap arvaits those u'ho take this path,

the trap ol similarity, A general idea, Lockc says, is a gcneral namc

signifving a similar quality perceived under a varictv of circum-

stances; that guality is rveighed bv abstraction, that is, bv "con-

sideration of the common as distinct from the particular." lt can

thcn scne as a valid representation for all particular ideas belong-ing to the same tvpe. Unlike Locke, l- lume ascribes to thc f.rc-

l()6

ultl of generaliz.rt ion not onlv n porvcr to rcproducc sensations

itt nremor! but . l lso to transposc the order in u.hich inrpressions

are reccived; this porver belongs to the imagination. rvhich may

be Lrnfaithfir l to the lessons ofexperience. Nevcrthelcss, he argues

that sinri laritv of ideas guides the imagination to\lard certain hab-

its, or unifirrmitics, in dcaling l ith the t 'nvironmenr. I labit tele-

scopes r{)gerhcr a rt ' lrole host of indivirlual cxperieDccs. lfan1, one

o[ thesc exper icnces is evokcd bv a name, thc indiv idual idea ofthat cxJ)eri(.nce conjures up others,.rnd rve vield to the i l lusion

ofgcneralitv.

(t is easv to sec rhat thcre can bt'no comlbrtablc norlinalist

posi t ion on thc r-elat ion ofconcepts to l i le. For tht ' nominal ist ,

d iverse things nrust exhibi t some mininral dcgree of s imi lar i ty

before one can con\truct the conccpt of that s imi lar propcrty

rvhich is supposed to take the pl.rcc ol univcrsal esscnces. I lence!$.hat those eightt 'entfi-ccnttrr.t authors rr 'ho ncre empiricists asto the cont(nt of tht' ir knou ledge ancl sensurlists as to the ori-gin ol its fbrms rcallv give us is a mirror image of Aristotelianism,

I b".uur" thev sought to find the knorving [/e connaitrelamong the

kn()$,n, to lcarn about l i i ! n' irhin the order of l i fb. Hunran beings,

thcr sar,, arc endou.ed u ith a porver (r 'hich might cquallr. rvell

be takcn fbr a ml 'asure of impotcnce) to invent c lasses and, thus,

to arrange other l iving beings in an orderlv flshion, but onlv oncondition that those beings exhihit certain common characters or

repeated tfaits. l lor! can a nonrinalist spcak ofnaturc or naturcr?

Llc can do vvhat FIunre did and invokc a lruman nrturr,, *.hich isto conct'de at lcast that thert' is uniformitl among humans, cven

though llurne held that human nature u.as inventive and. more

speci f ical lv, capabl t ' of adopt ing del ibcrate convent ions. What

does tlr is accomplish? lt inrroduces a clcavage in thc st,stem of

l iving bcints, bccarrse thc narurc ofonc ol those being: is defined

bv an arti l icc, bv the possibil i tv ofcstablishing a convention rathcr

ANO NF

rhan cxprcs! ing the orcler oi nature. I lcnce, in Locke and I lumeas in Ar istot le, the problenr ofhou conccpts are conceived issolrcd in a $ 'ar thar disrupts th<, projccr of natur.al iz ing knou, l_edge of nature. lfrudes, pp. 339-42]

Tronscendental LoBic

[12 ]] Philosophl. is better rhan thc historv ol scienct, at rcvcalingthe signi f icance of thc dispar i t ies betu.c, t ,n the scient j f i< ter l in iqr :es o1 natural ists and rheir impJic i t or cxpl ic i t Lrnder lv ing phi_losophv. This can be sccn i r a master lu l text bv K.rnt on. i thcreguLrti lc use ol thc idcas ofpure reas()n.t.] I lerc Kant introduccdrhc imnqc of a "Jogical horizon" to accourrt lbr the regtrlatirc, but

;:i;l:;:::xT ;::i;l'i1;::i::i:::1 j;il il;::::,il:i;gcncra). A logical hrrr izon, accolding to Kanr, is a conceptualr ie\r 'point thnt enconrpasscs a certain region; rv i th in that horr-ron, thrrc arc multiple viervpoints, each detemrining firr.thtr hori_zons ol smal ler ambit . A hor i /on can bc, lecompo.set l onlv intooth(r hor i rons, just , ts a concept can be analvzcr l nnlv in t"rmsol other conccpts. Td sav that a horizon can be decomiosccl crnlvinto other horizorrs an<l not into discrete poinrs i, r,, ,ov tirat ,p"-c ies caD bc cJccomposcd into subspecres Dut n(ver into indiv idu,als. This is bccause to knol ,something is to knor l , i t in terms ofconccpts, and thc understanding kno$,s nothing bI intuirion alonc.

Kant's intage ol a logicai horizon ancl his dellnit ion of a con_cePt ns a Yiervpoint cnconrplssing a rcgion do nor marL a returnl ' , n, ,minal i j rn. n, , r r l , , lh, . \ r .on(t i tut( .dn , r l t lnrpt to j r rst i l_r con.( e11\ on.t he b.rs i r o I r hr i r | r rJ lmJ r ic v,r luc in . r r h i r r ing rconomr

i l ' . ' ] ] , ' : * , i , : R, . rs,rn iq. ,p l1 t l r ( . \ , r ihc\ \u( l r ( . ( onom\. . r r t or , l in! ro

." i . l t , l , ] , , in.so, l . , ing

I r , , , , r i l ,es rh, . r , l t . . r , ,1 n.rrur, . n. ' , , , rd ing r , ,

) : , ' , , i ln. : " i r n, , such r h i r rg ar . im iJ,rr i r r . t , , r jn r h.rr r Jst I h( . l ,g_, , ar l r \ \ , ,1 . l ) r , i r . \ J\ r r , . l j a. rh, . r rn, l , . r , ran, l int i r . r . l l r r . , , r r j , j I ,e

3 tr8lo9

simultaneousl \ abol ished. [ . , . ] Reason thus assumes the role of

interpreting the rcquirenrents o[ the un<]erstanding in that realm

uhcre the sciencc of l i fe pursues thc heuristic task ofidentify-

ing and classifving species. Those requirements dcfine a transcen-

dt 'ntal strucrurt ' of knowlcdge. I t might thercl i r re appear that

Kant's analvsis finally rnanages to break out of the circle within

rr'hich all prcvious naturalist theorics ol knoulcdge had remained

conflned. The conception of concepts cannot bc merely onc con-

cept among others, Thr: dichotomv that neither Aristotlt ' nor the

empiricist nominalists had been able to avoid w,as groundcd, jus-

rif ied and exalted bv Kant.

If, hou'ever, we have gained the legitimation ofa possibil i tv -

that of knorvlr 'r lge through concepts - ha'e we not pelhaps lost

the certaintv that, among the objccts oI knowlt'dge, there arc

some, at least, rvhose existence is a necessary manifestation of the

realitv of concretelv active concepts? PLrt dif lerently, havc rve not

lost thc ccrtaintv that l iv ing beings do iD l ic t number nmong the

objects of knowledge? In Ar istotel ian logic, the lbrms ofreason-

ing mimic the hierarchy of l iving lbrms, hcnce there is a guaran-

teed correspondence betut'en logic and life. tanscendental logic,

u hich constitutes naturc d priori as a svstem ofphvsical latvs, does

not in fact succecd in const i tut ing nature as the theater of l iv-

ing organisms. We gain a bctter understanding of the naturalist 's

rt 'search, but rve do not arrive at an understanding of nature's

r{avs; rvc gain n better understanding of the concept oIcausality,

but we do not understand the causalit l ofthe conccpt, The Cri-

t ique ot' Judgment attempts to give meaning to this l imitation,

* hich the understanding experiences as n fact. An organized being

is one that is both its own causc and its orvn eflcct; it organizes

itsclf and reproduces its organization; it forms itst ' l fand creates

its orvn rcplica in accordance with a tvpe. lts teleological struc-

turc, in vuhich the interrclation of the parts is regulatcd bv the

I lo l l I

'r 'hole, eremplif ies a nonmechanical causalitv ol 'the conccpt. We

havc no a priorl knor+.ledqe of this tvpe of causalitv. Forces that

are also forms and fbrms that arc also forces are indccd part of

nature and in nature, but u'e do not know this through the under-

st.rnding; we perceive it. rathcr. in experience. That is rvhv rhe

ic lea of a "natural end," u 'h ich is essent ia l ly the idca of a sel f l

constructing organism, is not a categorv in Kant but a regulative

ide.r, u'hich can be applied onlv in tht' fbrm of max ims. To be

sure, art providcs an analogl vr herebv nature's mode ol produc-

t ion can bc judged. But wc cannot hope to adopt the v ieu-point

ofan archctypal intellect lbr u'hich concept and intuit ion u,ould

be identical, an intellect crpable of cre.rting its own objects, for

*hich concel>ts rvould bt' not onJy ob)ects ofknowledge but a)ser,

frr use Leibniz's term, original roots of being. Kant holds that the

line arts arc arts ofgenius, and he regards genius as nature dictat-

ing its larv to art. Yet hc rcfirses to permit himself to assume, in

r lognrat ic fashion, a s imi lar v icrvpoinr. that ofgenius. i r r order ro

grasp the secrct ofnature's opercrl. Kant, in other rvords, reflscs roidentifv the logical horizon ofthe naturalisrs rvith rvhat one mightcall the poctic horit.on ol natura notDtans. lEtu<les, pp. 3.+3-.+5]

The Berna rdian Conception

[12.1] Claude Bernard descr ibed his rc l lect ions as a scient i f icthcorl, of general phvsiologv. They are interesting, h,rr"cver, pre-ciseh bccausc Bernard did not d:vorce the study ol f inctions fiomthat ofstructures. In Bcrnard's dav, moreever, the only structurckno$ n to bc common to tnth animals and plants, hence the struc-ture on which the studv ol l i fe must hcnceforth fbc.us, r,,,as thccell. Bcrnard also did nor di.orce the stu<lr' ofstructurcs fiom rjrer tudy of the or ig in of those 5tructures. Thus, his gencral phvsiol-t-tgy is full of rcferences to (:mbrvologv, which ever since thc rvorkt , l f Kar l Ernst von Baer ha, l ser"e, l as a bcacon fbr nineteenth-

centurv biologists, a source of concePts and methods fbr use by

r r ther discipl incs. [ . . .1

Bern,rrrl 's gcnera) phvsioloqt rvas, i irst o[ al), a theort of the

clevclopmcnt of org;rns, and his basic conccPtion of I ifc u'ould

resolve, or , lt anv ratc recast in more nreaningfi l l terms' a prob-

Icm that positivist lr iologv h.rd avoided and that mechanist biol-

ogl ha<J resolved through conllation ofconccpts: to rvit, in what

sensc is an ot-qanism organizcd? The naturalists ofthe cightt 'cnth

centurv h.rd bccn obsessed uith the qrrcstion lndccd, it tvas not

a (luestion rhat lent itsclf to easY solution in terms ofmeclranical

models. Pre tormationism, the theorv that the grorr th ofthe adult

organism h om the original se cd is simpl;- a matter of cnlargemcnt

of structures alrcadv contained in miniattlrc in the seed - along

r i th the logical l r der ivat ivc theor ' , that seeds contain smal ler

seeds containing st i l l smal ler sceds and so on. ad inf in i tum -

rt,fcrred the u'holc issue oforganizaticln back to Creation The

rise of embr,,rrlotr .rs a trasic sciencc in the ninerccnth centurv

nrade it possible to rcfbrmul;rte thc questiott For Bernard, the

qucst ion oforganizat ion and thc obstacle i t poscd to explaining

li le ir phisical antl chcnrical terrns was rvlrat mad'' gcnerrl phys-

io logv a dist inct sciencc. [ . . . ]

Bernard $'as possessed bv one idea: that the organized living

thing is rhc tcmPorarv manjlcstation of an jddc c'l irertricc, a guid-

ing idea. The lan s ol physics and chcmistrv clo not in thensclves

explain hort thcy arc hrought to trear on the composition ol a par-

r icular orgnnism, fh is argunrcnt is dereioped at length in the

Lc1ons sur les phinontines de Ia vie:

1\ '1r erptr icnce h. :s Icd nlc t r ) a ccrt . l j l r cot lct-Pt ion ol th ings. ' '

Therc are, I bel icr 'c, oi ncccssitv, t \ \ 'o {)rders o1 phenomcn;r in l iv-

ini l things: phen<rmcna o1 *i tal crcrt ion or olaanic !r nthesis' and phe-

nomcna ol death ur organic df i truct ion Onlr the l i rst ' r l

these

lrzlr l

trro classes of phcnornen;r is without dircct analoguc clservherc; it

is peculiar. specil ic, to l iving things. This evolutive sr nthtsis is rvhat

i \ r ru l r v i la l .

l lence, lbr Bcrnard, a funct ioning organism rvas an organism

rngrged in destroving i tscl l . The funct ioning ol an organ uas a

phvsicochcmical phenomcnon, that is, de,rth. Wc can grasp suclr

phenomena, t le can understand.rncl char.rcter izc them, an<l scr

rvc rrc incl incr i , misieadinglv, to tppl \ the namc " l i fe" to uhat

is in lact a lbrm ofdcath. Convcrsely, organic creation and organi-

zation arc plastic acts ol-svnthctic reconstitution of t lre substances

that the funrt ioning organism recluircs, - fh is orgnDic crcat ion,

th is const i tut ion of protoplasm, is a fbrm of chemical s-vnthesis,

an<l i t is a lso . r fbrm of rnorphological rvnthesis, \1 'h ich br in{s

the " immecl iar t 'pr inciples" ol l iv ing nratrer togcther in a 1)ar-

t icular k ind ol 'mol<1. The existcnce of an " internal molcl" ( /c

moulc int i r ieur l rvas in l . rct Btr l lbn's r"av ofcxplaining ho* 'an

inv;r iant lbrrn persists in thc midst of that inccssant turbulcnce

which is l i fc .

At f i rst s ight , one nr ight th ink thnt Bern.rrd is herr 'scparat ing

nvo lornrs oi r lnthesis that morlcrn biochenr istrv has rruni tecl ,

and that he h.rs fi i lql to rccognize the fact that the cytoplasm

itsr . '11 is structurcd. In<lccd, i t is no longer possible to agrcc s i th

Bcrnard that "at its sinrplest lcvel, shorn ol all the ancil larv phe-

nomcna that mask i t in most beings, l i fe. contrarv to l r -hat Ar is-

tot le bcl icved. is indrpenr lont of anv speci f ic form. l t rcsidcs in

a substancc dc[ ine<l bv i ts composi t ion and not bv i ts conl igura-

t ion: protoplasm."

a)n the (ontrar\ , ntrrr lcrn biochcmistrr is l )ascd on thc pr in-c iPle that conl igurat io l r and structurc art ' rc lcvant cvcn.r t rhc

most basic level of chemical composition. I,erhaps Bcrnard's crror,thr)ugh, r,, irs Dot as totnl as it nrav seem, lbrht savs latcr rhat ";rro

toplasm, however b"rt., ' ,

; . ' :t a purelY chemical substance'

a si-pl" im-ediute principle of chemistrv' It has an origin that

., lud". ur. It is the continuation of the protoplasm of an ances-

tor." In other words, protoplasm has a structure' and that struc-

ture is heredit.rry. "Protoplasm itself is an atavistic substancc' We

do not see its birth, only its continuation'" Now' recall that by

evolution Bcrnarcl means the law that determines the l ixed direc-

tion o[ constant changei this law governs the manifestations of

l ife both in its inception and in its PerPettration For Bernard'

morcover. nutrit ion was idcntical with evolution in this sense'

Thus, it can be argued that Bernard did not make absolute the

distinction bct$'een matter and fbrm, bctrveen chemical and mor-

phological synthesis. He had at least an inkling that the chcmical

,n,"ri"ng", occurring within the protoplasm obeY a structural

imperative. He also sa*'the structure ol the protoplasm as sonre-

- thing *,hose reprt duction required something beyond the knorvn

lartiof phv.i., und chemistrv' It rvas a product ofhercditYrvhich

coul<i not be duplicated in thc laboratory' In his orvn words' this

structurc rr 'as "the nranil-estation herc and notn of a primitive

impulse. a prirnit ive actioil and messocc, n'hich nature repeats

according to.r Pattern determined in advance'"

Cleariy, Bemard seems to have sensed that biological hered-

ity consists in the transmissiorr of something that *e norv think

of u, c<,,lcd infcrrmatiotr. "N{essage" is, scmantically speaking' not

lf,r trom "code." Ncvertheless, it rvould be incorrect to conclude

that this semantic analogy points to a genuine conceptual kin-

ship. The reason has t,r do with a simultaneous discorery' ln 1865'

the same ,-ear thar Bcrnard's lnftodu'tion d l ' i tude de Ia midecine

crpdrimentale appeared' Gregor Mendel' an obscur! monk *'ho

rvould nevcr in his l i letime expericnce anvthinq l ike the celeb-

ritv that rvas lavishcd on Claude Bcrnard' publlshed his Vercuche,

trbier Pflottzenhvbri,len No conccpt analogotts to those associated

I r4 l r t

KNOWLEDGE ANI

r l i th toclav's theorv of hereditv can be imputed to Bernard, be-

causc the concept of hereditv itsclf u'as totally nern' and unlikc

anv idcas Bernard miqht havc had about generatiolt antl evolu-

tion, We n-tust be carelir l, therefbre, not to see analogies in ternl!

raken out ofcontcxt . Nevertheless, onc can st i l l argue that the

Bernardian "message" has a fLnctional all initv with today's qenetic

code, That afl inity is based on their common relation to the con-

cept ol ' information. Consicler Bernarcl's rePeated use of cerlain

rerms and phrases: message, guiding idea' vit.r l design. \ ' i tal Preor-

dainment, r ' i tal plan, directecl process. If genetic intormation is

a coded program for protein synthesis, then Bernard's rcpeated

rust , r f such conrcrgi t tg mctaPhors rvould appcar to rcf lect an

.rttcnrpt to pinpoint a biological rcality fbr rvhich no ade<luate

concept had vet becn formulated.

To put it in slightlJ different terms, Bernard used concePts

associatecl r ', i th a ps;-choloeical concept of informarion to account

lor phenomena th.rt we now interPret in terms of a phvsical con-

ccpt of infbrmat ion. [ . . . ] Construct ion, growth' restorat ion and

the selfregeneration of the l iving machine - it is no accident that

rhesc terms occur in combination' Evolution in the Bcrnarrl ian

sensc, the fundamental characteristic ofl ife. is the inverse of cvo-

lution in the phvsicist's sense, namely, the series of states assun'ted

by an isolated system governcd bv the second larv of thermodv-

namics. Biochemists todat sav that organic iDdiv idual i tY, or thc

constancy ofa svstem in dvnamic cquil ibrium, retlects l if i"s gen-

eral tendency to slou'the increase ofentropv, to resist cvolution

toward the more probable statt of unilbrmitv in disorder.

" fhc Ialr of ordtr anrl succcssi()n that bestows nleaning lnd

order on phenomena": the lormulation is rather surprising tor a

biologist rvhom no one rvould accusc of indulgence tolvard the

rsc of m.rthematical concepts and models in biology. Thc lbrmula

is actual ly qui te c lose to Leibniz 's del in i t ion of inr l iv idual srrb-

stance: /..! seriei suarrlm oPerutionum, the lan ofthe serics in the

mathcmntical sense oI thc tenn, a scries of operations This almost

f i r rmal ( logical) def in i t ion of (b io logical) heredi t \ can norv be

interprete<l in thc l ight of the fun<lanrental discovt'rv of molccu-

lar b io logv, the st tucture of DNA, rhe kcr cotrst j tuent of chro-

mosomes, the caricrs of hcredity, t{hose vcrY number is itself a

specific hereditarv characteristic. [!rudcs, pp 354-60]

lnforntotion T heorv

[125] In 195'1, Jamcs l ) . Watson rnd Francis Cr ick ' rvho eight

years later rcceived the Nobcl Priztr fbr their rvork, shorved that

it w,as the ortlcring of .r f inite nrtmber of bases along a dotrble

helix joined by phospharcs of strgar ' 'r hich constittrtcs the genetic

infornration or Progr.rm code dctermining holv tht: cell synthe-

sizcs the btri lcl ing blocks ofprotein fbr nerv cclls' l t has since been

shou n thrt this synthesis takcs place on demand. that is, as a func-

t ion <r l intormat ion stcmnring frc,m rhc environnrent - meaning'

ofcourse, rhc cel lu lar tnvironmcnt. In 1965, anothcr Nobcl Pr ize

rvas arv;rrded for this furdrer discovtrl ln changing thc scale on

rr.hich the characteristic phenomcna ol l i fc - rvhich is to sar', the

stnrcturation of mattcr and the regulrtion of [unctions, includir'g

the stnrcturation lunction - are stttdicd, contr. 'nrporarv bio)ogv

:has als,r aclopted a neu' language. lt has droppcd thc vocabularl

and concepts of c lassical mechanics, phvsics and chcmistry ' a l l

. more or less directlv based on geomctrical models. in favor ofthe

' 1,6(.r[ ls)arv ol l inguistics ancl conlnrunications theort i l lessages'

inlbmration, Progrants, codc, instrut:t ions, decoding: thcsc are the

. new conccPts of thc l i f 'e scicnces. [ . . .1' '

Wh", t $e say that biological hcrcdi tv is thc communicat ion

of a ctrrain kin(l ()1 intormation. t ' , 'e h.rrk back in a \1'aY to the

Aristotel ian phi losophr l i th whi th ue bcgan'1" ' ] Ib sav that

hercdi tv is thc comnlunicat ion of in lbrnlat ion is, in a scnse' to

;rcknoulcdge that there is a /ogos inscribcd. preserred anrl trans-

nr i t tcd in l iv ing th ings. l - i le has alrvavs c lone - rv i thout u r i t ing,

l lng belbrc * rit ing cvcn existed - n hat humans havc sor.tght to

<lo rvith cngraving, rvrit ing and plinting, namt'lr ' , to trrnsmit nlcs-

sirgrs. :J-he scicnce of l i f i no longer rcscnr[.les a portrait of l i fe,

as i t could rvhcn i t consisted jn the dcscr ip l ion and classi f icat ion

<,f species; .rnd it no longer resembles architecture or mechanics,

.rs it could rr hen it uas simplv anatomv .rrr<1 macroscopic plrvsi-

ologv. But it r|r,cs rcstmtr)c grn)rmar, s(n'r,rntics and thc thcor,, ' ol '

s.r 'ntax. If rve.rre to unclerstand life, its messagc must be (lc(odcd

belirre it can be read.

This rr ' i l l nr-r doubt have a number ol tevolut ionarv consc-

cluences, and i t rvr>rr ld take manr ch.rpters to erplain not rvhat

tlrev arr: but \t hat thcv are in the proccss ol becoming. To define

li le as a meaning inscribcrl in matter is to acknorvledge d-rt: cxis-

tt 'ncc ofan a prlori objcctivc rhat is inhcrcntlv material .rrrd not

mcrclv fbr-mal. In this conncction. it seems tcr me that thq rrudv of

instinct in the nranncr ofNiLolaas Tinbergen anrl Konrad Lorentz,

that is, through the demonstration ol the er,istcnce of innatc pat-

terns ol behavi<rr , is a vav of <lcmonstrat ing thc rcal i tv of such o

priorls. To dcfine l ifc as me.rnin! is to {irrce onesclf to look lbr

ner.r ' r l iscover ies. l lere, thc erper i rncntal inr 'ent ion consjsrs onlv

in thc scarch lbr a kcv, but or-rcc that kev is rl iscoverecl, the mcan-

ing is lound, not constnlcted. fhe models uscd in seeking organic

meanings re<lrrirt ' .r mathemaci<s differtnt f iorn that kno\\n to thc

Crecks. ln rrrder to undcrstand l i r . ing th inq\ onr needs , t non, '

nerr ic thcorv ol space,.r science oforcler, r topologv; onr needs

a nonnumcrical calculus, a combinator ics, a stat ist ical machiD-

crt. In this reipcct to() thert h.rs been, in a scnsc, .r return to Aris-tot le. l lc bcl i t :vet l rhat mnthr.m.r t ics n, . rs cr l no use in hiologvbccause i t recognized no thcorr of spact 'othrr than the geomc-trr to rvhich Eucl id gavc his name. A biological l i r rnr , Al istot l t :

] l ( ) l t7

argued, is not a pattern, not a geometrical form. He *as correct.

Within an organism there are no distances: the rvhole is imme-

diatelv prcsent to all the (pseudo-)parts. Thc essence of the l iv-

ing thing is t lr.rt, insolar as it is I iving, it is immediatelv present

to itself. Its "parts" (che verv term is misleading) are immediately

prcsent to one another. Its regulatory mechanisms, its "internal

environment," makc the whole immediately Plescnt to each of

t ts Parts.l lence, in a certain sensc Aristotle rvas not \\ 'rong to say that

a certain k ind of mathematics, the onlv mathematics he knew

about, r 'as of no use in understanding biological fbrms, fonns

determined bv a final cause or totality, nondccomposable lorms

in rvhich beginning anci end coincidc and actual i ty outrveighs

potenr ia l i ty . [ . . . ]

If l i fe is the production, transmission and reception o[infbr-

mation, then clearlv thc histon ol-l i fe involves both conservation

and innovat ion. Flou is evolut ion to be explained in terms of

genetics? The ansrver, of course, intolves the mechanism of muta-

tiors, One objcction that has ofien been raised against this the-

orv is that manv mutations are sutrpathological, and a fair number

lcthal , so the mutaDt is Iess v iable than the or ig inal organism. To

be sure, many mutations are "mg65119115" - but from rhe stand_

point of l i fe as a rvhole, rvhat does "monstroulj" mean? Manv of

today's l i fe forms arc nothing other than "normalized monsters,"

to borrow an expression from the French biologist Louis Roule'

Thus, i f l j fe has mcaning, \ve must accept thc possibi l i tv ofa loss

of that meaniDg, of d istort ion, of misconstruct ion. L i fe over-

colnes crror through further trials (and b,v "error" l mean simply

a dead end).

What, thcn, is knou,ledgci' l f l i fe is concept, does recogniz-

ing that lact g i le the intel l igcnce access to l i le? What, then, is

knowledge? If l i fe is mcaning and concept, hon do rvc conceivc ol

thc activitv of knorving? Earlier, I alluded ro thc studv of instinc-

tive behavior, of behavior structurcd by innate patterns. An ani-

nral is fbrmed bv hereditv so as to receive ancl transmit certain

kinds of inf t r rmat ion. In lbrnrat ion th.r t an aninra] is not struc-

turally equipped to receive might as well not cxist as lar as that

animal is concerncd. In u,hat we take to be thc universal environ-

tnent, each species'structure determines its o*,n particular envi-

ronment, as Alex von UcxkLi l l h.rs shoun. l f nran is alsr . , lbrnted

lrr heredi ty, how <iocs qnc cxplain the histor,r ' . fknorvlcdge,

n hich is the lristorv of error and of triumph over error? l\, lust we

conc]ude that man trccamc u,hat he is by mutation, bv an error

ol hercdi t r i ' ln that case, l i fe.nould by crrcrr have produced a

l iv ing th ing capabie ol 'making errors. ln fact , humarr error is

probably one with human errancy. Man nrakes mistakes because

hc does not knou, rvherc to settle. He makes mistakes r,,.hen he

chooses the \{ rong spor lbr rccciving the Iir)d of infirrmation he

is .rfter. But hc also gathers inlbrmation bl ntor.ing around, and

bv moving objects around, rvith the aicl ol various kinds of tech-

n,rl,,gv.-Mo.t scientif ic tcchniques, it can be argucd, are in fact-n()thing morc than methods lbr moving thinqs around and chang-

i tU r i r r re lat i ' r rs.rmong,, l '1, t r i l f fnort l rdge. rhen, i5 rn rn\ iou\

quesr lor tht , greJtest possiblc quant i r \ ' . rncl var iety ol in lorma-

t iorL- l l f thc d pt ior i is in th ings, i f the concept is in l i le, then tobc a subjcct c'f knou.ledge is simplv to bc dissatisfied \,\, i th thenreaning onc l lnds readv ar hand, Subjectivitv is thcrcfbrc noth_ing othcr rhan dissat is l )cr ion. Perhaps rh.r t is * .hat I i l i , i \ . Inter-

Preted in a crrr ta in rvav, contemporarv biologv is, sonrehorv, aphilosophv of l i fe. [Erudes, pp. ]60-6,+l

l rn l r9

T-C'HAPTrrr l '<.ru H r r r r

The Normal and the Pathological

to the Problemlntroduct ion

[126] I r rct . i ( is necessarv at k ast t r> local ize. I or eranrpl t , hou

rlo uc take action .rgainst an carthqu.r[e or hurricanel Thc impe-

tus behin<i everv ontological thcon ofdisease undottbtt 'r l lv dcriles

lrom thcrapcutic necd. When ue sec in cvcrv sick man someonc

rvhrrst bcing has bccn .ruqmented or <linrinishcd, ue are some* hat

rcassurr '<| , lbr uhat.r nran has lost (nn be restored to hinr. and

uhat has cntered hinr can also lcavr'. We can hopt't,r conqucr dis-

eas( 'cven i l 'doing so is the resul t o l r spcl l , or magic. or posses-

sion; rvc have only t{) rcnlember that discasc happcns to man in

order not to losc al l hopc. , \4agic br ings to drugs an<l in( . rntat ion

ritcs innumerabl<: rcsour-ces stemrning l ionr a pro[oun<llt intcnsc

dt'sire firr curc. Henrv Frnst Sigerist has notcd that Eurptian mcd-

ic ine probably uni tersal izcd the Eastcrn cxpcr ience ol parasi t ic

dis. 'ases by combining i t r ,v i th thc idr :a of c l isease-possession:

throrving up wormi means bcing rest()red to hcal th." l ) isc.rse

enrers and lcaves man. ls through a ( lo()r .

A vulgar hielanhr r) l ( l iscases sr i l l fx ists todn\. basc( l r )n thc

tr tent to rvhich srntptoms can - or cannot - be re.rdi ly local-

ized, hence Parkinson's discase is morc ol a discase than thoracic

shingles, rvhich is, in turn, more so th(rn boi ls. Without rv ishing

to detrlct f iom thc gran<lcur of l or.ris lt,rsa'ur's tr:n(.tr, \\.e cnn sav

l2l

\f i thoDt hesitntion that the gcnn theorv ofcontagious disease has

certainlv o$,ed much of its success to the fact that it enrbodies

an ontological tepresentation oIsickness. After all, a germ can

be seen, evcn i f th is reqrr i rcs the comPl icated mediat ion ofa

microscopc, stains and cultures, while lve lvould nevcr be able

to see a miasma or an influencc. To see an entit)/ is already to fbre-

see an action. No one rvil l object to the optimistic charactcr of

the theories of in[ection insofar as their therapeutic application

is concerned. But the discovery of toxins and the recogni t ion

of the specific and individual pathogenic role of ferrains havc

destroyed the beautiftr l sinrpJicitv ofa doctrine uhose scientif ic

veneer fot a long time hid the Persistence ofa reaction to dis-

ease as old as man himself.

lf rve feel thc need to reassurc ourselvcs, it is bccause one

anguish constantly haunts our thoughts; if rve delegate thc tasl

of restoring the diseased orqanism to thc tlesired norm to tcchni-

cai means, either nragical or nratter of [.rct lPo.tit irc], it is because

we cxpect nothing l lood from nacure itsel[.

Bv contr.rst, Crcek rnedicine, in thc Hippocratic u'rit ings and

practices, oflers a conception ol disease which is no longcr onto-

logical , but dynamic, no longer local izat ionist , but total iz ing'

Nature (pfir 'sis), rvithin nran as well as without, is harmony and

equil ibrium. The disturbancc ofthis harmonv, ofthis equil ibrium,

is called "disease." In this case, disease is not someu'here in man,

it is evervrvhere in him; it is the whole man. Extcrnal circum-

stanccs are the occasion but not thc causes. Man's equil ibrium

consists of lbur humors, u hose fluidit,v is perfectlY suited to sus-

tain variations and oscil latiotts and rvhosc qualit ies are paired by

opposi tes (hot/cold, rvet 'd11); the disturbance of these humors

causes disease. But disease is not sirrrply disequil ibrium or discor-

c lancei i t is , perhaps most i t lportant, . rn r : f for t on the part o l

naturc to effect a ne* equil ibritrnt in nran l)iseasc is a gencral-

)22 lr l

jzed rcaction designed to bring about a cure; thc organism devel-

ops a disease in order to qet nell. Thcr.rpv nrust l lrst tolerate and,

if ncccssarv, rcinfbrce these hedonic and spontaneously therapcu-

ric reactions. Medical technique imitntes natural mcdicinal action

(ris medicatrix naturae). To imitate is not merely to copv an appcar-

ance but, also, to mimic a tentlencv and to extend an intimatc

movement. Of course, such a concept ion is also opt imist ic, but

hrre the optimism concerns the lvav o[ nature and not thc cf]cct

of human tcchnique.

\4edical thought has never stopped alternating between these

t\\ 'o representations of diseasc, betrvt'r 'n these tl lo kinds of opti-

mism, alu'avs finding some goo<i reason lbr one or the other atti-

tude in a nervly explained pathogenesis. Deficiencv diseases and

all infectious or parasitic diseases f)vor the ontological theory,

rvhi lc cnclocr ine disturbances and al l d iscascs beginning u, i th

, / rs- support the dynamic or funcr ional thcorv. l louever, these

t\ !o (oncept ions do have one point in common: in rJ iscase, or

bettcr , in the crpr:r ience of being sick, both envis ion a polemical

\ituation - either a b.rrt le benve..n th<: organism and a tbreign sub-

stance, or an intcrnal struggle betrvt.en oppcrsing forces. Disease

diff irs f iom a state of health, the pathological f iom the normal,

as one qual i tv di f fers f rom anot l rer , c i thcr by the presence or

abscnce of a definite principle, or bv an alteration of the total

organism. This heterogcneity of normal and pathological states

persists today in the naturalist conception, rvhich expects l itt lc

from human cfforts to restore the norm, and in rvhich nature wil l

f ind the wavs to\1,ard cure, But it proved diff lcult to maintain the

qualitati\.e modification separaring thc normal f iom the patho-

logical in a conception that allorvs. indeed expects, man to be

able to compel nature anrl bt,nd ir rr-, his nonlrtive desires. Wasn't

it said repeatedly aficr Bacon's time that ()rc govrrns naturc onlyl r r obeving i t? ' Ib govcrn disease nr<'ans to become acquainted

\r. irh its relations rvith thc normal state, \\ hich the l i! ing man -

loving l if 'e - wants to regain. Hence, thc theorctical need, dclayed

l,r ' an abserce of tcchnologv, to establish a scientif ic pathology bv

linking ir trr phvsiologr. Thomas Sydenhanr ( 162,1-1689; thought

that in or( ler to hclp a s ick man, his s ickness had to be del imited

and determined. Therc are diseasc species just as there are animal

or plant species, According ro Svdenham. there iJ an order among

diseases simi lar to the regular i tv Is idore Ceoffroy Saint- [ ] i la i re

found among anomalies. Phil ippe Pinel justif ied all these attempts

at c lassi f icat ion ol d ise.rsc (nosologv) by perfcct ing the genre in

his Nosographie philosophique (1797), rvhich Charles Victor l)arem-

bcrg clescribed as morc the rvork of a naturalist than a clinician.

Mean*'hile, Giovanni Battista,\ ' lorgagni's (1682-1771) creation

cr l a svstcm of pathoiogical anatomv madc i t possiblc to I ink the

lesions of certain organs to groups of stable svmptoms, such that

nosographical c lassi l icat ion fbund a substratum in anatomical

analvsis, But iust as the lbllouers of Will iam Harvcy and Albrccht

von Hallcr "breathcd l ife" into anatomv bv turning ir into phvsi-

ology, so pathology became a natural extension of physiologv.

(Sigerist provides a mastcrful sunrmarv ofthii r:volution of medi-

cal cle.rs,' l J) l he end r<:sult ofthis cvolutionarv process is the fbr-

mation of a theory of the rclations betrvcen the normal and the

pathological, according to rvhich thc pathological phenomcna

lbund in )iving or-qanisnrs arc nothing more than quantitati le vari-

ations, grcater or lesrcr according to corrcsponding physiologi-

cal phenomena. Semant ical lv, the pathological is designatcd as

departing l iom the normal not so much br o- or dls- as bv l,1per-

or 14po-. \\rhile ret.rining the ontological rhcory's soothing con-

f idence in the possibi l i ty of technical conquest of d iscase, th is

approach is lar from considcring health and sickncss as qualita-

t i re l r opposcr l , or ns l i r rces io ined in batt le. Thc need to r t -

cstablish continuity in orcler to gain more knorvledge for more

I2.1 l1t

cf lcct ivc act ion is such that rhe conccpr of d isease rrould f inal l r

vanish. The convict ion that one c. tn scient i [ ical lv rcstorc the

norm is such that, in the end, i r annuls thc pathologicr l . Disease

is n,r krngcr the ot)ject ol anguish fbr th.'healthv m.rn; ir has [rc-

conrc instead thc objcct ofstuclv for the rhcor ist of hcal th. I t is

in pathologr ' , *r i t large, that rve can unravcl thc t , . 'achings of

heal th, r ' . r thcr as Plato sought in the inst i tut ions ol thc State

thc Iarger and more easilv rea<lable equiralent of t lrc .r, irtues and

vices ol t lrc in<lividual sotrl. II6e Nbrmo./ and the Pathological (NP\,

PP. l t ] ] l

1-ht l r l ent i ty of thc Tu,o States

Auguste Comte and the "Broussois Principle"

[127] It u as in 1828 that Auguste Comte took notice of Frangois-

Joseph Victor Broussais's treatise Dc I'ltritation et de la Jolie .di|cl

adopted the principle fbr his o\r\, n usc. Comte credits Broussais.

rathq:r than Xavier Bichat, and before him, Phi l ippe Pinel , r" ' i th

having declared that al l d iseases ackno* ' ledgcd as such are onlY

s\r'r ' lpt()nrs and that disturbances Ol rital ftrnctions coultl not take

placc r ' r ' i thout lcsions in organs, or rather, t issues. But above al l ,

adds Conrte, "never before had anrone conceived the fundamen-

tal relation bet'veen pathology and phvsiologv in so direct and

satisfving a manncr." Broussais described all diseases as consisting

essent ia l ly " in the excess or lack oI crc i tat ion in the var i<rus t is-

sues above or belor',,the degree established as the norm." Thus,

diseascs.rre nrerely the el l ic ts of s i rnple charrges in intensi t \ in

the act ion ol thc st imulants *hich are indispensablc l i r t tn.r in-

taining he.rlth. f NP, pp. a7-a8]

[128] The lbrticth lecture of rhc Cours de philosophie Potit itc -

phi losophical rcf lcct ions on the whole of b io logy - contains

Comte's most complcte text on tlre problem norv bcfbre us. It is

concerned u' i th shou' ing the c l i l l icul t i t 's inherent in thc s implc

cxtension of cxpcr imental meth()( l \ , rvhich havc provecl thcir

)17

rusel lness in the plrysicochcmic'al spherc, to the particular char-

acter ist ics ol the l iv ing:

Any cxperimcnt whatevcr is alt!rys designcrl to uncover thc lalvs by

which each dctermining or modilving influcnce ol a phenomcnon

nflccts its pcrfbrmance, and it gcnerall) consists in introducing a

clear-cut change into each designatecl condition in ordcr to mea-

sure rl irectlv thc corresponding variation ofthe phcnorrenon itself. la

N<xr', in biologv thc variation imposcd on one or scvcral of a Phe-

n()menon's condi t ions of existcnce cnnnot bc random but must

be containc'd vr.ithin ccrtain Iimits compatible w ith the phcnom-

enon's cxistence. Furthermore, the fict of functional consen.tu.t

pr()per to the organism precludes monitoring the rclation, n hich

links a detcrmined clisturbancc to its supposrrl l,r exclusive ef'fects,

r1 ' i th srr f f ic i r . :nt analvt ical prccis ion. But, th inks Comte, i f rvc

reacl i lv admit that the essencc ofexper imentat ion l ies not in the

researcher's artif lcial intervention in the svstem of a phenome-

non u,hich he intcnt ional lv tends to disturb, but rathcr in the

comparison bct*ttn a control phcnomcnon and one altcred rvith

respect to an\' one ol its conditions of existence, it fbllorvs that

discases must be ablc to function lor thc scicntists as sPontane-

()us experimcnts rvhich allou a comparison to be madr: betvvecn

an organism's vari()us abnonral statcs and its normal state.

According to thc cmincntlv philosophical principle w hich w il l scne

lronr no'n on as a dircct, gcncnl basis l irr positivc pathologv and

rvhose dcfinit ive cstablishmcnt \r 'e o$c to thc bold.rnd pcrscvering

gcniLrs ol our l imous lelLrrv cit izcn, Brorrssais, thc pathological sta(c

is not.r t a l l radic.r l lv d i l lcrent i rom the phvsiological statc, s i th

regarcl to rrhich no mattcr hon ont ' looks at i t - i t c i tn ()nlY c()n-

st i lutc a s implc cxtcnsion going more or lcss bevond thc highcr or

Ior.cr l imits ofvari.rt i()n proPcr to elch Phenonlcnon ol thc norlnal

organisnr, rvithout cvcr being ablc to Pr(xlucc rc.rl lv ncrv Phcnom_

cn||1hich \loulcl haYe to a cert.r;n dcgrcc anv ptrrclr phrsiologi-

cal analogucs. l5

Consccluently cverv concePtion of pathologv must be bnsc(l on

pr ior knorvledgc oi the corrcsponding normal statc, but con-

vcrselv the scientif lc studv of pathological cascs ttecomes an indis-

pensable phase in the overal] search firr the la*'s of thc normal

st.rtc. f lrc obsen'ation of pathological c.rses of]ers numerous, gen-

uinc advantages lbr actual cxpcrimental investigation. -l he tran-

sit ion fiom thc normal to thc abnormal is slorver antl more natural

in thc case of i l lness, an( l the return to normal, rvhen i t takr. :s

placc, spontancouslv flrnishes a vcrifving countcrproo{ ln a<ldi-

t ion, as tir as man is concerncd, Pathological investigation is more

fruit l ir l than the ncccssarilv l imitctl experimcntal exploration. Thtr

scient i l lc stut lv of morbid statcs is (ssent ia l lY val id lbr .a l l organ-

isms, even plant l i fe, and is part icular lv sui ted to the most c()m-

plcr an<l therelorc thr.: most dclicate and fiagile plrenomt'na ulrich

cl i rect exper imcntat ion, being t(x) brusqu(r a c l is turbance, uould

tcnd to distort . I lere Comtr ' \ \ 'ns th inking ol v i ta l Phenomcna

related to the higher animals and m;rn, ol thc n(rvous and Ps\-

chic f i rnct ions. Final ly, the stur i l o l anomal i t :s and monstrosi t ics

concr: ivcd.rs both older and less curable i l lncsses than the lunc-

t ional d isturbanccs of vaf ious plant or neuromotor aPParatuses

completes thc studv ofcliscascs: the "teratological .rpproach" (the

stu(lv ol monstcrs) is aclded to thc "pathological approach" in bio-

Iogical invest igat ion. l6

It is appropriate to note, l irst, thc particularlv abstr.rct clualitv

ol th is thesis and tht 'absence througlrout ol anv prccise cxample

ol a mcdical natur( : t ( ) sui tabl l i l lustratc his l i t t ra l exposi t ion.

Since ue cannot rclat( th('s('gt'neral propositions to.rnv examPlt',

126 I2' l

lrc do Dot knorv from rvhat vantagc point Conlte stltes that the

pathological phenomenon alu 'avs has i ts analogue in a physio-

logical phenomenon, ancl that it is nothing radicallv nerv' Horv

is .r sclcrotic artery analog<lus to a normal one, or an isYstolic

heart identical to that ol an athlcte at the hcight ofhis porvers?

Undoubtedlv, wc are meant to understand that thc laws of vital

phenomena are the same for both disease and health' 8ut then

why not sa1-. so and givc cxamples? And even thcn, does this not

imply that analogous effects are determincd in health and disease

bv an.rlogous mechanisms? We should think about this cxample

given bl Sigeristr "During digcstion the number of rvhite blood

cclls increases. The same is true at thc onset ofinfcction Con-

sequent lv th is Phenomcnon is somct imes phvsiological ' some-

times patholoqical, depcnding on 'vhat

cattses it. ' ' l l

Sccond, it should be Pointcd out that dcspite the reciprocal

nature of the clari[ ication achicved through the comparison of the

normal with the path<rlogical and the assimiliarion of thc patho'

logical and the normal, Comte iDsists repeatedly on the neces-

sit.r of determining the normal and its truc l imits o[ variation

first, belorc methodicallv investigating pathological cases Strict)y

spea)<ing, knorvledgc of normal phcnomena, based soleJy on ob-

scr,ration, is both possible and necessarY without knorvledge of

<lisease, particularlv based on experimentation But wc are Pre-

scntecl u'ith a serious g;rp in that Comtc provides no criterion

u'hich would allo*'us to knorv rvhat a normal phenomenon is

We.rre left to conclud<r that on this point he is rcferring to the

usual correspon( l ing concePt, g i ren the fact tbat he uses the

not ions of normal state, physiolr lg ical stat t ' and natural state

intcrchangeablY 2s Better st i l l , rvhen i t comes to def in ing the

linrits of pathological ot. cxpcrimenta! disturbanccs (omP'rtible

\ \ i th the existcnce of organisms, Comtc ident i f ics these l imi ts

u' i th those of a "harmonv of d ist inct inf luences, those cxter ior

I lo Jl l

as r .e l l as inter ior" lq - rv i th the resul t t l rat the concept of the

nonna) or phvsiological, l inallv clarif ied by this concept ol har-

mor_r, amounts to a qualitative and polvvalcnt concePt, sti l l more

.rr ' ' rhet i . and m, ' r . r l rh.rn: t icnt i l ic

As l ir as the assertion of identity of the nornral phenontenon

and the corresponding pathological phenomenon is conccrned,

i t is c<lual ly c lear that Comte's intent ion is to denv thc qual i ta-

tive dil lercncc between thesc two adnrittecl by the vitalists. l-ogi-

cal lv to denv a qual i tat ive di f ference must lead to assert ing a

homogcneity caplble of expression in quantitativc terms. Comtc

is undoubtcdly heading to'r 'arrl this rrhen he dellnes pathologv

as a "simple extension going more or less bcvond the higher or

lou.cr l imits ofvariation proper to each phenomenon ofthe nor-

mal organism." Bur in the cnd i t musr be r t 'cognized thar the

terms urcd hcre, although only vaguelv and looselv quantitativc,

st i l l hale a qual i tat ive r ing to them. fNP, pp. 19-21]

Claude Bernord and Experimental Pathology

[129] In Bernard's work, the rcal ident i tv - should one sav in

mechanisms or symptoms or lroth? - anrl continuitt 'of path<-rlcrgi-

cal phr:nomcna and the corresponding physiological phcnornena

are more a monotonous repet i t ion than a theme. This.rssert ion

is to bc fbund in thc legonr de ph.vsiololTic expirimentale appliqude

a la n(decine (1855), cspecially in the second and trvcntv-sccond

fectures of \bfume Two, antl in the leqons sur la chaleur animale

(1876). We prefirr to choose the lcgons sur le dialt ite et la glrco-

genise onimalc (1877) as the basic t , . ' r r , rvhich, of a i l Bcrnarr l 's

$'orks, can be considered the one espcciallv devotcd to i l lustrat-

ing thc theory, thc one n'hcre clinical and expcrimental facts.rre

prcsented at least as mu< h for thc "mor.al" ol a methodological

anrl philosophical order which can be dran'n lrorn it as for rheir

intr insic phvsiological mcaning.

Bcrnarcl considered mcdicine as thc ' jc icnce ofdiscascs, phJ's-

io logv as the science of l i lc . In the sciences i t is thcorv rvhich

il luminates ancl clominatr:s practice. Rational therapcttt ics can be

sustained onlv bv a scicntif ic pathologv, and a scientif ic pathol-

ogv must bc basecl on phvsiological scitnce. Diabcttrs is one clis-

case rvhich poses problems rvhose solution Proves the preccding

thcsis. "Common scnse sholt s that if rve are thoroughJv acquainted

u ith a phvsiological phcnomenon, rvc should be in a position to

,rccount fbr a l l the disturbanccs to which i t is suscept ib le in the

patho)ogical statc: ph\siology and pathologv arc intcrmingled and

are essenti,rl ly one and thc samc thing."r0 Diabctcs is a clisease that

consists so]elv and ent i re lv in the disorder ol 'a normal fLnct ion.

"Fr'<'rl cl iserse has a corresponding normal l irnction ol u'hich it

is onlv thc ( l is tur l )e(J. exaggcratcd, c l iminishcd or ol>l i teratecl

erprt 'ss ion. l f r re.rre unablc to explain al l mani l i 's tat ions ol d is-

trsc torl.rr, it is bccausc phvsioJogv is not vct sull lcientlv adt'anccd

ancl thcrc ar< st i l l rnanr norm.l l funct ions unknou'n t ( ) us." t l In

this, B(rrrar( l tvas opporc<l to manv physiologists of h is day,.rc-

crrrcling to * hom <lisr:asc rvas an extraphysiokrgic,rl entitv. supcr-

imposcd on the organism. Thc studv ol diabetes no lorrge r .rl lorved

sr.rch rn oPinion.

In cf l i 'c t , d iabrtes is charactcr izcd bv the l i r l lo ' r ' ing svnrPtonrs:

polvtrria. polldipsia, polvplragia, autophagia.rnd glvcosuria. Strictly

speaking, nonc ol these rvmptoms rcprcscnts.r nerv phcnomenon,

unkn()\r 'n to thc normal state, nor is anY il sPolltJne{}us Production

ol naturc. ()n thc cl)ntfar\ ', all of them preexist, savc lor tht' ir inten-

sitr, *hich varies in thc normal st.rte and in rhc discisc(l state l l

Bricfl l , rvt 'knou that Bernarcl's genius l ics in the fact that he

shouecl that thc rugar lbund in an animal otganism is a Product of

this same organisnr and not just something introduccd liom the:

plarr t rvor ld through i ts feecl ing; that b lood normal lv contains

sugar, ancl that urinarv sugar is a product gcncrallv elimin.rtcd bv

thc kjdncvs *lrcn the rate of glvcer-nja reaches a ccrtain thresh'

old. In other rvords, g lvcemia is J c()nstant plrenomt'non inde-

penclcnt of fbod intake to such an cxtent that i t is thc absence o1'

bloo<l sugar that is abnormal, and glvcosur ia is thr consequence

of glvcemia u hich has r isen abovt: a ccrt . i in quant i tv, scrving as a

threshold. In a diabetic, glvcemia is not in itsell a pathological phc-

nomeDon - it is so onll in terms ol' i ts quantitv; in itsclf, glvcemia

is a "norrnal and constant phenomcnon in a healthy or-gani-sm."Il

There is onlv one glvccmia, i t i \ c()Ds1.rnt , pcrmnnenr, borh r l r r r ing

, l j . rbt tes anr l outs i<lc that morbir l statc. Onl . ' i t has r lc3rccs: g l rc,-

mir lrcl,u 3 to 4 pcrccnt clocs not lc.rd toglr'cosuril; lrrrr abi>rc t[rr

l r . ' rc l ghcosur ia rcsul ts. . . . l t is i rnpossible t ( ) pcrccivr lhc o.1r) ! i r i r )n

lr, irn thc nrrrrr.rl t i ' the p.rthologic.rl st.rt( , .rn(l nr) pr,)blcrn sh'r$ \ lx r

tcr th.r ' ) L l i i l )etrs thc int imalc l i rs ion rr l phvsiologr , rnr l p,r th,r logr.Jr

INP, pp. ] (J- l2 l

I l3t ] ] Clau<l t ' Bcrnard, unl ikc Broussais anr l Corrrre, suppotted

hir gencral pr inciplc ofpathologv u i th ver i l i . rh l t ' i l rgunrents!

protrrcols ol cxper i rnrnts and, above al l , mcthods ldr r l t r . rnt i f r -

ing phvsiological concepts. Glvcogenesis, g lvccnr ia, g l lcosut ia.

combustion of f irod, heat l iom v.rsocli latation arc not qu.rl it.rt ir<conccpts but rhc summarics ol resul ts obtaincr l in terms oI nr t a-

surement. From herc on \ \ 'e kn() \ \ 'cxact lv rv]rat is mcant whcn i tis claimccl that disc.rsc is the exaggeratecl or rl iminislrccl expres-

si(nr ol .r normal f inction. Or:rt least uc havc the rneans to knorr,i t , fbr in spi te of Bernard's undcniable progrcss in logical precis ion, h is thought is not ent i rc lv l ret f r -om ambigtr i tv.

First of all, r,r, ith Bcrnard as u ith Bichat, Broussais.rnd Conrte,thcrc is a dccept ivc mingl ing ol quant i tat ivc and clual i tat ive con-

l l l l l l

cepts in the qivcn def in i t ion of pathological Phcnomcna. Sonle-

t imes the pathological state is " the disturbancc ol a normal

mechanism consist ing iD.r quarr t i tat ive vnr iat ion, an cxaggera-

t ion or at tenuat ion of normal phenomena," l5 somct imes the

diseased state is made up of "the exaggcration, disproportion,

discordancc of normal phenomena."16 Who doesn't see that the

term "ex.rqqer-,rt ion" has a distincrly quantitativc scnsc in thc first

definit ion and a rather qualitative onc in tht' second. I)id l lernard

believe that he u'as cradic'rt ing the qualitative value of the term

"pathological" bl substituting for it the terms disturbance, dis-

proport ion. d iscordancel

This ambiguity is ccrrainll instructivc in that it rcvcals that rhe

problem itself persists at the heart of thc sr. ' lution presuntably

givcn to it. And the problem is the fbllor"' ing: Is the concept of

disease a concept ofan objective reality accessible to quantitative

scientif ic knorvledge? Is the difference in value. *'hich thc l it ' ing

being establishcs between his normal l i fe and his pathological l i fe.

an i l lusorr appearance th.lt the scientist hrs the )egitimate obJiga-

tion to deny? Ifthis annulJing ofa qualitative contrast is theoreti-

cal ly possible, i t is c lear that i t is legi t imate: i f i t is not possible,

thc quest ion of i ts lcgi t imacv is superf luous. INP, pp ]5-36]

[l3l] B-v rvav of summarv, in the medical dornain, Claude []er-

nard, u ith thc authoritY of-evtry innovator * ho proves movenlent

by marching, fbrmulated thc profound necd ofan era that believed

in the omnipotence of a technology founded on science, and

rvhich f 'elt comfbrtable in l i f 'e in spite, or perhaps bccausc ol,

romantic l.rmentations. An art of l iving - as nledicine is in th!

full sense of the word - inrplies a science of l i l 'e. Elficient thera-

peutics .rssumes experimenlal Pathology, $ hich in turn cannot be

scparatcd fiom physiology. "Phvsiology and pathologv are iden-

tical, onr and thc samc thing." But must it be declucecl f iom this,

r l i th brutal s impl ic i tv, that l i le is the same in heal th and disease,

I t4 l l5

that it learns nothing in disease and through it? The science of

opposites is one, said Arisrotle' Nlrrst it be concludtd l ionr this

th,rt opPosites are not opposites? That the science ol l i f 'e should

talc so-called normal and so-called pathological phenomcna as

objects of the same thcorctical importance, susccptible of reciP-

roc.rl clarif ication in ordcr to make itself f i t to mcet the totalitv

of the vicissitudes of l i tc in all i ts rsPects, is more urgent than

lcgi t imate. This does not mean that pathologv is nothing othcr

thrn phvsiology, and sti l l less that diseasc, as it relates to the nor-

mal state, represents only an incrcase or a reduction. It is undcr-

sroo(l that medicinc needs an objectivc Pathology, but research

rvhich causes i ts object to vanish is nor objcct i "e. One can denv

thrr r l iseasc is a k ind ofv io lat ion ol ' the organism and consider i t

as Jn event that tht' organism creates through some trick of its

permancnt functions, $'ithout denving that the trick is nelv. An

organism's bchavior c.rn be in continuitv lvith prcvious behaviors

and sti l l be another bchavior. The progressiveness oIan .rdvent

does not exclude tht originality of .rn evtnt. The lact that a path-

ological symptom. consic lered bv i tsel l , expresses the hYperac-

tivitv of a function *'hosc product is exactly identical rvith thc

prodLrct oIthe same finction in so-called nonnal conditir lns, cloes

not nrcan that an org.rnic disturbancc, conceived as anothcr asPect

ol-thc u hole ol-lunctional totalit t anrl not as a suntntary ol s,r mp-

tonrs. is not a nerv modc ofbehavior' lor the organism relative to

i ts cnvironment.

In thc final analysis, *,ould it not be appropriatc to sa) that

the p.r thological can bc'dist inguirhed as such, that i r , . ls an al ter-

atir-rn ol thc nornral statt, onlv at thc lcvcl ol organic totalitv, and

t hen i t concerns t rnn, at the level o l conscious indiv idual total-

i t1, uhere disease btcomcs a k ind oIevi l? To be sick mcans that

a man real lv I ivcs another l i fc , cvcn in the biological rcnse ol the

uord. [NP, pp. 86-88]

?z

:;i==

zi:

i:;ti::z, i=

, i=z

=

-=t:i

a i=

: i t :==

1i=

+-i:+

=?

;z

ii=i--=

!;,=i|i+

;:t: =

i::::=:

1i=

;+

ti=:i , t:ii: i:=

.?i =

11

=*i=

rit+ 1-=

i=, :7

, i :

i ; ; : z ;i;?

=i

i ; ii=

:i :;1

:riil;Z?

i==

:2' ;=

; : t : i

E=

i! a

z:-=

:=i i;:Z

i:;li z

i+ ^

; t i Z

a = ?

, I -o

- | > z

=:

:: : t ?i-i

:i=,'-' ;j

:-i z ::+

5:.::L

l+:;:'-!

cc.)

salvation and sickness rrith sin; and in his account of I i eorja mctlita

rero Stahl himsclf, dcspite his intellectual vigor, availcrJ himself more

than hc nccded to of the bel ief in or ig inal s in and the f i l l o[man.]7

Morc than he nccded to! says thc author, qui te thc admirer of

Broussais, sworn enemy at the da$.n of the ninetecnth century

ofall meclical ontologv. The denial o[an ontological conception

of disease, a negativc corollary of thc assertion of a quantitative

idcntitv betrveen thc normal and thc pathological, is f irst, per-

haps, the deeper reflsal to confirm evil, It certainly cannot be

denied that a scientif ic therapeutics is superior to a magical or

mystical one. It is ccrtain that knou'ledge is better than ignorance

rvhen action is rcquired, and in this sense the value ofthe phi-

losophv of the Enlightcnment and of positivism, even scienristic,

is indisputable. It would not be a question of exempting doctors

from the study ofphysiology and pharrnacology, lt is very impor-

tant not to identify discase rvith either sin or the devil. But it does

not fbllou' from the fict that evil is not a being that it is a con-

cept devoid ofmeaning; it does not follo*,that there are no neg-

ativc values, even among vital valucs; it does not fbllou'that the

pathological statc is essentiallv nothing othcr than the normal

state. l,\?, pp. 103-1041

[133] It is true that in medicine the normal state ofthe human

body is the state one \\.ants to recstablish. But is it because ther-

apeutics aims at this state as a good goal to obtain that it is called

normal, or is it because the interested party, that is, the sick man,

considers it normal that thcrapeutics aims at it? We hold the scc-

ond statement to be truc. We think that mcdicine exists as the

art of l i fe because the l iving human being himself calls ccrtain

dreaded states or behaviors pathological (hence requiring avoi<i-

ance or correction) relative to the dvnamic polaritv ofl i[e, in thc

fbrm of a negative value. We think that in doing this the l iving

l ldl l9

FE PATtsOLOG CAL

human being, in a more or less lucid wayr extcnds a spontaneous

eflbrt, peculiar to l i f 'e, to struggle against that which obstructs

i ts preservat ion and development takcn as norms. ' fhe entrv in

rh. Iorabulaire phi lotophiquc 5rcm\ to r \ \ume rh.r t .a l r r , ,c.rn h.

at t r ibuted to a biological f ic t onlv bv, ,h im *.ho speaks," obvi-

ouslv a man, We, on the other hancl, think thar thc fact that al iv ing man reacts to a Iesion, infect ion, Iunct ional anarchv bvmeans ofa disease expresses the lundamcntal f;ct th.rt l i le is nor

indif ' ferent to the condirions in \r,hich it is possible, rhar l i fe is

polar i tv and thereby even an unconscious posi t ion of value; inshort, l i fe is in fact a normative activity. Nb/mdtir", in philoso,phl, means evcrv judgment u'hich evaluates or qualif ies a fict inrelat ion to a norm, but th is mode of judgment is essent ia l lv sub_ordinatc to that which establishes norms. Normarive, in the fLllestsense of the word, is that * h ich cstabl ishes norms. And i t is inthis sense that rve plan to talk about biological normarivitv. \A/cthink that wc are as carefirl as anyone as f)r as the tcndencv tofi l l into anthropomorphism is concerned. We do not ascribe ahuman content to vital norms but rve do ask ourselves holv nor_mat iv i tv essent ia l to human consciousncss rvould be cxplained i fit dicl not in somc n,ay cxist in embrvo in l if i . Wc ask ourselvcshou a human nccd fbr therapeut ics rvould havc engcndered ameri ic ine rvhich is increasingly c la i rvovant n, i th regard to thecondi t ions of d isease i l l i fe 's strugglc against thc innumcrablcdangers threatening it wcre not a permanent and cssential vitalnecd. From the sociological point of viel., i t can bc shou.n thattherapeutics .w,as first a religious, magical activitv, but this doesnot negate the fact that therapeutic neecl is a vital nccd, u,hich,cven in lo.rver l iving organisms (rvith respect to vertcbrate struc-turc) arouses react ions of hcdonic value or sel f ' -hcal ing or sel f :restorjng behaviors. INP, pp. 126_27]

PotholoBy os the Bdsis ol Phyiology

[134] Conversch, the theorv in quest icrn c()nvevs the ht tnr . rn ist

convict i ( )n rhat man's act ion on his environntent and on himscl f

can and must becomc completcll one rvith his knorvlc<lge ol thc

environnont ancl man; i t must be normal l r onlv thc appl icat ion

rr f a previ<uslv inst i tutc( l sciencc. I ool ing,r t the Lcqons;ur lc

/i,70&c it is obvious th.rt ifone asselts the real homogeneirl an<l

cont inui t \ o l the norm.r l and the pathological i t is in order t<r

establ ish a phvsiological science that rvould govcrn therapcut ic

activitv b\ means oftlre intt 'rmediary of pathologv. t lere thc f,rct

that human consciousncss experienccs occasions ol nerv grorr th

an<l t l rccrrct ical progress in i ts r lom.r in of nontheorct ical . pr . rg-

mat ic an( l technical act i r i t i is not appreci . r tcd. To denv technol-

ogv a value al l i ts ow n oursidc of the knorr ledge i t succeeds in

incorporat ing is to rendcr unintel l ig ib le thc i r rcgular u,ay of the

ptogress of knowledge and to miss that ovcrtaking of scicncc bv

the po\\ 'cr that the posi t iv ists have so of icn st . r ted whi lc thev

dcplort 'd i t . I l technol t rgv 's rashncss, unnr indtul of the obst.rc les

to be en<ountered, ( l i ( l not constant lv anr ic ipate the prut lence

of cor l i l ied kno* lcdge, t l re number of scicnt i l ' ic problcms to

resolve, r r l r ich arc surpr isr , ; af ter having l rct 'n setbacks, r lould

be l i r l i 'u t r . l lere is the t ruth that rcnrr ins in empir ic ism, the

phi losophr of intc l lcctu.r l nd\cnture, $ 'h ich rn exper inrcntal

metho<1, rather too tcml l ted (bv react ion) t<-r rat ional ize i tsel f ,

f i i lecl to rccognize. [ . . . ]

I lcrc again, $'c owe to rhc chance of bibliographical rcsearch

t l re intc l lcctu.r l p leasure of stat ing once nror( ' that the most

apparent lY paradoxical rhcres also havc thci t t radi t ion $ 'h ich un-

doubtedll cxpresses thcir permancnt )ogical necessitv. Just u hen

Broussais rvas lending his author i ty to t l re thcory uhich cstab-

lishecl phvsi,rlogical medicine, this,i.rme theon rvas provoking the

object ions ol an obscrrrr : phrsic ian, one Dr. Victor Prus, u ho srs

rovarrl t 'd bv the Soci i ' t i ' de Nl6decine du Gar<l in l82l lbl a report

enfered in a conrp. t t i t ion ! r 'hosc object uas the Prccis<.<l( f in i -

t ion of thc tcrms "phlegmasia" and " i r r i tat ion" ancl thcir impor,

tancc lor practical nrcci icinc. Aftcr having chal lcngt '<l the idca that

phvsiologv bv i tscl l lorms t lre natural f i rundation of medicine; that

i t r lonr. ' can cver cstabl ish the kno* )erlgc of svmptoms. their rt , la

t ionships and thcir value; rhar p.rrhologi(al anaronl ,can ever b<

t l rduced l iom thc knorvledge of normal phcnomen.r ; rhat the

plognosis of cl iseascs derivcs f iom the knorvlcdgc ot phvsiologi

c.r l larvs, the author adds:

l l r lc *ant ro r \hn(st thr r l r rest ion <l ta l t s i th in rhi : i ar t ic l r : w.e

,rould h.rve to shc,s th.rt phlsio/o11r. f<tr fron bctno tht lounlat ion ol

pathologr, nukl onlr drisc in opposit ion r lr i l . l r is thr()ugh rhc ch.rngcs

l hich the r l isease ol an org.rn and somctimes rhc completc suspcn-

siDn ol i ts . rct i r i l \ t , rDsmit t ( ) i rs lunct ions that *c Ic l rn thc organ's

u.e;rnrJ jmprrrrrncc. . . . l lcncc.rn t rostosj , ; , br conrpn'rs ing anr l p;rr-

. rhzing the opr ic ncrrc, thc brachi . r l nr . rvt 's , anr i thc spin.r l corr1,

rhorr s us thr ' i r ustr.r l ( lcst ination. I l roussonnct Lrst his mr'morr. of sub,

stant i lc sords; at h is dcath an ab<.r :ss sar l i rund in thc.rntcr ior part

ol h is brain.rncl , rnc was Ier l ro l rc l ioc that thar is thc centt , r ior the

tncnrort o l name,, . . . . lhus p.rrholoqr ' . . r ic lccl l l ; r . r rhol , rg i ra l lnat

onrr , has createt l phrr io logr: cvcrr t l .n parholosl t l , , r rs rrp phrsiol ,

c,r lv 's l i rrrner errols and air ls i tr progrcrr. l8

INP. PP. 10.+-t07]

i l l i ] ' l hcrcaresonr( th inkers uhosr horror ol l inal isnt lc . rds

thcnr to reject cvcrr the [ ) l rwini in ic lea ol sel t ,ct ion Lrt thc tnvi-

r(Jrrmcnt and struggle lbr c\ istence [recatrse of bot l l the terDt"select ion," obviouslr of human .rncl tcchnological j r ) rport , in( lthe j< lea ofaclvantage, uhich comes jnto t l re exl t l , tnat ion of themcch.rDism of natural sr ' lcc. t ion. lht r point ( ) l r thnr nr()st l i \ jn{

l.+o I '1r

bcings arc kil led bv thc enrironnrent Iong before the inequalit ies

ther can produce even have a chance to be ol use to tlrem because

it kil ls above all sprouts, embrvos or thc young. Bttt as Gcorges

'leissier has observed, the fact that many organisms die bcfbre

their inequalit ies serve them does not mean that the Presentation

ol' incqualit ies is biologicallv indifferent.le This is precisely the

one fact rve ask to be grantt 'd. There is no biological indiflerence,

and conscquentlv ruc can spcal of biological normativitY There

are hcalthy biological nonrrs .rnd there are pathological norms,

and rhe second are not the same as the first.

We did not refer to the theory of natural selection uninten-

tionallv. We want to dra$'attcntion to the fact that \rhat is true

of the expression "natural sclcction" is also tnte of the old cxpres-

sion vis medicdtrix nsturoe. Selection and medicine are biological

tcchniques practiced de)iberately and more or less rationally by

nran. \\rhen ue speak of natural se]ection or natural medicinal

. rct iv i tv we are v ict i t t ts of rvhat l lenr i Bergson cal ls the " i l l r r -

sion oI retroactivity" if rve imaginc that vital prehuman activitY

pursues goals and ut i l izes mcans comparable (o rhose of mcn.

But i t is one thing to th ink that natural select ion rvould ut i l ize

anvthing that resembles pedigrees, and vis medicorrir, cupping

glasses and another to think that human technique extends vital

inrpulses, at rvhose service i t t r ies to Place svsten' tat ic knowl-

edgc rvhich rvould deliver thenr from much of l i fe's costly trial

and error.

The expressions "natural select ion" and "natutal medicinal

activity" have one dra*track in that the-\ seem to sct vital tech-

niques rvithin the framer.r'ork of human tcchniques whe n it is the

opposite that seems true. All human technique, including that

of l i [e, is set wi th in l i fe, that is , wi th in an act iv i ty ol informat ion

and assimi lat ion of mater ia l , I t is not because humrn tcchnique

is nornrative that vital technique is judged such by comparison.

t42 i+ I

Because I i fe is acr iv i rv of in lbrmat ion and assinr i lat ion. i t is tht '

ro<-, t ot . r l l tcchnical act iv i ty. In short , rve speak ofnatural rnedi-

c ine in qui te a retroact ive and, in on<- rcnsc, mistakcn rvav, but

even if q'e were to assume that rve h.rve no right to speak of it,

\rc arc sti l l free to think that no l iving being would have cvrr

doeloped medical technique i f the l i l 'e rv i th in him - as rv i th in

evcrv l iving thing - were indiflerent ro thc conditions it met rvirh.

if I i fe were not a form of reactivity poJarizcd to the variations ol'

the en\ i ronnreDt in uhich i r develops. This uas seen vcrv r l .c l l

bv Ern i le C Lry!not:

It is r 1.rcr that the organism has an .rggrcgatc of propcrties rrhich

bclong to i t a lone, thanks to which i t wirhsrands rnul t ip lc dcstruc-

tivc forcf\. Without therc delcnsive rrncrions, l i fe rvould be rapidlr

r :xt inguishcd. . . . Thc l iv ing being is rblc to I ind instantaneouslr , th l

r t , , rct ion shjch is useful v is- i - r ' is sul . l r tanccs wi th rrhich nei thcr i t

nor i ts I ind has erer h.rd c,rntact . Thc rrrganisnr is an inconrparabh

chcnrirr- lt ir thc first among phlsici.rnr. [-hc 1]uctuations ol thc cnvi,

ronnrcnt <rrc almost alrravs a mcntce to its existencc. [. . .] The liv-

ing beinq cotr ld not survive i l i t d i ( l nor posscss ccrtain essenr i t l

propcrties. l ivcn injury rvould be l ital i l t issucs rvcrc incapaLrlc ol

lbrming sc.rrs and blo<xl incapable ol cLrtt ing.r0

Br rvav , r l sunrmarv, we think i r rer t instrrrct ive to consider

the mtaning that the rvord "normal" assrrnres in mcdic inc. and thc

lacr th.rt th< conceptrs ambiguirr. pointed out bv Andre Lrl.rnde,is great l r c lar i f ied by th is, \ \ ' i th a <1uire gencral s igni f icance lor

the problcnt of thc normal. I t is l i lc i rscl f and not medical judq,

ment that n)akcs the biological normal a conccpt ofvaluc and noti l conccpt ofstat ist ical real i tv. For rhc phvsic ian, l i f i ' is not anobiect but, r , t ther, n polar ize( l act iv i t \ tvhose spontant,ous ef l l r tof clck nsr: ancl stnrggle against all t lrat is oi ncgative value is rx,

tendrd bv nrcdic ine bv br inging to bcar the relat ivc but indispcn-

srble l ight o l htrnrrn sci tnce. INP, pp. 129-31]

Nature ls the End Point of o Teleologicol Process

Il]61 ln u'rit ing tlre,lttro./ucrion A I ' i tude de la midecine cxpiri-

mcntclc, Claurlc Bernard set out to asscrt not onlY that efl icacious

action is thc sarne as rcicnce, but also, and analogously, that sci-

ence is idcntical lr ith the cliscovcry of the laws of phenomena.

On this point his agrccment u'ith Comte is total. What Comtc

in his phi losophical b io logv cal ls the doctr inc of the condi t ions

of cxistence, Bernart l c.r l ls "dctcrminism." I Ic f lat ters himscl f

rv i th having been tht f i rst to introducc that term into scient i f ic

French. "l beliere I rrn rhc Iirst to havc introduced this rvord to

scicnct', but it has bc.'n used bl philosophers in another sense.

It rvil l be use[ul to <leternrine rhc meaning ofthis u'orcl in a book

rvhich I plan to r\rite: I)u tl i tcrninismc tlans les rcicnccs. Thir rvil l

amount to a second ttl i t ion ol nN Introduction i la midecinc cx-

Virinttntolc.")t lt js lr ith in tht univc rsal laliditv of thc detennin-

ist posrulate . 'h ich is asscrtcr l bv the pr inciplc "physiologv antJ

patho)ogv l re onc anr l the san)e th ing." At the vcrv t ime thJt

pathologt uas saddlcr l u i th prescient i f ic concePts, there rvas a

phvsical chenric,rJ phvsiologr rvhich met thc dcnrands ofscientif lc

knorr' lcdgc, that is, a physiologv ofquantitativc lau's verif ied by

expcrimentation. Llndtrstandably, carlY-nincteenth-centurv Phv-

sicians, iustif iably ca!er lbr an cflcctive, rational Patholog), saw

in phvsiologv the prospective model rvhich came closcst to their

icfeal. "scicnce rcjccts the indctermindte, and in meclicine, rvhen

opinions arc bascd on medical palpation, insPiration, or a more

or less lague intuit ion about things, r ', 'e are outsidc of science anrl

arc givcn the example of this medicinc of fantasy, capablc ol pre-

senting the gravcrt pr,-t i ls as ir dclivers the hcalth and Iives of sick

men to th( rT hims of . rn inspired iqnoramus." l l But just becaus<,

1.1+ l l t

o l the nvo - physiologv and pathoJogr - onlv the l i rst involrecl

lau's and postulatcd the deternr in isnr ol i ts object , i t \ \as not ncc-

essarv to conclude that, g ivcD thc legi t imare dcsirc lbr a rat ional

pathologv, thc larvs and cleterminisnr of pathological facts arc thc

same larvs and determinism ol physiologit al lacts. \Vc knou' the

rnteccdents ofthis point of doctrine l iorn l lcrnard hirnself. In the

lccture devoted to the l ifb ancl u.orks of Fr,rngois N'lagendie at the

bt'ginning of the legons sur 1cr substances to\iques ct m;dicame ntcuscs

( l l i57), Bernard te l ls us that thc tcachcr u hose chair hc occupies

anci r 'hosc tcaching he continues "(lrc\\ (he feeling of rc.rl sci-

cncc" lrom thc i l lustrious [ ' ierrc-Simon Laplace. Wc knou tlrat

I-aplace had been Antoine-l-aurcnt Lavoisio-'s coll l trorator in the

research on animaJ respirat ion ancl animal hcat, rhc f i rst br i l l iant

success in research on the larvs ol bi<-rlogical phenonrt na lbllou,-

ing the cxpcrimental ancl measuring methods endorsed lrv phys-

icr arrl chemistrv. As a rcsult ot this rvork, l .rpl.rcc had ret.rinetl

a c l isr inct t . rste lbr phvsi<r lo{ :v and he supportrr l 1\ lagcnr l i t . l l

Laplacr ncvcr used the temr "r lcte rnr in jsn." he is onc ol i ts spir-

i tual l . r thers and, at least in Francc,, tD aut l ior i l r t i \e and author-

izcd lathcr of the doctr inc dcsi [natecl br thr tcrm. I - r r r Laplace,

detcnninism is not a methodological r t 'c lu i r tmcnt, n normat ive

research postulate sufl icicntly l lexiblc t, ' prcjudice in.rnv rvav th(:

Iorm ofthc resul ts ro r , r 'h ich i t l r :ads: i t is re,r l i rv i tsel l , conrplctc,

cast nc rdr iefur in the l rantcwork of Ne\r t ( )Dian and Laplacian

mechanics. Determinism can bc conceivecl as being open to inccs-

sant corrcct ions ol thc fbrmulac of laus an<i thc concepts thcvl ink togethcr, or as being clorcr/ on i ts ou n . rssumed dcl in i t ive

content. I -aplace construct td the theorv <rf t krsecl determinisnr.

Clrrrd* B, rnrrr l d i , l nor , onr, iv . o l i r in rn\ orhr.r r r , r r . . rn, l r l r i *is un<loubtedlv uhv hc c l id not bel ievc fh.rr the col l . rborat ion o1'pathologv and phvsiologv could lead t<) n pro{rc\\ivc lecti l icationofphvsioJogical conccprs. I t i5 appr( ,pr inte hr.rc ro t rc.r l l { l l iecl

North Whitehcad's dictumi "Every special sciencc has to assume

results from other sciences. For examplc, biology presupposes

physics. l t wi l l usual ly be the case that these loans real ly belong

to thc state of science thirty or forty years earl ier. The presup-

posit ions of the physics of my boyhood are today pctwerful in{ lu-

enccs in the mental i tv ofphysiologists.4r lNP, PP. 107-1091

113?] The dynamic polar i tv of l i fe and the normat iv i tY i t ex-

presses account lor an epistemological l ict of whose important

signif icance Xavier Bichat rvas ful ly aware. Biological Pathology

exists but rherc is no physical or chcmica) or mechanical pathologyr

Thcrc are t 'vc,

things in thc phcnomena ol l i le: ( l) the state ofhealth;

(2) thc st i tc ol d isease, and l iom thcse two dist inct scienccs dtr ive:

physiologv, which conccrns i tself with the phcnomena of thc l i rst

statc, prrhology, with thosc of the second. The historr ol Phenom-

ena in rvhich r i t . r l l i rces have their natural l i rm l tads us, consc-

quently, to rhe history of phenomtn.r rvhert ' thtst l i rrccs art changerl.

Ncrrv, in thc phvsical sciences onlr rhe f irsr historv exists, ntver the

sccond. Phvsiologv is ro thc movernent ol l iv ing bodies rr hat .rsrron_

omv, dvn.rmics, hrdraul ics, hydrostat ics and so fbrrh are to inerr

()nes: thcsr l .rst h.rvc no sciencc at al l rhat corrcsponds to thtm as

parhologv corrcsponrls to thc [ irsr. For thc s:rnle reason, rhe tt 'holc

idea oI nrcdic.rt ion is dist.rsrelul to thc PhYlical scicnces. Anr mtdi_

cat ion aims.rr r (stor ing certain propcrt ier ro thcir n i rural t !Pc: . rs

phvsical propcrt ies never lose this tvpc, thev do not netd to bc

restorcd to i t . Norhing in the physic.r l sciences corrcsponds ro what

is therapeutics in the phlsiological scitnces-rr

I t is clear f iom this text that natural tvPe rrrtrst be takcn in the

sense of normal type. For Bichat, the natural is not the et ' f(ct o[

a determinism, but the term of a f inal i ty. And rve knorv *el l

everything that can be lound r.r ' rong in such a tcxt l iom the vierv-

146 147

point of a nrcclranjst or materialist biologv. One might sav that

long ago Ar istot le bel ievcd in a pathological mcchanics, s ince hc

admit ted t r .o k inds ofmorements: natural movements, through

rvhich .r bodv legains its proper place u'hcre it thrives at rest, as

J stone goes dorvn to the ground. and f i re, up to thc sky; and

' io lent movemcnts, bv uhich a bodv is pushed l rom i ts proper

place, as ' r 'hen

a stone is throun in t l tc a i r . I r can bc said thar,

rl i th G.rl i leo and I)escartcs, progress in Inorvledge of the phvsi-

cal t,torld consisted in consideling all rnovenlents as natural, that

is, as conforming to thc laws of narure. rnd that l ikervise prog-

rL'ss in triological knoru]edge consisted in unilving the larvs ofnat-

rrnl l i le and patholoqic. l l i fe. l t is prccisclv th is uni l lcat ion that

Augustt 'Comte dreanred ol and Cl.rude Bernald l lattcrr:d hinrsell

rvith having acconrpJishcd. as was seen al)ore. To tlre reserrations

that I le l t obl iged to sct for th at rhr t t inrc, Jr : r me add this. ln

cstabl ishing the science ol movcment on the pr inciplc of inert ia,

nrodern nrechanics in ef fect marle thc dist inct ion betuet 'n natu-

r . r l . rnd v io lent nlovenrcnts.rbsurd, as inert ia is preciselv an inr l i f -

lerencc rv i rh respect to direct ions ancl var iat ions in nrorement.

L. i fc is far removcd from such an indi f lerence to the condi t ions

rvhich are made lbr i t ; l i fc i5 polar i tv. The simplcsr biological

nutr i t ive system crIassimi lat ion and excret ion cxpresses a polar,

itv. When the rvastes <-rI digestion are n<r longer excreted bv the

organirm an<l congest or poi5()n the internal environmcnt. chis is

al l indee<l according to law (phvsical , chemical and so on), but

none o1 this fo l lorvs the norm, u 'h ich is rhe act i r i tv o1 thc organ-

ism i tsel f . This is the s imple fact that I u 'ant to point out whcnrve speak ofbiological normat iv i t r . INP, pp. 127-28]

The Normal ond the Pothologicol os Quolitotive Contrqst

I l j8 l Final ly, as a resul t of the determinist posrulnte, i t is thereduct ion oI qual i tv to quant i tv rvhich is impl ied bv thc essent ia l

ident i t r o l phrsiologl and pl thologl . l i r redutc the di f l t ' rencc

betlvcen r hc.rlthv man .rnd a <liabetic to a quantitative dil lcr.encc

ofthe anrount ofglucose rr i th in the bodr, to dclegatc thc task

of distinguishing one * ho is diabetic frorn onc rvho is not to a

rcnal thrcshold conceived simplv as a (luanlitative dif lcrcnce of

levcl , means obeving the spi l i t , r f the phrsical scicnces rvhich, in

iruttrcssing phcn,rmen.r u ith laus, can erpl.rin theni onlt ' in temrs

of thcir recluction to a conlmon mcasure. ln order to introduce

terms into rhe relationship:, of compositiott and depcndence, thc

homogeneitv of thesc terms should be obtained f i rst . As Ent i lc

Meyerson l-rrs shorvn, the human spirit attained knou'ledgc bl

ident i t i ing rcal i t l and qu.rnt i t \ . But i t shou]d be remcmbered

that, though rc icnt i f ic knorr ledgc inval idatcs qual i t ies, u hich i t

makes appcar i l lusorv, fbr all that, it does not annul thcm. Quan-

t i tv is qual i tv denicd, but not qual i ty suppressed. The qual i tat ive

varietv of simplc l ights, perccivecl as colors br the human cvc, is

reduced bv scieDcc tr) the qunntitatire dil l i 'rence ofrvavelengths,

but the qual i tat ive var ictv st i l l pcrsists in thc form ofquant i tat ive

diflcrences in the calculation oflavelcngths. cgcl maintains that

bv its gros th or diminution, quantitv changcs into rluality. This

rvould bc pert'ectl l inconceivablc if a relation to qualit\, did Dot

st i l l pcrsisr in thc negared qual i tv rvhich is cal led c luant i ty.r5

From rhis point of v icrr ' , i t is completelv i l legi t imate to main-

tain that thc pathological state is rcallv and simplv a grear('r or

lesscr variation of the phvsiological statc. I: i ther this phvsiologi-

cal state is conceivcd as har ing one qualitv and value lor the l iv-

ing man, and so it is absurd to e)itcnd that ralue. identical ro itsell '

in i ts vrr iat ions, to a stntc cal led pathological rvhosc value and

quantitv are to bc dif lertntiated fiom and essentiallv contr.rsted

rvi th the l i rst . Or u hat is understood as the phvsiological state is

a s imple sunmarv ofquant i t ies, rv i thout biological valuc, a s im-

p]e f :ct or svstem ofphvsic.r l and chcmical f . rcts, but as th is state

HE PATIlOLOC CAL

hrs no r i ta l qual i tv, i r cannot bc cal led he.r l thv or normal or phvs-io logical . Nolnral an<l pathologic.r l have no meaning on a scale

lr here the biologic.r l object is rcduced to col lo idal equi l ibr ia andionizcd solut ions. In studving a statc that he descr ibes.rs phvsio,

logic.r l , the physiologist r lual i l ics i t as such, cven unconsciouslv;

hc considers th is srate is posi t ivelv qual i f icd bv and lor thr : l iv-

ing being. Norr . rh is qual i l - ied phls io logical statc is nrr t . ar such,* 'har is extended, idcnt ical lv to i tscl f , ro anothcr sr . r te capable

ol assuming, inexpl icablv, the qual i tv of morbidi tv.() f cotrrse, th is is not to sav that an analvsis ol thc condi t ions

or products ofpathological lunct ions ui l l not g ivc rhe chernistor phrsiologist numeric.rl results conrparablc to those obt.rincd

in a rv.tr- consistent rrith thc tcrms ol'the samc analvscs concern-ing the corresponding, so-cal led phvsiological f i rnct i<rns. But i t

is arguable rvhethcr thc terms "morc" and ,, less," oncc thcv enterr l r , rh l jn i t ion ol thr P,rrh, , l t rAir . r l . r r r r lu,rnLir . r r i r r r . r r i . l ion, , l r l r ,normrl , havc a purcl l quant i tat ivr meaning. Also argLrable is thcloqic.r l coherencc tr f Bernard's pr int . ip le: , ,The disturbance ol anortnl l mech.rnism. ( r 'n\ i \ r in l l in a r l r r . r r r r i r . r r i rc rJr iJt ion, , rn r . \J!-

gcrat ion, or an at tenuat ion, const i tutes thc pathological stat t , . ", \s has be,. :n pointe( l ( )ut in connect ion u. i th Frangois,JoscphVic tor Broussais 's i r leas, in the orr lcr o l phvsiologica] Iunct jonsant l nee<ls, orre spcakr of more an<l lcss in relat ion t r ) a norm. Forexanrplc, thc hYdrat ion of t issues is, t fact that can be exl t ressedin t t rms ol morc ancl less; so is the pcrccntagc ofcalc iunr inblorxl. Thcse quantirarivelv rl i f lerent rcsults *,oulcl hare no <1ual-i tv, lo value in a la l>rrroton, i l thc laborator.v had nr> r .c lat ionshiprr i th a hospi ta l or c l in i< uhere thc r tsul ts takc on rht r . . r lue ornot oI urcmia, thc valuc or not ol tctJnus. Bccause phvsiologvstancls at the crossroads of thr . , laborator l , rnd the c l in ic, t rvo

lloints of vie* about l) iological phenorncna.rre n(loptcd ther(,, l)utth is does not mean thnt thev can be intcrc l rangt,r l . Thc srr l>r t i tLr_

I '+d j.+9

l-IItion of quantitative progression for qualitative contrast in no way

annuls this opposition. It always remains at the back ofthe mind

of thosc u'ho have chosen to adoPt the theoretical and metric

point of vieu.. When rve sav that health and disease are l inked by

all thc intcrmediaries, and *'hen this continuity is converted into

homogeneity, we forget that the difference continues to mani-

fest itsclfat the extremc, rvithout which thc intermcdiaries could

in no wa,v play their mediating role; no doubt unconsciously, but

u,rongly, w'e confuse the abstract calculation of idcntit ies and the

concrete appreciation ofdiffercnces. [NP, pp. 110-12]

Cueprtn

Normal i ty and

Frl . t l rn-

Normat iv i ty

The Value of Norms

I l ]9] The state ofan) l iv ing th ing in a given siruat ion is, in gcn-cral, alu,avs normal. f lenri Bergson savs there is no such thing asdisordcr; rather, there are tlvo orders, one of v,,hich is substituted

lor the other without our knorvledgc and to our clismav. Similarlv,

rve ought to say that there is no such thing as abnormal, ifbv thcterm we mean merely the abscnce ofa previous positive condi-

tion or state. From the biological, social and psychological pointsofvicrv, a pathological state is never a state without norms - sucha thing is impossible. Whcrever there is //e there are norms. Lifeis a polar ized act iv i ty, a dvnamic polar i tv, and that in i tsel f iscnough to establish norms. The normal is therefbre a universalcatcgorv of l i fe. l lence, it is by no means nonsensical to call thepathological "normal." But that is not grounds fbr denving thedistinctiveness ofthe pathological, or fbr arguing that in biologvthe normal and the pathoJogical are, but fbr minor quantitativediflerences, identical. The normal should not be opposecl to thepathological , becaust ' unclcr certain condi t ions arrd in i ts ownrra1. th( , parhological is n, , rmrl . Ihcr, . i r . r n i . ( . r ,s j \ar \ ( ontrJ\ tI 'etrrecn h, a l th . rnr l , l ise;r , . . I l r .a l rh i . mor(. rhJn n. , rmal i r r ; in

' imple terms, i r is norrnar iv i r r . Behjn, l . r l l apfJrcnt n. , rmJl i rv.

, l

; lrffLt l ' i

&l, l

flili{ l

fl3to lt l

_...r

onc must look to sce i { i t is capable of to lerat ing infract ions of

the norm, of overcoming contra( l ic t ions, of dcal ing wi th con-

fl icts. Any normalitr opcn to possible future corrcction is authen-

t ic normat iv i tv, or heal th. Anv normal i tv l imi ted to maintaining

itscll, hosti le to anv variation in the thcmes that bxpress it, and

incapable ol adapting to ncw situations is a normalitY devoid of

normative intcntion. When confronted rvith any apparcntly nor-

mal situation, it is thercfbre imPortant to ask vvhcther the norns

that it embodies ar-e creative norms, norms with a for\\ 'ard thrust,

or, on the contrary, conservative norms, norms rvhosc thrust is

torvarrl the past. IMS Normalit i ct normativ l, 1. lr]

Normality and Species

[140] In the biologv ol species, the problem of the normal and

thc pathological arises in connection rvith thc problem of varia-

t ions. ls an anomalous indiv idual , that is , an indiv idual in some

respect at variance rvith a dcfined statistical tvpe, a sick individ-

ual or a biological innovation? Is a fiuit { lv vu'ith no n'ings, or ves-

tigial rvings, sick? Biologists hosti lc to evolution or skeptical of

mutationist explanations insist that mutations are rccessive, often

subpathological, ancl sometimes lcthal. If, houever, one holds that

bio)ogical normal i t l is c letermined b] the intcract ion between

structurcs and bchaviors, on the one hand, ancl environmental

condi t ions, on thc other, there arc rvays ofdist inguishing ( i f not

instantaneouslv at least retroactivelv) betrveen the pathological

nomal and the normativc normal. Phil l ipe [ 'H6rit ier and Georges

Ti:issier's experiments on $ ingless drosophila, fbr examplc, provcd

thc superiority of that varietv in a draftv environment. IMS Nor-

nalit i et normativit i, l . 2rl

[141] Ie issier rcports another f )ct uhich shous that l i fe, pcr-

haps rvithout looking lbr it, bv using the variation ofl iving forms,

obtains a kind ol insurance against cxcessivc sPecialization without

rr:vcrsibiJitv, hencc u,ithout f lexibil i tr,, rvhich is cssentiallv a suc_ccssful adaptation. ln cerrain industrial districts in Gcrmany ancl

England the gradual ri isappearance ofgrav buttcrfl ies and the ap-

pearance of black oncs ofthc samc species has bccn obscrved. It

r ' ,, as possible to establish that in these butterfl ies the black colora-

tion \4.as accompanied by an unusual vigor. In captivitv the blacks

cl iminate thc grays. Why isn' t thc same true in nature? Becausc

tht' ir color stands out more against thc bark of the trces and attracts

rhe at tent ion of b i rds. When the number of b i rds diminishes in

industr ia l regions, buttcr f l ies can be black rv i th impunitv. l6

In short, this butterflv specics, in the fbrnr ofvaricties, oll irst$o combinat ions of opposing character ist ics, and thc1, balance

each other: more vigor is balanced by less sccuritv and vicc versa.

In cach of thc variations, an obstacle has bcen circumvented, touse a Bergsonian cxpression, a po.werlessness has been overcomc.

To the extent that circumstanccs allorv one such morphological

5olution to operate in preference to another, the number of rcp-rcsentatives of cach varietv varies, and a varietv tends morc andmorr tonard a species. [ . . . ]

l lcnce, f lnallv, rvc see how an anomalv, particularlv a muta-t ion, that is , a direct lv hercdi tarv anomaly, is not pdthologicdlbccause it is an anomaly, that is, a divergcnce fi-om a spccific tvpe,* hich is de{ ined as a group of thc most f icquent character ist icsin their average dimension. Otherrv ise, i t u,ould have to be saidthat a mutant individual, as thc point of departure lbr a nelv spe-cit 's, is both pathological, bccause it is a divcrgencc, and normal,because it maintains itself ancl rcprocluces, In biologv, the nor-mal is not so much the old as the neu,fbrm, i l i t f inds conditionsofexistence in vvhich i t * i l l appear normat ive, that is , <l isplacingall rvithercd, obsoletc and pcrhaps soon to bc extinct fbrms.

No fact termcd normal, becausc expressed as such, can usurpthe prcst ige of thc norm of u hich i t is thc cxprcssion, start-

i r

$,fr

#f\2 lt l

ing f ronr the momeDt \a hen the condi t ions in rvhich i t has been

ret<'rrecl to the nornr arc n.l lcrng.'r qivetr. fhere i" no fact that is

normal or pathological in i tscl f An anomalY or a mutat ion is not

in itsclfpatholo-tgical. Thesc tl 'o exPress oth(r Po\siLrlc norms of

l i le. I f the:e notnts are in ler ior to spcci l ic e. l r l ier norms in terms

ol stabi l i tv , f 'ecuncl i tv, or v.rr iabi l i t l of l i fe, they wi l l be cal led

pnthological. lfthcse nortns in the slmc enl irrttrment should turn

out to bc equivalcnt, or in another environment, superior, rhey

* i l l be cal lcd normal. Their normal i t ' r ' rv i l l come to them lrom

their normativity. The pathological is nor the abscnce of .r bio-

logical normi it is another norm, btlt onc that is, comparativelv

speaking. pushed asidc bl l i l ! . fNP, pp. 8l-8l l

I la2] No enviionment is normo.l. An environment is as it ma]

b('. No structurc is rormal in itsell. It is thc relation betrveen the

cnvironmcnt and the l iving thing that detcrmines what is normdl

in both. A l iving thing is normal in the true sense \\ 'hcn it rellects

an ef f i r r r o l r thc part of l i le to maintain i tscl I in fbrms and rv i th in

norms th.lt allorv lor a m.rrgin ol variation, a latitudc o{ dclvia-

t ion, such that as environnlental condi t iont varY, one of those

llrms rrr. l prove to be ntorc aclvantagccttts, hence rlore viohle. In

cnvironmcnt is normal rvhen it allou's a sPecics to multipll and

dirersif i in it in such a \!av as to tolcrate, i l nccess,lrY, changcs

in the environment.

I1 the relation bctrvccn the environment and the l iving thing

i : ruch that neirher can laf \ \v i thout colnPr, t rn is ing the v iabi l i tv

of the l iving thing irreparably, the JPParcnt normalitv of ad.rpta-

t ion is in l ic t pathological . ' fo be sick is to I 'e unablc to to lerate

changc. INlS Nontalitd ct normatit it i , l . 2l

Normality ond I ndividusls

f1,13] From thc stanclpoint ofthc biologv oi individuals, thc prob-

lem of the nonnal rnd the pathological c,.rmes dou'n to what K urt

) t1 I t5

Goldstein calls "pllcrrcd bchavior" and "cat.rstrophic reaction,"

ln responding to stimuli l iom tlre environment, an organisnr rirres

n() t use everv form of bchavior i t is capable ol using but onlv

certi in prelcrrcd Lrchaviors - prelelrcd bccause thc_r most l i l lv

e\l)rcss the nature of thc rrrganisrn ancl allorrl i t the maxirrrum

possible order and stabi l i r \ ' . A s ic l inr l iv idual is an indiv i r l r ra l

lockccl in.r struggle rv i th i ts environnrent to es(abi ish.r neu.ordcr

or stabil itr. Recovcry establishes a ne\\ 'norn.t, dif lcrcnt f iom the

old, Dur ing the course of rhe i l lnr :ss, thc s ick indiv idual r locs

er'< rvthing possible to avoid catastro;thic reactions. A catastrophic

reJct ion is one that prevents rapid adaptat ion to changing envi-

rr ,nnrenral condj t ions. fhe concern rr i th avoidine ( . . t ta j t rophic

reJctions thereforc rcflccts thc organism's instinct of selflprcscr-

vat ion. Scl f -preserv.r t ion is not thc ntost gcn( ral character ist ic ol '

l i le; i t i5, rather, r characrer ist ic of a re<lucc<I, d inr in ished l i fe.

A hcal thv person is a person capable ol conf iont ing r isks. I lcal th

is c lcnt ive - cal l i t normat ive - i r ) that i t is r , rpablc ol strrv i r ing(ntastrophc and establ ishinl l a nc\ \ ,or( lcr .

Goldstein's views overlap ncatlv rvith flen6 Lericlre's vicvvs of'concept i ( )n. I lcal th beconres percel t t ib ic onl , r in rc lat ion to dis-

case, * hich rcveals its csscncc bv suggesting a possiblc transitionto De$'nornts. A person \ \ 'ho catrnot surr i re at h igh al t i tur lcsl t t 'cause of hvpotcnsion mal bc ablc to l ive normal lv at a l t i tu<]csup to l i f teen hunclred lcct . No one is obl igccl to l ivc at a l t i tudesabo,c thrq thousand leet, but anr<rnc nrrr.somcrlrr be ldrce<l tod,r ro. tn t h.rr ( a\r . . Jr \1,n1 rr l ro t . rnnol i .

i in l r r i , , r . " l \1rn i . . r cre.r-

ture capable ol 'changing ol adapt ing to ambjenr condir ions inorclcr to survivc. I l\ lS r\rornrolrty' ct n ormutivit i, l . 2r, )r]

f l '14] I lcal th is a margin of to lcrance lbr the inconstancies ofthe cnvironnrcnt. But isn ' t i t l t rsurr l to spcr l of thc inLonstancrol thc enr' ironfftenr7 This is truc cnough of thc hum.rn social envi-roDtnent, rvhcre inst i tut ions arc fundamcntal lv preclr ious, con_

ventions revocable and fashions as fleeting as l ightning, But isn't

the cosmic environment, the animal environment in general , a

system of mechanical, phvsical and chemical constants, made of

invariants? Certainly this environment, w-hich sciq.rce deflnes, is

lnade oflans, but rhesc la*s arc theoretical abstractions. The lir -

ing creature does not l ive among laws but among creaturcs and

events that varv thesc larvs. What holds up thc bird is the branch

and not the l.ru,s ofelasticity. lf u'e reduce thc branch to the la*s

of elast ic i tv, we must no longer speak of a bird, but ofcol lo idal

soiutions, At such a Ievei ol-analvtical abstraction, it is no longer

a question ofenvironmcnt for a l iving being, nor ofhealth nor of

discase. Similarlv, l 'hat the fox eats is the hen's egg and not tbc

chemistry of albuminoids or rhe laws of embryology. Because the

qualif ied l iving being l ives in a world ofqualif ied objccts, he l ives

in.r rvor ld of possiblc accidents. Nothing happens bv chance,

everything happens in the form of evrnts. Here is hou' the envi-

ronment is inconstant. l ts inconstancr is s implv i ts becoming,

i ts history.

For the l i r ing being, l i fe is not a monotoDous deduct ion, a

recril inear movement; it ignores geometrical rigidit\. i t is discus-

sion crr explanation (r,hat Goldstcin calls Auseinandersehung) with

an environment rvhere there are leaks, holes, escapes and une\-

pected resistanccs. Let us sav it once more. We do not profess

indcterminisnr, a position verv rvell supported todav. We main-

tain that the l ife of the l iving being, rvere it that of an amoeba,

recognizes the categories of health and disease only on thc level

ol erpcrience, rvhich is primadlv a test in thc aff 'ecrivc sense of

the xord, and not on the level ofscience. Science explains expe-

r ience but i t does not for a l l that annul i t .

l lealth is a set of sccurit ics ancl assurances (u'hat the Gerntans

call S;crlerunlTen), securit ies in the present, assurances for the

lLture. As there is r psrchological assurance wh;ch is not pre-

) t6 1\7

sumption, thcre is a biol(,gical assurancc which is not excess, and

uhich is heal th. Heal th is a regulatory l lvrvheel of thc possibi l i -

r ies ofrcact ion. t - i fe of ien fa l ls short of i ts possibi l i t ies, but when

necessary can surpass expcctations. [NP, pp. 197-98]

The Problem of Psychologicol Norms

fhe Child and the adult

f l , t5] Chi ldhood is a t ransi t ional srate. I t is normal for human

beings to leavc the stare ofchi ldhood and abnormal to fa l l back

inro it. In childhood there is an intrinsic forrvard drivc, a capac-

i rv lbr scl l - t ranscendencc, that f lour ishes i f rhe chi ld is phvsicalh

robust, intcllectuallv perspicacious and allorved a certain fieedom

ro pursue rvorthu-hi lc goals. A chi ld th inks constant lv ol imi tat-

ing or r ival ing rvhat he sees adul ts doing: cvery day he thinks,

"Tomorrou l rvil l be a grown-up." Aristotle makes this magnifi-

cent obserr.ationr onthropos onthrupontem{1, man cDgcn(lers man.

This is t ruc in terms of the mater ia l causc: i t is man who sup-

pJies the seed fionr rvhich the child is borD, It is also true in termsol- the formal caurc: thc cmbrrr , the chi ld and the adolescent(icvelop toward adult htrman fbrm. And it is true in terms of thef inal cause, an ideal ofman and ol thc adul t v i r rues rhat educa-t ion inst i l ls in thc chi ld 's mind. This last proposi t ion should notbc intcrpretcd in too modern a sense, hovtever. For thc Ancients,and fbr Ar istot le in part icular, rhe essencc of a th ing w.as ic lent i -cal rvith its f inal fbrm; the potential pointcd torvard the act, andmovement ended r'n rest. fhc thcorr of lbrms telescoped rhe\rhole process of becoming into a typical privilegetl state. Ho$,a Potential becomes an act, how a l irrmal indeternrinate l)ecomesa form, rrould bc unintcll igible if lbrm rverc rlor in cvcrv sensepr ior to por ' 'nr ia l and man,.r . Thu.. humarr i r t ' i \ t r , rnsmi l r rd l ;omDan to Dan, just as knorr ledge is t ransmit ted l iom intel l igence

to intel l igence. Chi ldhood, bcing a state of t ransi t ion, is n, i th-

out human value. Grcek pe<Jagogy w.ts thercfore bascd on the

idcntif lt ation of man rvith his tvpical f inished fbrm, his ocrne. In

the chi lc l , thc Creeks sa*, onlv the future soldier and f i r ture c i t i -

zen, Plato shorvs no inclulgcnce for the tvpical predilcctions and

tendcncies of chi ldhood. Nothing rvas more al icn to thc ancient

mind than thc idca that chi ldhood is, in cach instance, a new

beginning ltrr rnankind, a beginning rvhosc innocencc and enthu

sinsm are $,orthv ofrespect bccause of thc impl ic i t possibi l i tv of

going furthcr than man has evcr gone bcfbre. Furthermorc, the

ancient f.rmilv rvas based oD strong paternal authoritv, and there

*'as ofit 'n violent contl ict bet.rvecn fathers and sons orving to the

f i thcr 's dominrt ion of u i fe and chi ldren. l 'h6odorc r le Saussure

attached grcat importance to rhis f;ct tn I.e i l l iracle grec-ai lt can

be arqut ' r l , morcover, that the longer one rcmains ignorant o1'

hou chi lc l ren drc madc, the longcr one rcmains a chi ld; and one

remains ignorant as Iong as one { i i ls to contrast one's ideas r" i th

actual cxperiencc. At the root oIthc chilcl 's mcntalitv is anxietv at

not kno\\ ' ing u hv onc is a chi ld, thr t is , rveak, pouer l r 'ss, depcn-

dent anrl attachcd to one's mother as a plarrt is attached to the

nurtur ing soi l . To rcnrer lv th is anr;et l the chi ld dreams of vast

magical po*ers, of a compensatr)ry onnipotencc. But contact

n i th real i t r ' , u hich takes thc f i r rnr of conf l ic t , crur ' l )y demon-

stratcs that such dreams are vain i l lusions. In other l r ,ords, lbr

polit ical, phi)osophical and, in a nr)re prolbuntl sensc, rcligious

reasons, the Ancients dcvalued chi ldhood in a.rvav that onlv ac-

centuared those chnracter ist ics ofchi ldhood apr to pror. ,ke the

contempt ofadul ts. For thc Ancients, thc normal man ,was the

norrnnt ivc nran, and thar me.1nr <luintesscnt ia l l r the ar lu l t . This

is, moreover, a charactcr ist ic ofal l c lassical pr : r iods. Thc seven-

teenth-ccntur l Frcnch h.rd basical lv rhc same idca. Descarres

spokc ol chi ld ish credul i t ' - and nurser l ra lcs in much the same

I tf i I t9

manncr as Plato. Jcan de la Fontaine is f imous fbr having saicl that

he took pleasure in f)irv taics. but his fibles are harcl on childrcn,

A certain valuc artached to the childish tastc fbr the man,elous rnd

lbr t lc t ion, but i t was a relar ivc valuc; jur lgecl hv logical norms,

such things w,crc consiclered absurd.

Paradoxicallr ' , i t u.as the ninetecnth ccntulr,, rvhich is olien

u ronglv maligned fbr its alleged blind faith in scicncc, thar once

again ascr i t red vnlue not onl \ to poctry bur ro chi ldhood fantdsy

as sr' l l : rvitness Victor I lugo and Ch.trlcs Bruclelaire. (Everv child

is a genius in i ts uay, and evcrv genius is a chi ld. [ . . . ] Genius is a

deli l>eratc reversion to childhood.) lr uas poets, long before psr-

chologists, rvho proposed looking at thc child's rnentalirv as nor-

mal lncl val id, horvever dist inct l iom the yrosi t ivr , and ut i l i tar . ianmentalitv of the bourgeois adult (as tlaurlelaire remarked, .,Tir

bcrrc/u/ has l lwavs sccmcrl to nrc a mosr hir leous rhing") , Char lcsI) ickens did in England nhat Hugo and Baur lc la i rc dic l in France,

cslr lc iaf l r in Hard Times. Art ists. u hose lunct jou is to drcam l i r rmankind bevoncl lvhat is knorvn, to lcorn the real, to make tht:nct rl f irr ch,rngc inrperati.r 'e. Ibund a trcasurc trovc in the thouuhtof chi lc l ren. When Eugdne Delacroix s.r id, , ,What

is most re allor mc are the i l ] r rs jons I crcatc," hc l r ; rs ibrmul.r t i l4 thc i r leaof a chi ld. Ihcn, rv i th r( :spect ro the rehalr i l i tat ion of chi ldhoor]and rnlnl ()ther rhings ari rlell. contcnrporlrr psrr:hologv and lthi-losophl came to the rescue: thev providc<l l )oct ic intui t ion \ \ i tha discourse.

The studv of thc mr:ntal i tv of chi ldren began ar roughlv thesamc t imc as thc st t ic l r .o l pr in i t i rc rnerrrr l i t r . . ln French_speakingcountrits, rhe fbrmcr discipline is epitomizccJ bl thc namt, ofJeanI ' ia.qet, the int ter l )v I r rc icn lcvl ,Bnrhl . lhr : rc <.rn bc no rJr lutr tthat the methodological impl ic.r t ions ol p iager 's resear.ch rvrreini t ia l l l rhc sanle as rholc of l .dvr,- lJruhlr p iaget cornp.rrc<J thcthought of the chi ld to t l rar o l a conreml)orarv c ul t ivatecl aclul t ,

an adult whosc culrurc \\ 'as of thc sort thar piagct rcgarded asnormative for his time, that is, for \a,hich scientif ic and rational-

ist valucs stoo(l at rhe top ofthe hierarchv. Conrparcd wirh rhc

rational mentality, children's thinking could be charactcrized bvadjecr ives beginning ui th the pref ix o-, indicat ing somc sort of 'lack or absence. Note, horvever, that Piagct's adult is rvhat NlaxWebcr and KarJ .faspers call an "ideal tvpe." To be sure. it can beargucd that this normal type is not onlv normative but averageand characteristic of the majority, But the,,mentality" ofan ageis a social fact. dctermincd by t,ducariorr, If, in fact, in surveys,the ideal type turns out to reficct thc.rverage, it is because com_pulsory' cducatron has established certain norms. Here again, manengenders man, and if the norms imposed on many generation5ol chi l r l ren includcd a systemnt ic devaluat ion of chi lc lhood, i tshould come as no surprise rhrt, in c()mparing todat, 's childrento todav's adulrs, it turns out rhat children lack many of the traitsinculcated in adul ts. The probl t 'm ol nrcntal i r jes is jnextr icablr

tntcru ' ined s i th rh.rr , r l er luc.r t i , ,n. and rh. pr , rb lem ol educar i , rnis inextricably intcrt.w,ined rvith that ol generations. At anv givenpoint i ir t ime, rhose u,ho happcn to be aduits.rre fbrnrer chilclrenwho were raised by other adults. lt takcs a generation to test theral id i tv ofeducat ional ideas. And i t takes f i f t r ro s ixtv vears (rwo

gener.rtions) lbr philosophical values to become rooted as hab_i ts. Piaget 's adul ts more or lcss unu, i t t inglv hetray superf ic ia ltokens of respcct for rhe positivist vaiues of thc pcriod lg60_9f),which gained favor u'ith the educational reformers of the lateDineteeDth and ear l l r \ lcnt icr l t ccnrur ies. IMS Lc Normd ct leprobldmc des mentolrrls, II, f. lr, 2r, 3r]

[146] Therc is a characteristr 'c gap betv,.een a child's dcsiresand his means ofreal iz ing those desires. fhc chi ld therefore crc-ates a uorld of representations in rvhich desires have the abil itvimmerl i l tc l r lu { rer tc objrcrs presunrer l cap.rble , ,1 rat i r lv ing

l6ol6r

rhem. The chi ld can exper iencc plcasurr : only u, i th permission

or bv deJegat ion. l lc is str ict lv dependent on adul ts ro tncct i rs

r i ta l necds. Thus, to obev is r(J l ive. At I i rst , thcre is no di l ler ,

ence bet$,een social obl igat ion and phvsical necessi t r ' . Adul ts.

rhen, arc both compensatioD lirr and incscapablc rcmjnd,.,ri ol ' tbe

chilcl 's helplessness. Freudian psvchology had thc grcat merit of

rc 'eal ing the t rue esscncc of the chi ld 's thought. 1 'hc chi ld l ives

in i l lusion bccausc hc l ives in desire, ancl because he feels desirc

Iong belore grat i f icat i r - rn is phrsical lv possible- So long as i t is

inrpossiblc to act on the norl<l in certain rva1.s, desire.rnd realin.

1. . r i l to coincidc, And so long as desire sees no possibi l i tv ofsat is

l ic t ion, there is also no possibi l i tv of cxpressir : ln. The chi ld can,

not admit that he rvants to gro$. Lrp in ordcr to subjcct h is fathcr

to paternal lau'and thc rr .or l r l to the lau'of the r lor ld, that is , ro

<lomin.rre men and donrest icate th ings. He cannot adrr i t rh is as

long as he does not knorv, bevond u.hat hc is told and rvhat he is

not to ld ( \1hich comcs ro tht sanre th ing), horv ro acr on thinps, lnd men. fhe contcnt of the chi ld 's thought is his ignorancc olthe biological reair tv ol chi ldhood. That ignorance lar ts as longns the chi l ( l rcnrain5 unauarc ol copulat ion as his incept ion andtite, and so long as he is fbrbidden, u,hcthcr bv organic immatu-r i t l or sr)c i . i l taboo, to !ng1ge in copulat ion himscl f .

In Ia i rv ta lcs and lantasies, rhe chi ld seeks to sat isfv a ncc<llor p leasure and ro assert a poucr lbr uhich he st i l l lacks themcans. l -he u,cal th ol i rnaginar ion conrpensates lbr the povernol rcal izat ion.

\\ 'h.rt nc ,\ lodcrns call "adult" in m.rn is his arvareness of thegap betrveen tlesire and realitv. Thc adtrlt docs not rclv on mythbr the grar i f icat ion ol c l t 's i rc, In thc adul t , r .csponsibi l i r l l 'or thegratif ic.lt ion of <lcsires that prcscnt-dav rcalit l . places out of reachcan bc delegatcd instead to pl(ly or drt, that is, to i l lusions con-sciour ol t i re i r pract ical \a luc as rvel l as their tht ,orct ical i r lcal i r r . .

Y_

The adult docs not neccssarilv believe in thc inevitabil itv ofprog-

ress, of knorvledgc and industrY. Adults knot that there are epis-

temologicat obstacles to Progrcss and areas rlver lvhich thcorv is

porverless, \et thcy do not feel compclled on that account to seek

compensation br h,rrking back to a mode ol thotrght that bclieves

total lv in rhc renl i , , . l t iorr ofdesire i t ' t a normat i \c re.r l i t \ "

I t is nrrrmal to bel ic 'e thar therc are possibi l i t ies othcr thar i

t l rose containe<l in science and techn, l logv at a Part icular Point

in t i r r lc . l t is normal fbr . the chi ld 's getrcrcrs i tv to Persist into

adul thood. But i t is abnormal, because hisror ical lY regressive, to

suggcst th.rt the pucril i tv of mvth is supcrior to science ancl tech-

nologv. The modern adult has l imits that must be ovcrcome' but

thev .dnnot bc overcome b.v retutnin2l to d mo(le oJ thought which

il lnores prccisclr thdt thete orc l imits to desie in realitt 'ancl obstacles

to roluc in $ittanac.' lo bc sure, chi ldhood desencs to bc t teat t 'd as a norm b,v

.rdults - or, rnthcr, not a5 a norm. preciseh, lrut ls a nornlative

rcquiremr:nt, something to trc transcctrtled. -l-his normative super-

hum.rnir l oI chi ldhood is not to be conftrsed $ i th thc responscs

that a chi ld i tsel f mav adopt to his t ( ' rnPorar\ pow'cr lessness,

rcsponses that thc chi ld wishes rv i th al l h is might to replace

r,v i t l r t rue solut ions, that is , solut ions that arc both vcr i f iablc

and cf iecr ive. f . . . ]

In short. trecausc the child is not a con)Pl(tc being, he exhib-

its a generositr thit compensatcs fbr his avitl i tr ' : this gcnerositY

can l>e pr,rp,rsed as nomal lrecause it is norDdri|c. that is, an all ir-

mat ion of valr :c.

Bccause rhc chi lc l is a helplcss crearurc, howcvcr, he is credu-

Ious. Cr.'ululir l is not nolmal in humans bt'cause it i i not normativu;

it consists in taking lor granted rvhat has vet to be constructed.

In tht . cncl , the most pcrcePt ivc rehabi l i tat ion of chi ldhood

is that o l the poct. ' fhe poct is a v is ionar l , a seer, but hc sees

* hat docs not exist. \\ 'c scc l lhat is. The poct dot's not so much

dcscr ibe ruhat exisrs as point to values, l -hc poel i . conscioulncts

is a correlative ofthe scientif ic conlciousness, but also its inverse.

P,,crr \ i \ J poet i r l r r r r r l ion. nol J ocl i r on(.' lo

hold out chi ldhood as an idcal to adul t humankind is to

demonstratt that childhood is a promise ancl not a lact, i\ l ln nust

renr.r in a chi ld in rhe :ensc that h<'deserres to bccotDc thc conr-

plcte man ol ' r lh ic l r chi ldrcn dream. IMS Lc Nornul t t Ic probl imc

tlcs mentolit is, II, l . 5 r. 6r]

hi itivc mentdlit)

f l , t7 l Theodule Armand Ribot, fb l lorv ing Auguste Comtc, cr i t i -

cizcrl introspectivc psvchologv as the psvchologv ol the civil irctl,

adult, heolth.v vhitc male, Ps,vchologr' 's contempt firr mocles of

thouglr t d i l lercnr l i t ,nr that of thc respectable, cul t ivatcr l male

r.cf lccted a hiddcn assurrpt ion that the r ts l>ectrblc. cul t ivatcd

malr 's mode ol ' rhought t*as sornehou val j r l and normal, Nlot ' t -

tai.qnc vvon<leled on rvhat basir rve judgecl thc narivcs rrf the coun-

tr ics r , r 'e colonizc<l to be savages, but his skept ic ism u,rs rTidelv

clisnrisscd. Erasntus nrcrLe In Proise of Foll.r, but it rrirs regardecl as

no less lantast ic than the plavs of Shakespearc in rvhich madmcn

werr portraved as rvisc. Ancl Rousseau tatrght in /:rni1e that thc

chi ld is a complctc hrrman being, di f l i ' rcnt l iom the adul t not

onlv in possessing Iess knorvledgc and cxperiencc but also in har'-

ing an ent i rc l r d i f l t ' rent at t i tudc tonard l i fe. But s ince Rousseau

r las accuscr l of har ing al 'an<loncd his ou n chi l r l rcn, h is terching

rvas deemt d urol>i.rn.

J he scvcnteenth centurr idenr i l ie<l m.rn rv i th his a.nrc, or

matur i t r ' , an<l l )cscartcs hcld that " thc prcjut l iccs ol oul chi l< l -

hoocl are thc f i rst ancl pr incipal cause ol oul errors." Sincc . rvc

vtere "childrcn bt.l irre becorring adults," our rc.lson \r ';ts not (ls

purc as if r le had nevcr mad<' usr: ol our scnscs. I lcl irrc trhil ippc

t62 l6l

--

Pinel and Jean Et ienne Donrinique Esr;uirol , the insanc rvere

subjected to punishment in l ieu oftreatrnent. Asylums were sti l l

more terrifying than prisons. To be sure, the eighteenth century

witnessed the f irst glimmerings of relativisnt. When Montesquieu

aslied "l lorv caD nnlone bc a Persian?" he encouragecJ his con-

temporarics to recognize that such a thing rvas indecd perfectly

porsible. It became possible to submit Wcstern society to the

judgment ofan Oriental and human psychologv to the judgment

of .r nrvthicaf supennan. But ,\ lontesquieu's Pe ion Letters an(l

Voltaire's,l ' l i cromigas were nlerc philosophical enterrainments.

Strange as it may seem, the prejudice that established the civi-

l ized u'hitc man as the standard of rcference for all mankind grcw

out of a phi losophy famous lbr condcmning aJl prejudice. But

Enlightenment philosophv lbund fault nrore rvith thc pre- of prej-

udice than with the i l lusory certaintv of irs ludtmenf: a prejudice

rlas the judgmcnt of a previous age. Yestcrdav's judgnrent rlas

declared to be error because it survived onlv as a .n'eapon ofcom-

bat against the nen. Diderot's purpose in rehabil itating the prim-

it ive, in the Supplement to Bougainvil le's Voy,oge, was essentially to

discredit Christianity. The Christian religion rvas hoist on its own

pelard: whatever preccded the advent of tnrth rvas doomed to dis-

.rppear. II istorical precedence established logical perspective. Tol-

crance raises a similar problem: tolerance is the recognition ofa

plurality ofvalues, the refusal to erect anv value as a norm; intol-

erance is normat j re imperial isnt , But t rv as one rv i l l , a plrrral i tv

oI norms is comprehcnsible only as a hier.rrchy. Norms can coexist

on a fboting ol equalitv onlv if drained of the normative inten-

tion that callcd them into existcncc as codified, normative dcci-

s ions enrbodied in inst i tDt ions. customs, dogmas, r i tes and laws.

A norm cannot be normat i re wi thout being mi l i tant , that is ,

intolcrant. In intolerancc, in aggressive rrormJtivit), there is of

course hatred, but in to lerance there is contempt. Values tolcr-

ate u.hat thel deem to bc valueless. The rclativism anrl tolerance

ol the eightcenth century were inscparable frorn the esscntiallv

normative idea of progrcss. [3ut progress was not conceived in

terms ofa relntion ofvalues; it was identif ied rvith the final valuc

in r scr ies, the one fhat t ranscended the othcrs and in terms of

nvhich thev u'ere judgcd. That is *'hv tolerancc !1as the value in

the name of which one became intolerant, and relativitr the valut:

in the name of v" hich one becamc absolute. f MS lc Norma,l et ie

prohlime des mentoftir, I, l . 1r]

I l4t]] Positivism took the thcorics of Baron Turgot and lVlar-

quis de Condorcet on the progrcss of the human spirit and recast

them in the fbrm of a las, the law of three stagcs (theological.

nretaphvsical and posi t ivr) . In otber rrords, i t t r icd to lbrce psy-

chological speculat ion into the Procrustean bcd oI natural sci-

cnce. In formulating a ./ow of progrcss, Comte u,as treating min(l

as i l i t u'ere a natural object. At thc same time he rr.as declaring

that sociologr'(or, as he sa* it, the scicncc of mind) rvas indepen-

rlcnt o1 biologv in terms of object and method. The positive spirit

rvas declarcd to bc the ultimate fbrm of the human spirit; thcol-

ogv and mctaphvsics rvere devalued, the first as a primitivc fbrm

ol spirit. the second as a transitional lbmr. These fornrs impeded

thc dcvel,rpment of spirit ' t f ir l l potential, so spirit rcjccted thern.

Dissat isf icd rv i th f lc t ions, spir i t created science. Hence, scicn-

tif ic thought was thc normal (that is, the normative or icleal) statc

of thought. Posi t iv ism portrn\cd i tscl l 'as the normal culminat iorr

ol an cver closer and nrore f:aithful .rpproximation to the intcl-

lcctual nomr. For Comtc, thcological thinking rvas l ikc the think-

ing of chi ldrcn. With th is s imi le, Comte ascr iber l posi t ivc value

to Dratur i t \ ' : that o l thc indiv idual as l1el l as that oI rhc human

race. And thc maturation ofrhe race, he implied, !1ns just as ineri-

table and necessary as the maturation of thc child.

Meanu hiie, in Gennanr, HegeJ's dialectic cncouragcd studenrs

l6,t I ( ' '

of phi losophv to see I legel ian phi losophv as the culminat ion of

thc arduous advent of the ldea and the German bourgcois state

as the normal fbrm ol all societv, And in England, Spenccr's evo-

lut ionism, taking up rvhcre Mi l l 's posi t iv isnr lef t of l , I r r r ther

accentuated the phi)osophical bcl ief that super ior i tv and poste-

riority are onc and thc samc. Anterior, Iess complcx and inferior

became svnonvmous.

l. itt le bv l itt lc a diff irse dogma took shapc: namelv, that thc

intel lectual ly pr imit ivc rnd the intel lectual ly pucr i le are t rvo

lbrms of a single infirmitv. At around the s.rme timc, moreover'

research in cmbryologv shou'cd that certain anatomical anomalies

lvcre the rcsult ofarrestcd development. A club fbot, a harelip, a

tcst icular ectopia - each of thesc condi t ions is the PerPetuat ion

after birth o[ a state through u'hich evcrv f 'etus or embryo passcs

rvhile sti l l in the utcrus. What is abnormal is the halting ol devel-

opment at an intermediate stage. What is normal at one moment

in time becomes abnormal later.

\Vhen Lucien Livr-Bruhl publishcd l:onclions mentales dans Ies

sociit is infir ieurcs in 1910, his init ial usc of the tcrm "plclogical"

to character izc the "pr imit ive" modc ol thought suggested an

impl ic i t deprcciat ion. Phi losophical opinion rvas div ided. Somc

philosophers rverc clelightccl to discover that thc theorv of mcn-

rol;tds provided arguments to justif i a normative concePtion of

the history of thought. At last, there tvcre criteria fbr choosing

sidcs in philosophical combat, lor distinguishing betu'cen fruitful

nerv ideas and survivals of thc past, for separating the backrvard-

looking f iom thc lbrnard- looking. L6on Brunschvicg, for ex-

ample, uscd both Lcvv-Bruhl and Piaget to argue in favor of his

orvn doctrine conccrning thc Ages of lntell igcnce and to disparage

Aristotlc's philosophv on the grouncls that it rcmainecl confintrl

r l i th in the mental f iamervork of a pr imit ive or a ch i ld of s ix '

l\ ' leanu hile, other philosophcrs, sensing that u hat I iv.r '-Bruhl

u as reallv arguing rvas that primitivc thought rvas not prelogical

but heterogencous, and scnsing, too, that champions rvould soon

comc fbrrvard to defend the merits of fbrms of thought "cli l l ir-

ent" lrom modern sciencc, sought to rcstore continuitv: the prim-

i t i le, they argued, was not as al icn to our logic as some claimed,

nor *,as modern thought as ftrl lv logical as somc believed. The

transition from one fbrm of mentality to another involved a cer-

ta in loss of contcnt (modern thought is not as r ich as pr imit ivc

thought) as rvcl l as thc consol idat ion ol a certain c l isposi t ion

(moclcrn thought is more methodical). Wc can easilv undcrstan<l

rvh.rt the primitivc is: it is rvhat ue become u'hen rve abandon thc

crit ical spirit, thc precious prize ofan allvals vulncrable conqucst

( thesis of Bclot and Parocl i , d iscussion at the Sociatc Franq:aisc

de Philosophie afier publication of L(:vy-BruhJ's books).

Nocrtheless, both groups of philosophcrs prcservecl t lre essen-

t i , r l r . r t i , ,n.r l is t . rnr l posi t iv i r t nornl \ : r |a\on i . \u lcr i . l r to m\sl i -

r i \m; n ' ,n("nlrJ( l ic t ion i . .u|er i0r 1, , I rJr t i ( ip,r t ion: . r i , nr r is

supcr ior to mvt l l ; industry is super ior to magic; fa i th in progrcss

is superior to the progrcss of faith. IMS Le Normal ct le problintc

de; mentolit is, I, f. 2r, 3r]

l l49l l lat jonal ism and posi t iv ism thus depreciatul mvthical

thinking. Despite the rationalist attitudes inrplicit in Christianitv,

moreovcrt thc thcologians rccognizcr i that th is depreciat ion of

mr-th \\ 'as all-cncompassing. Phcnomcnological theologians there-

fort : decir lcd that onlr one react ion was possiblc: a l l mvthologi-

c.rl and rcligious systcms rvould have to be rescued cn bloc.

Nlodcrn mvthologv portravs i tscl [ . rs rcstor ing the value of '

m\th in the l ice of rationalist cleprcciation. Tb grant rccognition

to othcr valuc systents is tant . lmount to rcstr ict ing thc Ia lue of

ration.rl ism. In tht'cnd, normative toler.rnce pro.r'es to be a depre

ciat ion ol the posi t iv ist dcprcciat ion of mvth. l t is impossible to

save thc content of anv rel ig ion rv i thout s,rv ing thc content ol a l l

lh6 1t)7

religions.,., In order to sare a religion that ha<J, aclmitted)y, aban-doncd the Inquisit ion and thc srake, it w,as neccssary to save othcrrel ig ions rv i th their n.hir l ing dervishes and human sacr i f ices: fbrif i t is true rhat primirir '(, mentality is a totalizing structure, t lrerchabi l i tat ion of the rnvthic mental i tv is also the rehabi l i tat ionofsavagerv in all i ts fbrms. The fricnd of primitive mentality rvil lobjccr that thc modcrn mcntal i ty is not host i le to the bombingof civil ian populations. But no one is saving that the modem men_tality or, fbr that mattcr, any constitutcd norm must be prefi:rredover primitive mentality. The modern mentality is not a ,tructwe buta tcndency, To prcfer it is simplv to prefer a tendcncy, a norma_t ivc intent ion. [ . . . ]

The primitive and modem mentalit ies are not coexisting abso_Iutes but successile rt latives, Technology is clearly progress *-henit demonstrates the failure of magic; sciencc is ciearlv progrcssrvhen it grou's our ofthe inarlt,quacl oftechnologv. The modernmentalit_v has certain adrant.rges over previous norms. advantagesfronr u,hich i t der ives rc lat ivc but not absolutc value.

Modr:rni t t is not normal in thc sense of having achieved .rdefinit ive superior statc. lt ir normatitc, horvcver, bccausc it strivesconstant ly to ourdo i tsel l . Henr i Bergson got at least one thingright: a true mechanics mn) not exist, but a true mysticism is acontradiction in terms. l)espitc Bergson's objective sympathv fbrthe pr imit ive mcntal i t l , h is phiJosophy is in no scnse a react ion-ary ' revaluat ion of i r rat ional i tv, [ . . . ]

Modern man is experiencing a crisis in the sense that r]omi-nation and mastery of rhc enyironmcnt elude his grasp. But theresolut ion of that cr is is does not l ie in thc past. I t c loes not existin reaclv-madc form but renrains to be invcnted,

The modern is modern onlv bccause it has found solutions toproblems that the pr imir ive seldonr posed. Mo<lerni tv poscs r i i f_lcrent problems, l l lot lcrn ralues are provis ional . But the changcs

t68 169

that have brought thosc values to consciousncss are tormotive, and

a normative dircction is norm.rl lv \1orth pursuing. I l\15 /.c ,\br-

mal et le problime des mentaliri\, l, t. 6r, 7r]

Normotive invention

[150] In the evolut ion of the indiv idual , thc mcntal i ty ofadul t -

hood comes af icr the mental i ty of chi ldhoodi in the evolut ion

of mankind, the modern mental i ty tb l lows the pr imit ive mcntal-

itv. But whcn we refer to adulthood or modernitv as normal, we

do not mean simply that they succeed earlier stages ofcxistence.

Each of these states is normal in the sense that it cflectively deval-

ues another state hobbled bi internal conll ict: betrveen desire and

realitv, or betrvecn porver and scicncc. To be sure, just because

thc modern rccognizes these conl l ic ts and to a l imi ted degree

resolvcs them, i t does not thereby const i tut< ' the [ inal stage of

elolut ion. The expectat ion that todar ' 's understrndings u, i l l bc

transcendcd is a normal feature ol tht 'DodrrD mcntJl i tv. Hencc

there is no rcmedv lbr modernin' 's i l ls in merelv rcturning to old

norms. The onlv truc rcnledv l ies in the invention of new norms.

Cenerosi tv of spir i t is to be imitarcd, but bel ief in thc ef l icacv

of immediate solut ions must bc reiected. Normat iv i tv is inher-

ent in the kinds of changc that brought modcrnity to conscious-

ness. I t is th is normat iv i t l that mLlst in the normal course of

things be perpetuated.' lo sum up, all normalitv must be judged lith reference to

the possibi l i tv of devaluat ion in a normat ive scnse. Therein l ics

the only method fbr detecting m.vsti l icdtion.

Pathology can somct imcs mimic he.r l th, l f s ickness is of ten a

rclugc for an indiv idual in conl l ic t u i th himscl f , others or thc

cnvironment, revolution is olicn a nr('ans of avoiding nccessarv

innovat ion an( l reform. Time cannot sct t lc the ( luest ion of what

n pcrson's or a societv 's norDrs ought to be: nci thcr vesterdav nor

-

tomorrow is an infall ible oracle. Norms and values are tested br

situations call ing lor normative invention One can respond to a

challengc cither bv seeking refugc or exercising crcative ingcnu-

itv; oftcn the t\4.o responses seem deceptivelv similar. Yet there

is one sure critcrion for identifring creativitv: a \4'i l l ingness to Put

norms to the test, to asccrtain their Ialue fairly and u'ithout trving

to make thcm seem artif lcially normal. lhe normal is that \ 'vhich

is normativc uncler given conditions, but not cvcrvthing that is

normal under givcn conditions is normativc. It must .rlrvays bc

permissible to tcst the normal bv varl ing the ambient conditions

It is in this sense that the history of the vo d is the judgment of the

world. [MS Normalitd et normativitt, l . 1r]

The Problem of Social Norms

[151] fhe Lat in rvord norma, rvhich, etvmological lv speaking,

bears thc weight of the in i t ia l meaning of the terms "norms"

and "normal," is the equivalent of the Crerck dl8oc. Orthographv

lFrench, othographc, but long ago ortbographiel, orthodoxv, ortho-

pedics, are normat ive conccPts Prcmaturelv l f the concept of

orthologr is lcss lamiliar, at least it is not altogether useless to

knou. that Plato guaranteecl it+E and the rvord is found, rvithout

a reftrcnce citation, in Emile Littri"s Dictionndire de la langue

franqaisc. Orthology is grammar in the sense givcn it bY l-atin and

mcrlieval lvritcrs, that is, the regulation oflanguage usage.

I f i t is t rue that the exper icnce ofnormal izat ion is a spcci f i -

callv anthropological or cultural expericnce, it can scem normal

that language has proposed one of its Prime fields fbr this experi-

encc. (irammar furnishes prime matcrial lbr rcflcction on norms.

When Francis I in the edict of Vi l lcrs-Cotter0t ordains that all

judic ia l acts ol the k ingdom bc drarvn up in French, rve are deal-

ing rvith an irnpcrati le.l ') But a norm is not an imPerative to (lo

somcthirrg undtr pain ol jrrridical sanctions. Whcn the grammari-

ans of thc same era undertook to l lx thc usage ol the Frcnch lan-

guage, it lvas a qucstion of norms. of cletermining the ref'erence,

ancl of defining mistakes in terms of <iivcrgence, diftercncc.' l 'ht:

tc lerence is borror, ,cc] f iom usage. In the middlc of the seven-

tccnrh centurv this is Claude Favrc de Vaugelas's thesis: "Usagc is

that to lr.hich $e must subjcct ourst' lves entirelv in our languagc.";r)

Vaugclas's rvorks turn up in the *ake of rvorks of thc Academie

fianqaise, rvhich u,as fbundcrl prccisely to embell ish the language.

In fict in the scvcnteenth centurl the grammatical nornr rvas the

usagc ofcultured, bourgeois Parisians, so that this norm rcflccts

a pol i t ical norm: administrat ive central izat ion f i r r thc benef i t o l -

roval power. In terms of normal izat ion there is no di f lerencc

betwcen the birth of grammar in France in the sevcntccnth ccn-

turv and the establ ishment of the metr ic system at thc end ol '

thc eighteenth. Cardinal Richel icu, the nrcmbers of the Nat ional

Convent ion and Napoleon Bonaparte arc the successive instru-

nrents of the samc collcctive clemand. It bcgan *.ith grammatical

norms and ended nith morphological nonns o1-mcn ancl horses fbr

national dcfcnse,tl passing through inrlustrial ancl sanitarv norms.

l )ef in ing industr ia l norms assumes a uni tv of p lan, <l i rcct ion

of uorl, stated purposc of m.rterial constructed. 'I-he article on

"Gun-carriagc" in the F.nc.vclopidie of Diderot and d'Alembcrt,

reviscd bt the Roval Art i l lcn 'Corps, aclmirablv scts f i r r th the

mot i f .s of the normal izat ion ofrrork in arsenals. In i t rve see hol

the conf'trsion ol eflbrts, the cletail of proportions, the difl icult l

and slorvness of rcpla(cmcnts, useless expense, arc rcmt'died. The

standardizat ion of dcsigns of p ieccs and cl imension tablcs, the

imposi t ion of pat tcrns and models have as thcir consequence thc

precision ol'separate pro(lucts an(l thc regrrlarit l of assemblv. ' l he

"( iun-carr iagc" art ic le contains almost al l the conccpts uscd in a

modern treat ise on normal izat ion cxccpt the tcrm "norm." l lcre

' r rc have the thing u i thout the *orcl .

{

]7o a7l

l-

The definit icrn ofsanitary norms assunlcs thrt, l iom thr: polit-

ical point of vicw, attention is paid to populations' health con-

sidered stat ist ical lv, to the heal th iness ofcondi t ions ofexistence

and to the uni fornr dissenr inat ion of prevent ive and curat ive

trcarmcnts perfected by rrredicine. In Austria Maria Thercsa and

Joseph II conferred legal status on public health institutions by

crcating an Impcrirl Health Commission (Sdnitdts-Hot'deputdtion,

1753 ) and bv promulgating a Haupt ,Vcdizinal Ordnung, replaced

in 1770 by the Sonifits-notmati% an act u'ith fbrty regulations

related to mediciDc, \,eteriDarv art, pharmac,v, the training of sur-

gcons, demographical and medical star ist ics. With respect to

norm and normalization here, l l 'e have the rvord rvith the thing.

In both of these examples, the norm is what determines the

normal startinA fiom a nornativc decision, As rve arc going to scc,

such a decision rcgarding this or that norm is understood only

rvithin the context ofother norms. At a given moment, thc expe-

rience ol normalization cannot be broken dorl n, nt Icast not into

projccts. Pierre Guiraud clearly perceived this in the case ofgram-

mar u hen hc *'roter "Richelieu's founding of thc Acad6mie [ran-

qaise in 1635 f i t into a general pol icy of cent ral iz, r t ion ol-uhich

the Revolut ion. the Empire, and the Republ ic are the hcirs. . . .

It rvould not be absurd to think that the bourgeoisie annexed the

language at the same timc that it scized the instnrments of pro-

duct ion." t2 I t could be s.r id in another wav bv t ry ing to subst i -

tutc an equivalcnt fbr the Marxist corcept ofthe ascending class.

l3etrvcen 1759, rvhen the u'ord "normal" appeared, and l8]4,

when the lvord "normalized" appearcd, a nonnative ciass had won

thc povver to identify - a beautiful cxample of ideological i l lu-

sion - the lunction ofsocial norms, rvhosc content it determined,

u'it lr thc use rh.lt that class madc of thern.' [h,r t

the normat ivc int( .nt ion in . r g iven sor ictr in a gircn era

cannot bc broken dou'n is apparent rvhen vve examine the rcla-

t ions betrveen technological and j r r r id ical norms, In the r i -qorous

and prcsent meaning of the term, technological normal izar ion

consists in the choice and dctcrmination of material, the lorm

and dimcnsions of an object u hose char.rcteristics lrom thcn on

become necessary lor conr istcnt manufacture. The div is ion of

labor constrains businessmen to a homogeneitv of norms at the

heart of a technical-economic compler u,hose dimensions .rre

constantlv evolving on a national or irrternational scale. But tech-

rologv develops within a societv's economy. A demand to sim-

plify can appear urgent f iom tht'technological poinr of vicw, but

it can seem premnture frorn the industrial and cconomic point

of vierv as f)r as the possibil i t ies of the nroment and the i,rmedi-

ate futurr are concerned. The logic oftechnologv and the inrer-

csts ol 'the economv must conlc to terms. Nloreoter. in another

respect, technological normalization must beware oIan excess of

rigiditv. What is manufacturerl must f inallv be consumed. Ccr-

ta in l r , the logic of lormal izar ion can be pushed as lar as the nor-

malization ofneeds bv mcans of the persuasion ofadvertising. For

al l that , should the quest ion he sett led as to rvhether need is an

objcct ofpossible normal izat iorr or the subject obl iged to invent

norms? Assuming that the f i rst of thesc rwo proposi t ions is rrue,

normalization must provide lor needs, as it does fbr objccts char-

acter ized by norms, margins lor d ivergence, but here rv i thout

guant i l icat ion. The relat ion of technology to consumptioD inrro-

cluces into the uni l icat ion of methods, models, procedures andprools ol qualif icarion, a rclative l lexibi)ity, evoked furthermr>rt:br the ternr "normaiization," u,hich n.rs preferred in Fr.rncc inl9l0 to "stanclardization," to designate rhc administrativc organ-ism responsible firr cntcrprise on a national scale.I The conceptol normaliz.rt ion excludes thal of immutabil it\,, inclucles the antic-ipation of a possible flexibil i tr ' . So rve see horv a tcchnologicalnornl graduallv rcflccts an iclea ofsociety and its hicrarchv ofval-

I

)72 17t

ues, ho\1 a (lecision to normalizc assumcs the rePrcsentation ol a

possiblc whole of correlativc, comPlementarr or comPensatory

clecisions. I his rvholc must bc l lnished in advancc, f lnished ifnot

closcd. Thc repltscntation of this totalitv of reciprocallv rclative

norms is planning. Str ict lv speaking, the uni tv of a Plan u 'oulc l

bc the unin of .r unic;ue thought. A bureaucratic and technocratic

mvth, the Plan is the modern dress ctt the ide.r ol Providcnce. As

i t is very c lcar that a mcct ing of dt ' legrtes and a gathcr ing of

machincs are hard put to achicvc a unifi 'clf thought, it must bc

admitted that ue rvould hesitatc to sa) ofthc Plan rvhat La Fontaine

said of Providencc, that it kno\as rvhat rvc need bctter than wc

do.5a Neverthcless - and without ignoring the fict that it has been

possible to present normal izat ion and planning as c loselv con-

nected to a \\nr economy or thc cconomY ol totalitarian regimes -

\\re mu\t see.rbove all in planning endeavors the attemPts to con-

stitute organs throuth u hich a socictv could estinrate, lorescc and

.rssurrc its needs instead of bcing redrrccd to recordirg ancl stat-

ing thenr in tcrms oIJccounts and lral.rncc sheets. So that lvhat is

denounccd, uncler the name ofrat ional izr t ion - thc bogev com-

placent lv rvavcd l r l the champions of l ibcral ism, the cconomic

variety of the cult of nature - as a mechaniz.rtion of social l i le per-

haps expresses, on thc contrary, thc need, obscurelv f 'elt bv soci-

etv, to become the organic subjcct ol needs rccognized as such.

It is easv to understand horv technological Jctivit l and its nor-

maliration. in terms ofthcir relation to the ecoDotrly, are related

to the jur id ical , r r r ler . A law of industr ia l propertr , j r r r id ical pro-

tecr ion ol patents or r t 'g istered patterns, e\ ists. l i r norntal ize a

registere<l pat tern is to proceed to int lusrr i . r l cxprcrpr iat ion.- l 'he

requirencnt of national dcfinse is tht reason invoked bv many

statcs to introduce such provis ions inro lcgis l . r t ion. ' l -he uni-

verse of t t 'chnological norms opcns onto thc universc of jur id i -

cal norms. An cxpropriation is carried out according to tlre norms

of lau. The magistratr :s uho cleci<Je, the bai l i l l is responsible lbr

carrying out the sentence, arc persons identif ied u'ith thcir ftrnc-

t ion bv v i r tue ol nornrs, instal led in their lunct ion * i th the c le l -

egation ofcompetence. Here, the normal dcscends fionr a higher

norm through hierarchized delegation. In his Aeincn Rcchrr/cbrc.r5

J lans Kelsen maintains th,r t the rr l id i ty o1 a jur i r l ical norm rk 'pt-nrJs

()n i ts insert ion in a ccrhcrcnt s. tsteDt, ar) order ol h ierarchizecl

norms, dra* ' ing thei t b incl ing po' ler l rom their d i rect or indirect

rel 'erence to a fund.rnrental norm, But thcre arc <lit lcrent juridical

orders because there l le several f irndamental, irreduci[rle norms.

l l i t has becn possible to contrast th is phi losophv of l . r r l rv i th i ts

powerlcssness to absorb pol i t ical fact into jur ic l ical fact , as i t

c la ims to do, at least i ts meri t in having brought to l ight the rel

at iv i tv of iur id ical nr)rDrs hierarchizecl in a coherent order has

been general ly rccognizcr l . So that one o1 Kclscn's mosr rcsol t r te

cr i t ics can *r i tc: "Tht ' lau is the svstem ol convrnt ions Anr l nornts

clest ined to or ient a l l beh.rr ior insidc a group in a rvel l< le l jncr l

manner."56 Ererr s hilt ' recognizing that the l.rrr,, plir irte as rvell .rs

public, has n.l sourcc othel than a polit ical onc, t l 'c (an a<lmit chat

the opportuni t \ to legis late is given to the legis lat ive pouer [ ,v.r

mult ip l ic i tv of custorn5 rvhich must be inst i tut ional i re<l l ry that

pouer into a v i r tual jur id ical vvholc. Evcn in thc abrcnce of the

concept of jur id ical order, dcar to Kclscn, thc rc lat iv i tv ol jur id-

ical norms can be just i f ied. ' l -h is relat iv i tv can be more or less

str ict . Thcrc cxists a to lerance for nonrelat iv i tv rvhic l r docs not

mean a gap in rr lat iv i t . r . In Iact the norm ol norm\ remains con-

vergencc. l lou coulr l i t l re otherrv ise i f lau " is onlr the rcgul , r ,

t ion ol roc i . r l act iv in"? ' i t [ . . . I' fhe correl . r t iv in ofsocial n()rms - tcchnologic.r l , cconomic,

jur id ical * tcn<is ro nrake their v i r tual uni tv an organizat ion. Ic is

not easv to sav u 'h.r t tht ,conccpt oforganizat ion is in r{ ' l . r t ion tothat ol organism, u. l rcther rve . r re deal ing * i th.r mole general

171 t7t

structure than the organism, both more fbrmal and r icher; or

rvhethcr r',,e arc rlealing rvith a model nvhich, relative to the organ-

ism hcld as a basic typc of structure. has becn singularized bv so

mrny resrrictive conditions that it could havt'no more consistencr

than a metaPn()r .

L.et us st.rte first that in a social organization, the rules for

adjusting the parts into a collective u'hich is more or less clcar

as to its o\1.n final purpose - be the parts individuals, groups or

entcrprises \\ ith a l imited objective - are external to the adjusted

mult ip le. Rulcs must bc represented, lerrned, rcmembercd, ap-

pl ied, rvhi lc in a l iv ing organisnr the rules fbr adjust inq thc parts

among themsetvcr are immancnt, presented u'ithout being repre-

sentcd, act ing nvi th nei thcr del iberat ion nor calculat ion. Flcrc

thcre is no divcrgence, no distance. no delav bct*'een rule and

regulation. The social order is a set of rulcs with u'hich the ser-

rants or beneficiarics, in any casc, the leaders, must be concenred.

The ordcr ol l i le is made of a sct of ru les l ived rv i thout protr-

lems.;8 [NP. pp. 2.+l i -50]

[15 2] We shal lsav other* ise - certainly not bettcr , probablv

Iess rvel l - namely that a society is both machine and organ-

ism. It rvould be onlv a machine if the collectivc's ends could not

onlv be strictlv planned but also executcd in conformithr ith a

program. ln th is respect, certain c()DtcntPorarv societ ies rv i th a

socialisr fbrnr r,feconomy tend perlraps tc-,r.ard an.rLltonratic mode

of funct ioninq. But i t must be acknou ledged that th is ten( lencv

sti l l encounters obstacles in facts, and not just in the i l l-rvil l of

skeptical perfirrmers, u'hich obligc the organizers to summon up

their resourcei lbr improvisation. lt can cven be askcd r't hether

anv societr whatsoever is capable ol both c learsightedness in

cletcrmining i ts purposcs and ef l ic icncv in ut i l iz ing i ts nte.rns. In

anv case, thc fict that one ofthe t.rsks of the entirc soci.rl organ-

ization consists in its infbrming it iell as to its possible purposes -

u ' i th the except ion of archaic and so-cal lcd pr imit ive societ ies

n,here purpose is furnished in rite and tradition just as the behav-

ior of the animal organism is providcd by an innarc nrodel - seems

to shorv c lear lv that , str ict lv speaking, i t has no intr insic f inal i ty.

In the case oIsociety, regulation is a nced in sc.rrch of its organ

and i ts norms ofexercise.

On the other hand, in the case ofthe organism the fact ol need

expresses the existence ofa regulatory apparatus. 'fhc necd fbr

fbod, energy, movement and rest requires, as a condition of its

appearance in the fbrm ol aD\ ietv and the act o lsearching, the

relerence ol the organism, in a state ofgiven lacr, to an optimum

state ol [unctioning, determine(l in the fbrm of a con51ar1. 4.

organic regulation or a homeostasis assurcs first of all the return

to the constant when, because of variations in its relation to the

environntent, the organism diverges from it.. lusr ,ts need has as

its center the organism taken in its entirety, even though it man-

i lcsrs i rsel fand is sat isf ied bv means ofone apparatus, so i ts reg-

ulariorr exprcsses the inte{r.lt ion oIparts within tht rvhole though

it operates by means of one nervous and endocrine svstem. This

is the rt.ason rvhv, strictlv speaking, there is no distance betrveen

organs rvithin the organism, no externalitv of parts. The knorvl-

edge the anatomist gains f iom an organism is a k ind ofdisplav in

cxtensiveness. But thc organisnt i tsel f does nor l ive in the spat ia l

tnode hr nhich i t is perceivecl . The l i fb ol r l iv ing bcing is, 16r

each ol i ts e lements, the immediacv of the copresence ofal l .

INP, Pp. 2s2-s ] l

[153] Social regulation tcnds tou,ard organic regulation and

mimics it u' ithout ceasing l irr all that to be corrposed mechani-cal l r . In older to ident i l i thc social composi t ion u i rh the socialorgar) isrr in thc str ict sensc ol the term, $e shoulr l l lc able tcrspeak oI a society's neerls lnd norms as onc spc.rks of an organ-ism's v i ta l needs and norms, that is , unambiguouslv. The vi ta l

i76 177

needs an(l norm\ ofa l izard or.r stir:kleback in thcil natural habitat

arc cxpressctl in thc verv l.rct that these animals are verY natural

l iving beings in rhis hrbit.rt. But it is enough that one individual

in anv society qucstion tlre necds and norms of this society and

challenge them - a sign that rhcse needr and norms arc not those

of the rvhole socicty - in ordcr for us to understand to * hat

extent social need is not inlmanent, to \\ 'hat extcnt the social

norm is not intcrnal, and, f inally, to rvhat cxtent the society, seat

ofrestraincd dissent or latent antagonisms, is far f iom setting itsell

up as a rvhole. If thc individu.rl poses a question about the final-

i ty ol the societv, is th is not lhc s ign that thc societv is a poor ly

uni f ied set of means, prcciseJr ' lacking an end u' i th rvhich the

col lect ivc act iv i ty permit te. l bv the structure u 'ould ident i fv?

To support th is uc could inroke tht 'analyses ofcthnographcrs

rvbo are sensi t ive to the diversi t r of srstrms of cul tural norms.

Claude Li 'v i -Strauss savs: "We then discorer that no society is

hrndament.rl lv qotxl, but rh.rt none is.rlrso]utt ' l) l-ad; thev all oller

thcir menrbers ccrtain adr i r t r tagcr, rv i th the Proviso that thcre

is invariablv a lesiduc of t 'vi l, the Jmount ol lr,hich scems to re-

main more or less constant and pcrhaps corresponds to a specific

incrtia in social l i fe fesist.rnt to all attempts at organ ization." 5e

INP, pp.2ss-56]

On the Normative Character of Philosophicol Thought

1154] Phi losophv is the lcxe of Wisdom. C)ne sees immcdiatelv

that rvisdom is fbr philosophv an Ideal, since love is dcsire fbr

something that it is possil>le to posscss. Thus, at thc origin ofthe

phi losophical quest is the conlessjon of a lack, thc recogni t ion

of a gap betrveen an cxistence and a ncccl.

Wisdom is more than scit 'nce in the strict and contenrporarv

sense of thc r torr l , lor scicncc is , r contemplat ivc possession ol

rcal i tv throLrgh cxclusion tr f r l l i l lusion, error and ignorancc,

rvhereas Wisdom is the use of principles ofapprcciation provided

bv science fbr the purposc tr f br inging hunran l i le into n stat( 'o l

practical and aflcctive pertection, or happiness.

Wisdom is therelore t l r t ' real izat ion of a state of human f i r l -

f i l lment and cxcellence, a re.rl ization inrmediately dcrived from

knorvledge of an order of perfcct ion. Wisdom is thus c lear ly a

practical fbrm of consciousncss.

Nou let us compare thc ctvmologic.r l dcf in i t ion and ancient

conception of philosophy rvith our conlrnonscnsc image. In com-

mon parlance, philosophy is a certain disposition to accept cvcnts

deemcd necessarv and incvitable, to subject prejudices and phan-

toms of thc imagination to cold scrutinv rnd crit icism, ancl to reg-

ulate one's conduct in accordancc rvith firrr personal principles

of judgment and evaluat ion. l t seems 1>rob,rbJe, moreovcr, that

insofir as those principlcs are lemotc l ionr e'errdav l ife, pcople

are incl ined to th ink ol phi losr, 'phv as utopian and i r l le specula-

t ion ol no immediarc rrse ant l therel i r rc ol nt t ra lue. Contmon

scnrc, then, seenrs to lcar l to t r lo contra<] ictrrry judgmcntr con-

ccrning philosophy. C)n the one h.rnd. it sees philosophr as a rare

and thcrcf t r re prest ig ious t l isc ip l ine.rnd, i f i t l iues u[) to i ts prom-

ises, as an important spir i tu.r l t ' rcrc ise. On thc other hand, i t

deduces from thc var ietv ofcomptt ing phi losophical c loctr ines

that phi losophv is inconsistent and t ickle. hence a mere intel-

Iectual game. Yet th is judgmcnt, * h ich tends to discredi t phi lo '

sophical speculation, is contra(l icted bv thc lact that philosophers

throughout historv havc bcen the objt 'ct of hosti l i t l and cven

persecut ion, somet imes bv pol i t ical lcar lers ancl somct imes bv

thc masses themselves. I f the teachings and examplcs of the phi-

losophers are so rv ic le lv leared, rhen tht act iv i ty must not be

ent i re lv lut i le.

Norv lct us trring thcsc scatt( rc(l observations toqcthcr. Io clenv

that phi losophv has anr "ut i l in" is to rccognize thnt i t rcf lccts a

178 I7.)

concem wirh the ultimate meaning of l i fe rathcr than rvith imme-

diate expedients, with l if 'e's cnds rather than its means..Just as

\\ 'e cannot focus simultaneously on ob.jects closc to us and objects

far arvay, rvr also cannot interest ourselves simultaneously in ends

and means. Norv, it is usual - not to say normal - for people to

intcrcst thentselves primarily in means, or vvhat thev take to be

means, u,ithout noticing that nleans exisr only in relation to ends

.rnd that, in accepting certain me.rns, thev unconsciously accept

the ends that make them so- In other v.ortls, the,y accept whatevel

philosoph.y happens to be embodied in the taluet and institutions oJ a

patticulat civiliTatior. To accept, for example, that saving is a means

to a better l i fe is implicit ly to accept a bourgeois system o[val-

ues, a value systcm totally dif lerent from that offeudal t imes. This

perversion of our attention is what caused Blaise Pascal to say,

"lt is a dcpJorable thing to see men deliberating always on means

and never on ends," and further, "Man's scnsitlvitr to small things

and inscls i t iv i ty to large ones [are] s igns of a pecul iar inversion

o[ r 'a lucs." Phi losophy is a correcr ive to th is inv!rs ion, and i f the

comrnonsensc crit icism that philosophy is not usefirl, which is

strictlv.rccurate, is intended to suggest that it is therefbrc abso-

lutely v.rlueless, it errs only in its identi l ication ofvalue with uti l-

itv. It is truc that philosophy is justif icd only if i t has value or is

a value, but it is not true that uti l i tv is thc only value: uti l i ty is

valuable only in something that is a means to an end.

Insofar as philosophy is the search for a meaning of l i [e (a jus-

t i l lcat ion of l i fe that is nei ther pure l iv ing nor even rhe wi l l to

live but rtryoir-r ' i lre, knowledge ofu,hat it is to l ive), it cnters into

competit ion and occasionally into conflict rvith polit ical and reli-

g ious inst i tut ions, which are col lect ivc srstems for organiz ing

human interests. Every social institution cmbodies a human inter-

cst; an institution is the codification o{ a value, the embodiment

ofvalue as a sct ofrules. Thc militarv, fbr cxample, is a social insti-

lAo j l t

tution that [ulf i l ]s a collective need fbr securitv or aggrcssi()n.

Philosophy is an individual quest, horvevcr. ln the History of

Philosophy Hegel says, "PhiJosophy bcgins only rvhere thc individ-

ual knows i tsel fas indiv idual , fbr i tsel f , as universal , as essent in l ,

as having inf in i te value qua indiv idual ." The indiv idual can par-

t ic ipate direct ly in the ldea (or, as we uould sav, in valuc) rv i th-

out the mediar ion olan\ inst i tut ion. Phi losophv is an asocial

activity. Thcrc are no philosophical institutions. Sclrools arc asso-

ciat ions, not societ ies.

Philosophical judgment thercfbre cannot avoid casring itself

as a compet i tor of both pol i t ical judgment and rel ig ious judg-

ment, which in any case are c loselv relatcd. l t is not unusual ,

moreover, for compet i t ion to turn into r ivalrv. Ei ther phi loso-

phy reinforces communal beliefs, in l lhich case it is poilt l t 'ss,

or else it is at odds with thosc beliefs, in u,hich case it is danger-

ous, "Phi losophv," Ar istot lc said, "must not take or( lers, i t l rust

give them."

The upshot of th is <l iscussion is that the essence of phi lo-

sophical speculation is to applv a normative corrective to human

cxpcr ience - but that is not al l . Any technique is basical lv nor-

mative, because it scts fbrth or applies rules in the fbrrrr of fbr-

mulas, procedures, motlels and so on. But this normativc character

of technique is secondarv and abstracti secontlar,v because it has

to do with means, and abstract because it is l imited to search-

ing for one kind of sat is l ic t ion. The mult ip l ic i ty of tcchniques

assumes a pluralitv of distinct needs. If phil<.rsophy is a nornra-

tive discipline. moreover, it is prinrordially and concrctcll so. The

best-knovvn definit ions ol phil<.'sophy tend tcr stress one of thcse

aspects over thc othet: either normative or concrete. Neverthe-

less, both adject ives f igure in al l thc def in i t ions. Thc Stoics

emphasize the norm.lt ive: in defining philosophv as rpiritudl mc./i-

cine, thev assume that passion and disease are one and tht'same.

Novalis says something slightl l diffcrcnt *'hen he calls philoso-

phv a "higher patholc,g,v." [ . . . ]

Al though i t is t rue that ancient phi losopht Postulates thc

uni ty of valuc, i t ( ioes so, I th ink, in an ontological sensc, fbr the

Ancicnts also held that the value of action is inf'erior to that of

knou.ledge. Ancicnt philosophy u,as intcllectualist. Knowlcdgt:

of the universal order is enough to cstablish it. Virgil 's l inc "Felir

qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas" (flappy is the man rvho knorvs

the causcs of things) might servc as an epigraph to all ancient phi-

losophics. No anti-intellcctualist has been as clcar on this point

as Nietzsche: 'A metamorphosis of being by knorvlcdge: therein

lies the common crror of rationalists, Socrates foremost among

them."60 In The B;rth oJ Tragcdv, he calls Socrates the "father of

theoretical optimism" and holds him responsible for the i l lusorv

bclief that "thought, follorving the Ariadne's thrcad ol causalitv,

can penetrate the decpcst abvsses ofbeing, that it has the Po$'er

not onll to knorv but to rcfbrm existence."6l (Notc, in passing,

that Pascal and Schopenhaucr shorved Nietzsche thc u'ay to the

path of theoretical pcssimism. )

Givcn that modern philosoph! cannot use ancient u'isdom as

a nodel, can it perhaps better serve thc infention that animated thc

ancient lovers of wisdom? The connection bctrvcen ancient and

modern philosophy is deeper than a shared idcal; it is a shared

need. Thc nccd that gave rise to ancicnt philosophy was for a

mcntal organizing structure, a structure at once normative and

concrctc and thus capable of dc{ining r" hat the "normal" form

of consciousness q.as. This need manifested itself in the trou-

bling, unstable, painful and therelbre abnormal charactcr of ordi-

nary cxper ience. [ . . . ]

The ancient mind nevertheless lacked the notion of a.tPi.rt-

ual sublect, that is, an infinitely generous and crcative pou'er.

Ancient philosophy trcated the soul as subordinate to the idca

It i2 lRl

and crcat ion as subordinatc to contcmplat ion. I t comprised a

physics, a logic, an ethics, but no aesthetics. Ancient thought rvas

spontaneousl l natural ist ic. I t had no not ion ofvalues that might

not exist or that ought not to cxir t . I t sought valuc in being, v i r -

tuc in strength, soul in breath. Modern philosophv is conscious

of thc po*ers of mind. Even the knorvledge of impotence has,

sincc Kant, oftcn bccn intcrprctcd as a po\!.er of mind. Hence,

tlrcre i i no obstaclc to modcrn philosophl's bcing a search for a

concretc uni ty of valucs. Strmmariz ing the fbregoing analvsis,

thcn, Iof fer th is def in i t ion: modern phi losophv is pr imordial ,

concrctc, normativc judgmcnt.

What is true of norms in general is t lrerefbre true of philoso-

phv. The abnormal, being the a-normal, logicallv fbllous thc dc{-

init ion ofthc normal. It is a logical ncgation. But it is the priority

of the abnormal that attracts thc attcntion of the normative, that

calls {brth a normative clecision and provicles an opportunitv to

cstablish normality through the application of a norm. A nornr

that has nothing to regulatc is nothing bccausc it regulates noth-

ing. The esscncc of a norm is its rolc. Thtrs practically and func-

t ional lv thc normal is t l re operat ional negat ion of a state which

therctry becomes the logical negation of that statt '; the atrnormal,

though logical lv poster ior to thc normal, is funct ional ly f i rst .

I lencc philosophv is incvitablr a sccond stage or moment. It does

not create valucs because i t is cal led into being by di l lerenccs

among values. t l istoricallv, philosophv can be seen as an effbrt

ol mincl to give value to human experience through crit ical exami,

nation and slstematic apprcciation of the values spontaneouslv

embodied in civil izations and cultures, The sciences l itt le bv l itt le

creatc t ruth fbr humankind. Pol i t ical ancl reJigious inst i tut ions

l i t t le l rv l i t t le turn human act ions into good rvorks, The arts, bv

represent ing man's dreams, l i t t le bv l i t t lc rcvcal the extent nf h is

ambit ions. In thc pr imit ivc mind thesc fLnct ions are intertwined,

so that m!th imperioLrsJv def ines $ hat is real , * 'hat porvers mcn

havc, and horv they relatc to one another, .rnd that is rvhv philos-

ophv takes mvth as its f irst object ofreflection, In the past, phi-

losophv greg ,rut ofconl l ic t among myths; today i t grogs out of

thc conflict among thc various functions of mind.

Philosophy can succeed in its intention - to recover the unity

ol effort behind disparate acts ol spontaneous creation - only b)

relating rhe various elcments ofculture and civil ization; sciencc,

ethics, religion, tcchnologv, f ine arts. To cstablish such relations

is to choose.tmong ralues. Crit icism and hit 'rarchv art 'thcrefbre

c!5cntial. Philo5ophy cannot adopt anything but a crit ical attitude

to$ard thc various human f'unctions that it proposcs to judge. Its

goal is to discover the meaning of those functions br determin-

ing lro* thel f it togcther', bt' rcstoring thc unity ofconscious-

ness. The business ol philosophv is thercfore not so much to solve

problems as to create them. In L6on Brunschvicg's rvords, phi-

losophv is thc "science ofsolved ploblems." that is, rhe question-

ing of received solutions. Norv ne can underrtand whl philosophy

has attracted hosti lc reactions through the ages: philosophy is a

qucstioning of I ifc and therefbre a threat ro rhe idea that every-

thing necessar! to Iife is alrca<lr in our posrcssion. 1-he goal ol

philosophy is to search fbr reasons to l ive by seeking thc end for

u hich l ife is supposed to be the mcans. Bur to pursue such a goal

is also to discover r(asons not to Iive. Nothing is mrrre at odds

rvi th l i fc than the idea that an end to l i fe mal be i value and

not s imply an accident. Thercin l ies one s()urcc of phi losophy's

trnpopularitv. [r\tS Du Coractcrc nornrctil de lo pcnsie philosophiquc.

l . l r , 2r , l r ,4r , 5r ,6r ]

ld4 l8t

Cr i t ical Bibl iography

Camil le Linroges

This bibliographv is dividcd into t$-o parts. Part CJnc inclurlcs the

t i t les of Georges Cangui lhem's publ ished rvorks. I 'ar t ' l ivo is a

selection of the nrost significant published reviervs ol and conr,

mcnt.lr ies on these u.orks, This bibliography is intcndcd prima-

r i lv as a rvorking tool . I t includes a substant ia l ntrmber of t i t les,

pul>)isherl mainlv befbre 194J, thar are nor fbrnd in the on)r,orher

availablc bibliography (see belolr ', Part Trvo, the penultimate entry

undcr 198 5 ) .

Succinct b iographical and contextual informat ion, rvhcncvcr

reltv.rnt and available, is givcn undcr an cntrt. Fach entry appears

under the vear of i ts publ icat ion, in many cases rv i th the c i rcum-

stances surrounr l i rg the or ig in of the text - fbr erample. a pub-l ic lecture or paper prcsented at a scholar lv c.rnlerence. Thosebooks consist ing of a col lect ion of lectures and,/or previouslypubl ished papers are idcnt i l ied as such. When appl icablc, var i -ous er l i t ions nre note( l ar the f i rst ment ion ol . r t i t le. ( )n lv ne*cdi t ions involv ing a di f l i rent publ ishcr or t ranslat ion, and,/orrevis ions or addi t ions to thc texts, are c i ted under thc vcar ofthe neu publ icat ion.

No <loubt, had Georgcs Canguilhem been askecl to provi<lc hisorvn bibliographv, he.rrrrulcl not havc includecl a goorJ numl.er of

thc tit les givcn here - not Lrecnusc of a rvish to conceal anv oJ

thcm, b(t b<:cause Cangui lhern has aln.rvs maintained.r str ict

distinction betrveen thc rvorks of the author (1'oeurre) and thc

"traces" oI the inte]lcctual and profcssorial carccr.

As a bibliographcr rvho is also a researcher intL'rested in Frcnch

contemporar\ intellectual history, it has been mv contention th.rt

an acc()unt as complete . rs possible ol ' thc pr inted "rr . rccs" rr t

Cangui I hcm's remarkalrle intel lcctual trajectory was \,\,ell lvorth

pursuing. I am confident th.rt many readcrs r+ i l l share ml opinion.

Itart One

W()RKs rJy Cr()rr( ; l s CANcrrn rr i l l

( icor l rs (angu; lhem rcccr ' , ,1 h;s Nrh tduc. l i i r rn r t thc r lcmenrar$r 'hrx ' l

and thtn th" high school o l h is nat ive toun. C.rrrr lnau<lar1, in southsestcrn

France. In l9 l l . i t the age o1 scrrnteen. hr: entered thc l , / r r iqnc - s lx{r ia l ( l l ics

that prcpartr l studcnts krr the highlv compet i t ive en{rancc rxrminal ions n)

th. Ecole Nonnale Supar icur. o i the lvcic Hcnr i l \ ' in l 'ar is. Cangui lhrrr

. r t tended rhr I recc l iom l92l r , ) I91.1. t iugh( br rht phi l ,x, ,phcr Erni l t Chart icr

(bettcr Lnrnr n under the p, ,n nrn)( "Al i in") . AlJ in raurht thr phi lov,ph! (our s(

t rom l90l to lL l l l , interrupr.( l , ,n11 by wor ld $trr I , r 'hen he voluntrr i l r

cnl isted (he rvas t<x, o ld to bc drai tcd) and scned in the art i l lcry. In his read-

ings ()1 th. grert phi lowrphical . rnd l i terarr tcxts. Al , r in l tc l h is studcnts t ,>.rna

lvze t i t i r r l l r rnr l to rcsprct rh. \c $r i t jng! , whi l . cmphasi / ing d neo-Kint j rn

perspt. l i \ t . ar rc l l as his osn { t iun(h ptrc i l ism rn r th i rs bascd on.r lunda-

mental d isrrust o l porr cr l " le c ior<n Lontrc ler poututr ' ) . tnd ol rcpubl ican gen-

r :nrs i ty. . Alain dceph in l lurn.cd Cangui lhem\ intr ' l lcctual l i fc dur ing thesc ytars.

In 1924, ( 'angui lhcm enterur i tbe Ecole Normalc Supir icure, rherc, ; rs:n

Lrnapol , ,gr t i r Jnr imi l i t . r r is t nn, l prc i l rsr . he rem.r incr l la i tb l i r l to r \ l . r in ' \ r f . 'ch

I 11b td7

ins(. \ \ ' i th thc r ise ol r i r ionJl socir l ism, Cnngui lhcm in l9 l4 )5 rrnre to (r icct

hi \ pol i ( ics ol p.( i t i \nr , rnd l r rer becanrL rn:( t i \ ( rcsisrnn(L mcml ' r . r . l )cspir t

th, <hange in bis pol i t ics. Cangui lhem\ c lost a( . rchm.nt n) Ahirr nevcr ruverrr l ;

hc r ' . rs at AIain 's bedsidc rrpi ,n his death, at ter srr l ler ing through r long i l lncss,

rrr func 2, l95l (see Jein 'Fran(ois Sir inel l i , Clnirotnn nrcl leLrucl /c: { i r jancur ct

nornol icnt dans I 'cnrrc , / .ur ' . ruuro IPar is: I aranl , l9 i ] l t l . pp. J l r ) l l . . ind ,16411. ) .

( : rngui lh(nr ' \ ch* ot 192.1 ar thc Fci , l , : N,rrmalt SuPcr icure rar p. : r t icrr-

l r r lv , l is t inguidrcd: i r in<. lur lcd Ravmond

^n,n. l .an'Prul Sartr t . . rnd P.1ul Ni?an,

i 'nong othcr luminir ics. The pbi losophcr an<l mathcmat ic ian Jcrn Caui l les had

cntered thc 'Lcol t thc prcvious vear, rnd hc and C.rngui lhen commncul a

' r rong l i icndship rhrt s,r , ld cont inue l i , r r r rnr vears.

192 6

" l , r I hcor ic de lbrr ln ' r r du prcgl is chtz lugurtc C<,mtc," l ) ip l , lnre dir(u( lcs

sul : i r i rures, S, , rhnnr.

\ \ r i t ten rrnr l r r th( suPervi i i , rn, , l ( l ( lc \ t in lJougle. ' \ t

thr t t imc, rhe

Diplnnrc d 'atuder \upir ieun s was punucr l upon compler ion ol unr lcrgrad-

ui tc sn,dics ( i , .cn. . ) , ind bcl i , rc the ' i rgr i iTarton" cxaminir i ( ,n, $ hi .h stu '

dcnts prcpatr l r r rhe Fcolc \orm.r lc Srrpir icuru. . Somr l i l i r vears l r t t . r

C.ngui lhem $ n,r . i t \ l ) , , ( commcnr,rrr i , ' , , ,1 l ) , ,ugl i (19?l l I .

1921

Cangri lhcm pl ivrd i mrior rolc th.r t l r r r i , r rhr iconoctrst ic r . \uc thar l icol f

N, ' rmale stucl t 'nts , , rg.rnrze, l rnd st , rger l ar rhr . cnd <n cach rcrr tcnr i r rear. l lc

ras onc , , f thr 1! r i te ' r . ,1 (h( pl . rv . l

e I )era; t re r tc t . . rngv,n. . i pun in lo lv ing

th( nnme ol rhc dir .ct , ) r , ,1 the EL{, lc N<,rnralr , custavc Ianrrn. anr l t .ang Son

in Indochina, t rherr r bar l lc t rctrvcen thc Fr.nth an<l thc Chin.n.hi( t lc( t ro

thc disnissr l o l thc Jul ,s I :cn\ { ( ) \1.rnm.nr jn t885. 1e() ant inr i l i r i r i \ r sones

$tr( c{ ' rs idcrr( l p,rni f i r l . r rJr ourragco,! \ - , : , , r I ' L I I i I i s . r ( i , , | ) r t , .s ;nrc l lecrucls

en tempiJ df gucrr f ! 'and "Cornplaintc du capi ta inc Cambusat" (Cambu,;at uas

an ol l icer n sponsiblc t i , r thc mi l i tary instruct ion oi tho Ecole Normale stu-

dents). Crngui lhcm *as author of thc f i rst and coauthor of the second, rv i th a

group ol i i l lorv students including Sartrc. Sir indl i ha\ repr inted the text o l both

!'ngs (scc Clrdr.,,to, intellcctuellc, pp. 326-28) and provides substantial mate-

r ia l about thc context of thcsc cvcnts. I anvrn bcld Cangui lhern and others

rcsponsible for the* act ions, and the inscr ipt ion "PR" ( l i l r " revolut ionar,v prop-

.rganda") wrs recorded in the mi l i tary dossiers of thc culpr i ts - rvho rvere sup-

pored to become ol l icers at the end of their "mi l i t r ry prcparat ion" at the Ec<, le

Normale (s i r incl l i , p. 339). CanguiJhem purposely la i led the examinl t ion con'

c lu<l ing th is prepi t rat ion in Spr ing 1927 b1- al lowing thc basc of tht machine

{un he s ' . rs supposed to disrnount to f i l l on thc l i ,ot <,1 the examining oi l icer

( ib id. , p.-165).

At th i r t ime. he was act ivelv c i rculat ing a pct i t ion against thr Io i Piul-

Soncour, $ hich h, l l jur t hr .n passcd by the Assembl6e nrt ionale, on thc nrobl

l i l . r t ion dl thc. , , ! rntr ! l i , r s.arr imt ' (see below, f i rst !ntn undrr 1927).

Nonc , '1 rhi \ p.cclu( l ( ! l intc l lectu.r l sork, though: Cangui lhcm rankc<l * r -

i rnr l th;r r t r r in rh. h ighlv compet i r i l r eramintr t ion lor t tu ol l r i , totn n tc phr

/ordf f i ,c . PrDl Vignrur. r rho rr l r ld become an eminenr schol ; r in rncr l ic 'a l

pbi l ,x,>ph1, ranLed l i rst , , rnd Cangui lhemi f r icnd lcrn Cavai l l i r r rn lcd lourrh.

Cangui lhtm then did his mi l i tar) scrvicc lor e ighteen months, bet\ r rcr)

Nortmbcr l927 rnd Apr i l 1929 - n,) t as an ol l lcer but f i rst as.r pr ivr te and,

l r ter , in prep,rat ion lor noncornmissioned of l lcerslb Bddiu).

C.aj . l lernard lpscul l . l , " l a Phi losophie d ' l termann Kcyser l ing," 1 ibf . i p.opor

( l \4 i rch 20, 1927), pp. l8-21.

Revierv of N4aurn e Boucher, I-a Philosophte tl'Htrnann Kclrer/rng (Paris:

Rieder. 1939). Bc'nrcr:n 1927 and 1929, Cangui lhcm somct imes usql tht

pen ntrnrc "C.( ; . Bernard" to s ign art ic les in Librcs propos. l t is nos qui te

( f i l l icul t to l ind issues of r ;brcs propos. /ournol d ' .1 la int in f ic t . a completc

ser ies c:n onlr bt f i , r rnd in I l ls French l ibrar ies. rhc i i rst issuc rpptart ' r l

on Apr i l 9, 1921, pr inted bv thc " lmprimcr i . co,)parat ive' l . r labor i ruse' ,"

I t l 189

in Nimr.s. l \ l ichel Alexandre (1888-1952), then a lvcic professor in th ' t c i t ! ,

rv i th his * i l i Jeannt: , assumed most of thc edi tor ia l burt lcn ol rvhat rvas thcn

a weekl ,v publ icat ion. When Alexandrc I l rst met Alain hc was t lvt .ntv years

ol t l ; he rcmained a dev() ted disciple thr i )ughout hi \ l i i t / ,brcr Profor c lu icklv

.r t t racte, l cnough at t ( :nt ion imong Frcnch intel lecn,als that Gal l imard dc

cided to publ ish i t under i ts Prest ig ious "NRF" imprint in 1922 23.rnd

192.1. lvhcn the journal ceased prtbl icat ion A second scr ies ol l ibres prtrpos

sas publ ished as a montbly f rom Nlarch 192? to Septcmbcr 1935r src

Jeanne Alcxandre, ed., En Souvcnir tie llichel AIcrcntlrc: Lelons' tcr-rsl, /.trr.r

(Par is: Mercuft . df France, 1956), pp 499-51'1. In l9 l l -12, Cangui lhem

assumed thc main edi tor i i l l i rnct i , ,ns ol l i6res proPdr (sce belos. entrv

unr l t r l9 3l ) .

C.t i . l lenurd fpseud. l , "La Nlobi l isat ion de! intel lcctuels - Protestatron d c(u-

{ l i t rntr . " l i l rcr p/opoi (Apr i l 20. 1927), pp. s l -52. Fol l ' rvcd on pp. 5}- i ' l

I ' r r terr s i tncd 'C. Cangui lhem."

P, intd on t2{cr +6- ' lU, undcr tht t i t lc " l a l lacl i r . r t ion ( i ' l .urcpc no.

, l t r 15 rrr i l . " i i thr r t \ r , ) i thc Prot!st, l i rst prrbl ished jn / ur .T, . ' . s ignfd l , !

160 inr f l l rctui l ! in, l l . rdemics, inclrrding Al . r in. anr l l i 'J lo"ed bv tht r ign. t

t r r rcs r , l h l i r - l i ,untudcnts l iorr the Ecole Norm,: lc including C.rnqui lht ' r r r .

Rarmond Arc,n. Jean Cavai l l&, Char les Fhrcsm,rnn, Jean l l )PPol i t f . l leDri ' l

Nlarrr ,u and Je.rn- l 'aul Sartn. Thc' Loi Paul-Boncour, aborr t thc "gcncral

mobi l izar ion ol che n.r t ion in wart imc." had been votcd bv the A'srnrbl i r

nat ionale on l \ larch 7. 1927. The la* *rs denounccd f i , r st i l l ing int t l lc t

tual indcpendence and l iecdorn ofopinion in wart imc.

Acconl ing to Sir inel l i (pp. l ,+ l -a2). Cangui lhem ini t iat .d the pet i t ion

at thc hcole N(Jrmal. .

'Anniversaircs. I " ju i l let n: iss:ncc dc tc ibniz," I . ibrcs propos ( l r l . t 20. 1921),

p. 185.

I :xtracts l rorn I c ' ibniz 's sorks, l i ; l losed bv the ment i<,n ' ! ,mmunicated

br ( i .C."

" l )e la Vulgir is ion phi lov,phiquc. Unc Edi t ion du t) iscours dc I . r rnethode,"

/ . tbrer pfopd' (Jul l le, I927), pp.200-201.

Rcvie* ol Descartc is "mut i lat{al t txt" ct l i ter l bv P:ul I tmaire (Par is:

l l i t icr , 1927).

Cl .G. Bcrnalr l Ipscud.] , "La Logic lut dcr jugcments dc vr lcur," l ibrcr propor

(Arg.20, 1927), pp. 2 '1 i l -51.

Rcr ierv ol [ . Goblot , t rc i t i l . lot ] igu. lPat i \ t Col l in, 1927).

"Essair A la l \ ' lan ' i ' re de.. . . " t ihrcs prapos l t )ct . 20. 1927). pp. l '11 -+s.

A past ichc oi tht rvork ol \ t , l t r i rc, rvhosr n,rmc is lacet iouslv used to

sign thf t rxt . An:ppcndcd notc rocals thr real authors to be Cangui lhcm

and Svlvain Br<,ussau<l ier , r lc l lor studcnt i t the Lcole Normale. N{ost o l

the tcxt is publ ishcd in Sir inel l i . pp. 32.{-25. Thc part ichc mocks thr Fr l l r s

dircctor, ( lustavc L.rnson, and his rcact ions to the ant imi l ihr i r i t contcnt o1

"1\{ontagnes et l ront iercs." / tnr . 'prup, ' (N()v. 20, 1927), pp. 4{) l '+02.

F.mi lc Boutroux, D6 l&i t& i tcrr) t ' | lcs thct Dcscartcs. l hese lat ine t radui te par

Nl. Georgcs Cangui lhrm, i l ive dc I 'Fcol t Normalr strpi ' r icrrrc. Prafa. . ( lc

iU. Lion Brunscht icg, de l ' lnst inr t ( t 'ar is: I ibrair ic Fal i \ Alcan, 1927).

A 1-rench transht ion ofLmi le Boutroux's 187'1 Iat in doctoral t l isscrta-

t ion. A nc$ ct l i r ion las publ ished in 1985. lhe 1927 edi t ion includes a

studv bv I i<,n Bnrnschvicg <in B<iutrrux 's phi l<,soph1, " t .a Phi losophic

d'EmiL: Boutrour," *hich is not includcd in rhe l9u5 cdi t ion; i t c. rn. ho"

cvcr. be lnund in Lion I l runsch' icg, E.r i ts phi losaphiques (P.rr is: l r rcsses

Universi t i l i re! de l r lnce, 195.1), vol . l , pp. z l l - l l .

192 8

Cangui lhcm spcnt th i r rnt i re vcar in thc armv as p.rr t o i h i r c ightccn month

mi l i tarr scrvicc. I le is not knot n t<, harc publ ishcd anr th ing t lur ing th is prr i rx l .

1929

Cangui lhrm conrpLtc<l h is nr i l i tar-r xnicc in Apr i l 1929; {sumirg his usc o{ the

p* ud<,n1nr "C.( ; . B.rnrnl ," hc st i r t i :< l to publ ish ag,r in bcl i rc being relersc<1.

19() l9l

C.C. Bcrn:rr l lpseud. l , "Commcntair ts et documents Adresrt ; l r I igrc dcs

r l ro i ts de l 'hommc," l , l , rcr propo' (F.b. 20, 1929).pp 7l t -7e.

C.G. Btrn:rr l lpseud. l , " r*ais. Equisse d\rnt pol i t i juc de t 'a ix. I ' r t 'ambule,"

l ,bfc ' f .opo' (March 20. 1929),pp. l i5 lu

" l e Sour i rc dc t ' laton." Lurryc 20 (1929), pp. 129-)u

Rcview oi ; \ la in, Onur rhdpi t tcs su Plon'n 11928 ) lhr : t i t le of thc r t ' ' ier

is takt :n l rom , \ la in s Souvtnirs sur lu les Io11ntar, "here

hc had wri t t t :n, " te

l i r rgt t the sni lc ol Pl : to." Jules I agncau, who rernains a svmbol ol the sel l :

abnegat ion, dorr t ion to phi lomphy rnd high moral r tan, lanls rnr iot : ined br

v,nre prcl issors of thc ear l r ' Ih i rc l Republ ic, hrd bt 'cn Alain 's phi lovrphv

te.rchcr r t the lyci 'e. Ihat samt r tar , C:ngui lhcm rtv ietrr l thc posthumous

publ i t r t ion ol v,mc of t -agneau's lecturcs (sce belor ' , tu! cntr i t 's t lo* n ) .

" i \1 i \ imc I . ( ) \ , Dcscortcs Ic phi lasLytu au tnasquc." Iunpt 2t (1929),PP 152 56.

Revie\!.

"Calabrcs leqons ( lc Jules t .agneru. Nhcs. La L.abor i tuv . le2l l . ' I ibrcs pro2or

( lpr i l 20. 1929), pp. 190 9).

I t tv ics.

" t a I in i l 'unc par:de phi losophiqtr t . t ( ' l lcrgsonismc, w,us le pstudonvmt

lranrois ,^rouct. I ' ]ar is, Ed. ' l -es I l fvufs ' . " i t l , . . r f rofor iApr i l 2{) . 1929),

pp. 191-95.

Revies. Ihe rc.r l name ol thr nuthof ol th is i t ta(k on l lcnr i l lerg! , ,n

*ar Ccorgs I 'o l i t rcr , . t communi\ t phi lov,phcr *ho becami . r soldier in

the r . ! is t incc rnd \rrs excculrd bv the Na?is in 19,12.

" l ' r i ' j tg i ! e1 juscnrcnt," / ibrus propos ( junc 20. 1929), p.2tr1.

"Circulairc:drc. ,sr :c aur mcmbres dc l 'Associat ion l< lc sccorn iux i \nciens

Flt \es dc 1 'Fc<, le norm.r le supir icurel ," I ihrcs pnpat ( ju ly 20, le l9) ,

pp. 126 10.

Crngui lhcm is onc ol thc nrt lx s i {nat<,r ic ol th is c i rcular ( inr : lud

'ng r \ l r in, I iomain I {o l l rnd, ( ;eorgcs I l in i 'zc, Rr lmond.\rrn rnr l I - i l ic icn

Cbrlhve, r ho sr ,emr t r ) h iv. l ) .cn rh. wr i ro ) pror{ .sr ing . rg: inst thr prcsi-

dcnt ol the As!ociar ion, rhc m.r thcmat ic i . r i :mi lc t , icarr l . \ r rht annual

mcet ing oi thc r \ \ r . )c i . r r ion, in Janurf \ , h. hrd condcnrncd rhc c ightr

i:li; i

l:=

'i i

r: =

=+

jzii +

==

:=i

-; !i

:: :

; -'

' ;i1

;=t

':;ii:

:; -.:

ij:-1.'

: j

Zt,;S

: i

, vtii: i i ;: z

=: t 7

: i ,; i:i i= i,l

: =

iilj :

j :i,.i

11

2 a

i; ii:E

. _

=;

: ;?iit i ;:{:ii=

=;v

i :ii1,.;i=

izi ;

: aiiz

j,- , :iiti =i:: j!.i:;:i,i:i

1i=

,,2,:=

=E

, =

,=i;i ::,i

i j=!=

:a1

:ZZ

1

' i:::i i,,t,ri ,I i::ii ;r:it:i i:i +

ij i.ia

i;:i;, i

E i

I =

: ;

i ?

: :

:!;i:*lr z

':, i;

j 1

=

; :

i=!ii?

;iiii; tl :?

?

+ ?

i=4

:;ii: i

I :

i. ;,;"

2,1

i

: +iri:i:;

; i

t ii

ii!1

i:i i

) 3

1r*i!;E

i

i ;;

lg

--:'r z

:+

l

, :tl=F

=ii I

i i;

i; :z

i) ,

=;::-2

:'-::=

;,-! :

; ii

io"

.:E:;

="=

i:'.

:t;:;!i; -:

n

=e

,:

=:'-=

Z

z1

'--'

j;:i=z

:ti Z i

;- ii

i:t+

ir:ii:E

- --t;;i;

' ;:

-E

l;;; ii;i'

: i'= i ; !i\i=

e

==

i: i t;';Zii

i': ;:

;j=

iet=

=trrii;J

i i it

=f:l=

z.i

-t1;=

:;+i=

47

=+

+=

z:

ig'+

:: :.;:.

i?=

j:

:1t

?7

F

:

*:, |

; :

l?

'. +

:

;^i

\;-r-

:i !

az

-ii\

S

! ;;

. i

:--'rr';:;.a

--r=4

:?o

l!

i-:i-.::

i ;::

-: i

:i=!:-/-

=!r

f +

;.. :

!|:!

.:i+=

;=!

- =

-

::

lall

: ;

a=

j;

'r-)>e

:-

I --- j:

i I

',i.=;a

=

=:,;

-.t

c

' 7

a

.I

r .

=:

:La

;t-/:-r==

;.:'c

-l-c

?^

;e.-::/

';^-:;:r

a

=

I r

r ;t

1

i::r

=-;::;

ai7

; i^

iiF

I;

a-

aa

*: ",

ra

1

-'=

f:a

'::

-;-{-;:.'

-:: -

,:::-1

--.'

:trr>

-.:,

rt:Q!

: !-

-;-

9-:

- !

:*-Y=

: E

==

..-

' z

=

:,

-_

1.

c:--'.L

i

1tr-x

'

E

1':.1

;

, a

"

i+

t

o.!

--

t

+: I5

i :iiij iil:

a iE

i E

a:i

:.: =

r-: ir.!:1

:-,",1

: :=

, :

; ;.

.- -+

: ,,4

-i.a

!=i=

l =

-==

t )

;i

i=

E;i

.sj,iie

i77

:.

=,t

+

l;!-;a

;:-! -.'.:::a

-'=ii i

:;::t :

;:" .;j

:ii i=

it:1t::

j =

:;;: i

ri::-

i:r:==

i!!:tii'; =

=t

,: ;:

, =

.=i

;::;:==

:ii=ii

i ii;

j: i

]:-:-J

l irj::*i.'-=

i;i:=E

.:

i ':

;!- :i

; iiz

ti:;;;:1

i'E;i=

-, !!=

;2.:'i

', iii

;:;i=ii::::!::::

ia:ii=

: i:!:=

: j:i:i2

a=

=:i;1

,i;. i;r4

i; =

;-=

';i =;

: .:=

i ::=i::=

,_-,i:ri

=1

=;

r: !

:=:

ii;=i ii ' :1

=j: ::: =7

:::;,ii:,:i:.:i-

-.=; i:

i"-i1i!!=

i 3

ti =

i.?

E:

.! i

is+

i a

.

-

\

" l 'Al la i rc Drt ' r l l r et Ia t ro i l i imr r i 'prrbl iqut par C. Chrrensol ." L ibres pnpas

(Apr i l IC/ 31 ) , p. 197.

A br icf nore on the book, s igned "C.C.," publ ished under th is t i t l t

(Prr is: Kra, l9 l l ) .

"Documen(s r t jugements. Contr< la caporal isat ion dcs intel lectuels - L lne Pro-

tcstr t ionde Normal iens," / tbf . , ProPor (Jul l le l l ) Pp. 124 2s

Nc.v rcgulal ions hl lbccn enicred at thc Lcole Normalt suP(r i (u( \Pf-

c i l lcal lv l i , rb idding col lecr i rc nct ion b1 studenrs * i thout pr ior auth,rr iza-

t ion by i ts c l i rector, and threatening discipl inarv act ion agi inst l tudcnt\ *h.)

rc l lsed to comply l i r l ly wi th the mandatorv mi l i t : r iv t ra in ing. T* 'ent ! t$o

alumni oI thc ' Ecole ( including Cangui lhem, Niz.rn, Romain Rol land , tn<l

Sartrc) har l s igntd th i r ;xotcst , . rs had tbur students sr i l l , ] t the [ ( o lc. inrong

thern Sjn! ,n. Wei l , a lso r r l i t ip lc ofAl : in fh is rr : r r u:s also publ ished in

L' lJnivcts i t i srndicdl inc in June 1931.

'Aorhr 1914. lodt 1911. River ies t re ' Posi t iv{ ,s du ci t< 'ven mobi l isrblc," I i l ' rcs

propor (Aug. l91l) , pp. 357-511.

"L ' lnrcrnartont l t nnl l lanrc d( i dfnrc, t r .n i r . prr ( ) . I thnr. :nn RLi i \ l )u l ( l ( l Fqlan-

t ine. Bn'xel les. l9 l0) ," / iAr. 'JProPoi(SePt l9] l ) . PP. 415-16

Rr:r jcrv, l i i lLrwed bv an c\rract l rom thc bo{,k, P. 417

with I l ichel Alexandre, " 'D6sarmemtnt, ' ser ie de textes sur le 'probl ime nrval

l ianco al l tnand' ," t ,6rer prot(rJ lOct. 1931), p. ' f62.

A par.rgraph ol intrx[ ,c( i { 'n b! Crngui lhcm an( l [ l ichcl Alcxin( l r . t ( ) .1

col l rct jon ,>fr loctmcnt5 oD Frcnch-( ;crman rur ' ) l r ivalr) ,Pp 462 67

"l c Coin dcs ruadcs." 1 tbres pnryot lt)ct. 19 ) I ), p. 48 3

A br ie l ! tntement bl Cangr i lhem, in relPonte t r ' ( ; rcrges Dtmrrt in l 's

cr i t i<1uc ofCangui lhcmi rcvic| ! ofO. Lehrnann Ri issbuld 's book ( l ib lcr

pfofor,5( pt . l ( ) l l ) .

"Elect ions anglr ises," l ibres l ropos (Not l93l) ,pp 5l0- l l .

Signed "{ i .C."

" lnr :cr t i t r rd$ al lcmrni lcs, par Picrrc Vi i 'not l ibrair ic \ r i lo is, l9 l l . " I ibrer Pr.?o'

(Nov. ls l l ) , pp. 5 l , t -16.

Rcvics.

" f r . r rcc Ameri( tuc - Slr lc Vovage de Laval ," I ibr . {propoJ { N<,! . 19 I l ) , pp. 519-20.

Signed "C.C."

"Sociologic - | c l Caus$ du suic ide," t i l ' r , ' r p. ,poJ (Nov. l9 l l ) . pp. 525-10.

Review ol l \ laur icc f la lbrvachr, lcs Couses , /u rut .n le (Par is: Alc in, l9 l0) .

" l ) i fcnsc r l r r < i toyen - I a Presse, le disarmcment ct l r .onf l i t \ ino- japoni is,"

i '1. . . pnfo ' {D,. . l ( r 1 l ) . tp.567-72.

Signer l ' ( i . ( - . "

"Cr i t ique et phi lowphit : Sur le Probl i r re dc l : cr6rt ion." / , l t rcr f .oPor ( l ) tc

l93l) , pp. s83 8E.

Rcvicx ofPicrrc Abrahan, Cr iotwct thu Baln (Prr is: ( ia l l imard, l9 l l ) .

1932

"l c| tunr. Dicadcncc de la nat ion l ianqaist - Lc Cinccr amrr i .a in, par Aron

ct l ) t rndicu (Ricdcr, l9I I ) , " l , l , r . j prop.\ ' ( .Jan. I9 l2) , pp.42 '14.

I t f ! ies.

" t . r IJ,1ir \ rn\ r ( \ ( r ! { ? ( ) t r i , " l i l rcs f rofo! ( I .cb. l9 l . l ) . PP. e9- l ( }4.

In N(^tml,(r l9 l l . the paci l isr l - i l ic icn Chal lav(. h;rr l prr l , l ished an ar-

t ic lc r :nt i t lcd "La Pr ix sans r6scnc" in thr iourni l Ld Pdtr pdr ic dro,r , which

/ i6rcs propoi srrmrrar ized in January 1912 (pp. 36-37). - l h6odore Rulssen,

though himscl l a pci l is t . had publ ishcd.r cr i t iquc ofChal lave under thc

t i r lc "L.r Pai \ \ inr r i rc^1 1 Non." t {uyssen's tcr l is summ.l ' i7.( l in rhi \ is \ue

dn pagcs 93 e1. ln his rr t ic lc, Crngrr i lhem sides qi th Ch,r l lave, as docs a

lblLrr ing art ic lc s i {ncd Jean I c N4atai (pp. 104-109). ( for lunhcr cvcnts in

this (ontrovers\ , \ee belou, nro entr ies do*n.)

" [ )ocumcn(s. Francc - Lcs lntel lectucls ct lc <l i rarmement," I r lnJ l ropdr (Apr i l

l9 l . l ) , pp.20t 201.

l ) iscussioD ,) l n I r r l r r o{ lc : rn t ; r rehenno publ ishc<l r rnder the same t i t l r

in lurap., March t ! , 1932. Signed,,( ; . ( - . "

"Sans plus dc r tservc qLr 'auparavant," l i6rcs prdpo' (Apr i l l9 l2) , pp. 210-13.

Cangui lhcm's an,rer to Ruy-sscn. f< ' l loving thc rcplv oi the Iat tcr (pp.

2( l l I0 ol1hi ! i \ \u( , .nr i t lcd " t a I , , r ix , dui . I l i is par Ic dr, , i r " ) r , , CinSui l

196 197

h.nr \ r , t ic le "Lr l 'a i \ \ . rn\ r ( \L i ! r7 ( )u i" {sec rbovc, ( $o tn t r ie! t r I i .

\ \ : , rh Nl i .hf l r \ lcxandn. " \ l rnr , r l i tc Pr imir i \c," l l ' rc i f ro los (Nlat l91l ; , pp

2 S 6-;8.

' 'F l , cr ioos l9 12," / ibre ' propo' ( I l i \ l9 l2) , Pp. 259 61.

Signed "C.C."

" t Agr igdt ion dr phi lovrphie," t l . j thor l r . Rctut I 'enscigncncnr Phi losaPhiquc I

(N' l i ! 1912), pp. l7-21.

l f idor le hr<l rc(nt lv bccn l iunr lcd br Ceorges Bi 'nr lz! l l3t l t i - lq7l l ) , an

, , lder <l isciplc o{ ALr in. Ihe joum.r l rJ isappurcdinlunele}} . . r l icr i t : r r i r th

i*ue. Cangui lhcnr 's ! r j rnds JfJn l l fPpol i te and R.:rmonrl Aron r l to s igntd

)nic lcs thcre. C,rngui lhem 5;rr i ( ' lc , a cr i t iqL,c of thc . ,gr i t1o r i i 'n program and

oi thc <,mission ol l )cscJrtc( . K,)nt . I lcgel , Comte and Nietu sche l rom the

requircd ruthors, crcmpl i l ics thc conccrns of the iournal 's col laboratr i r \ .

C.rngui lhcm publ ishtd thr te t imes in. l l l t iodc.

"Al . r rn.Prq,osrur/ i t luc.rrror( l 'ar i \ :Ri tder, 1932)," i ;uropcII( leJ2),PP I( l ( l J0l .

"Autour ( lc Lucien 1 l ( r r , / tbrc ' f f t ) fo ' (Sept. l9 l2 ) , pp. 416-79.

Rr! icw oi Lucicn i lcrr , ( i )o i r d ' iot ' .2 \ ' r t l ! . (P,r , i \ : Rj( , i f r , l9 l l ) . ind

Chrr les An<l1er, f t t t lc I uL, . , / r . / (P. \ r is : Riedcr, l9 l2) . Lu( i rn l lcrr (186' l -

le27) had lor dectrdts been rhc l ibr i r i .m ol the Lcole Nornr le Sup6r ieure

and an in l lucnt ia l int t l lecrual adr iser to i ts studr:nts. as te l l as an unsuc-

rcssl i r l pn4x,ncnt <,1 f {cgcl in Francc. Crngui lhcm publ is}rct l a br ic{ pt ' r

n"rr l accouot ol Lucicn I I ( r r in 1q77.

"LInl i ! rc\colJ i rc. . .enAl lcrn.rgnc. '1 i l ' r . tp. . ,por(oct . l9 l2) ,pp. s i3 le.

Rcr i ts ol a r t r<l t r , r l A hin : strkr r r rnslatcd into ( lcrmrn: i rnr l urn, i l

r r r r r r r r rcn l ' l i r l rcn zur I jn l [ ]hru, , n 'c in

l )err lcrr . ed. Jul ; r ' ' Schmidr (Bcr l in:

Wi \ t ( rmr n, 19l2).

1o Pott sons oucunc r iscrvc, Tht* , l t F i l i . icn Chal la\c. sui \ ie ( l i inf ( l is fussi( ,n

cntre ThtrxL,rc l iursscn, Fal ic icn Chal l . t rc, { ;corgcs C.togui lhtm ct jcan

I c \4at . r l , et dcs tc\ tes ( lc l lo ' l f rnd Russcl l et d 'Alain sur "Lr ! ra ic ct l i

l i , l l r Rt ls ist :ncc." I )o i :unl ,nt ' r lcr ' l ibrcs I ' ropoi Crhicr no. 1 (Nimcs:

l r rpr inrer ic l -a Labor icus(, l9 l l ) .

AccorJing to Sir inel l i ( ( ; ( ;n( id! ior nt . l l t . tut lb, p. 596 n. l l ) , rh is r . \ r

inr Iurk s Cangui lhem's conrr i l .ut ion ro I hr conr,^ rrsv pol , l i \hr( l in / /br . : !

propl in Ftbnrrry l9 l l , undcr thc Dr$ t i r l r "Stconr lc r ipostc. ' , r r

l , ,nr le-

ments r l r r retus de toute guerrc nrt ionJl ." { \cr ib(r ! ( , secr i r rd entrv undcr

l9 l2) . ind.1conchrsion, " I inalc en scpt points."

Ravnrond Aron publ ishcd r comm< nt . , r i t i fa l r l1 th i ' booklet in / /hr . '

propa (Ftb. 1933, pp.96-99), r l isscnr in{ l rom C.rngui lhcm's v i fwpoint ( , ,n

ih is. !e{ . \ ron\ l l inroircs IP:r is: l r l l i ] (1. le l l I l . pp. 56-5l t ) . lor Cangui lhcnr 's

r( ic( ion. i to i rdn'r r r i t iqu, : , set t 'e lo", lour rh . . r i ! L,n( l . r l ( ) I L

Ar ln. s h,> hrr l l ,crn intror i r rct d t , ' . \ l r in br Cangrr i lhcm r hcn th, r * err :

l i ' l i ,u students . l t the tcole Nom.r l r : . l ,ubl ishcd v\1r; l ar t i f ler i r ) i /bar

propos. Cangui lhem ancl Aron rcr t t i ' hr col lcagucs in ToLr louse and. lat . r .

r r rhc Sr)rbonnc. Crngui lhcrr wns presrnt nt r \ r ( )n 's obsequies Jn( l gr ! . in

.rr ldress r letching his career (sr :e l r . ln,rr , / . , { )ct . 21, l9 lJ l ) .

l9 l l

(hnsui lhcm r,rr , rppointcd to the l )c( i ( , ' i | ) , r , r i I 'x the academic rcar l ' ) ] l - I I ,

k) l lo$ing rhr pfr i { r l o l l r l lc he had t . r len t ) m,)nagr / . ibr . r profdr. ln thr l . r l l

( r l I9]1, hf $rs scnl to \ i r lcncicnnls, rvherc hc remainrd {br the ncrt nr ,>,rc:

drnic vcrrs.

fConmcnts onl \nd J, ,u 's.1in, " l ' rnscis ' renrcnt r lc l . r wx io logic." l<, l l<rr-

ingthir . r r r i r le, l / , j rhoJr. Adru. . / . i .nrctqtmr: f t i losophiqu. ( l . rn. le l j ) .

p l . lO- l l .

"R. lc S(nn(, l r / ) r rar (Alc.rn, l9 l ( ) ) . l t . i i r , / r ' . Rcrrrc i /c / 'cnsc,gn,.nr, .nr ," i r l , "

mfhrvud ( l r l , . l9 l ] ) . pp. 2 5-27.

l lo icr .

' 'SurLrnc Int . rpr i ' t i r i , )n de I 'h isroirc." / tbrcr f ro lo! (11i(h t9 l l ) , pp. I55;6.

A cr i t iquc ol nn , r r t ic le bl jacques { , . rnuchrrr l prr l , l ;shcd in ! tbrcs pa'p, t

o l N<rernhtr 1912. C,rnr.hrL,( l \ r rp l \ iptxr , . ( l in rhc nrr t issLrr . , r t / r / ' r . . r

f .o l , . r , t ,p. l l9-10.

196 199

r

"Fssais. Paci l isrnc et r i 'volut ion," l ibrerpropor(March l9 l I ) ' PP l57-59

A rcplv rc Ravmond Ar;n 's cr ic ique' publ isher l in the prcvious issue o1

r;6rer propos (see above, l inal cntry under 19321

"Nto. te! t . l lerr ;or vu par lu i -mtme (et commentc)," l rhr .s l roPor (Apr i l I9 l l ) '

pp. l l?-19.

Signcd "( ; .C. ' A cr i r iqut ofan art ic le publ ished l>v Edoualr l I lerr iot in

rhc nesrpaper I t Dinrocrorc of t .vononAPri l l5 ' l9 l l .

" t ) ( l 'Ohj . ( t i . ,n <l t consciencc i ta consci<ncc de l i rb ject ion ' L ibres propos

( l \ l . rv ls ) 1) . pp.272-75.

A cr i ( iquc of the a( lministrat ive c i rcular s igncd bv Nt in ist t r Camil le

Chautcnrps against thc cmergence o1 the conscicnt ious obi tctor m'rvement '

"Sur la Phi l ,xophie c!ntemporaine - H. Serort .v^. In i t iat ion . i 10 Phi lost)Phl ' nn

icmporaiD. (L.r Rrnaissancc du Liwc). J. tsenrubi, lir Sources ct /cr .ourd'tr dc

I ' r phi lDnt)hf t .ontulnporomc cn frazc (Alcan)" ' [ r l r t ; f . ] l ( l9 l l ) ' pP '151 5l '

I934

"D.u\ noutclu\ I i r res f ranrais sur les { ' r ig i res r l r l , r guerre t ibrcs propos (Jan'

191+). pp. 40-.1,1.

Rtvier of Camil le Bloch, lcr Couses r . /e lo.qucrrc mondtdl . (P.rr is: t {ar t '

nrann, lg l l ) , aml lu les lsarc, I9t1 - Lc Probl intc der or i l l inu dc kt oLteruc

(Par is: I r icdrr , l9 l l ) .

"fcan Richrrrl t]loch, Oft'ronde d la polit,gu. (Coll. Furopc Rieder. lell)"' / ibr.:r

pn,po' l ) rn. Ie l4) , Fp. s 2-s l .

Rnieu. s;gncd "G.C."

" l l l ro ismeuni lcrs i tn i ,c. l i f rer propor ( Ibrch )911),pp l - l l 15

l h i r is thc lar t , rn ic le Crngui lhem s rote krr l r i ' rcr 2ropos. Though hc

*ruld r tmain penooal l ) c losc to Alain Lnt i l rht ht ter ' r < leath, Cangui lhcm

btgan :r t th is t imc to distancc himsel l l ion1 Al . r in: pa<: i l ism, as he real ized

thar ' . . ,nc could not negot iate wi th I l i t l t i ' ( rcc Sir incl l i , Ginlror,on tntef

/cr tuci l r , pp. 597-98).

t935

I)ur ing tht- acat lcmic ycar! le l ] -15, Cingui lhem taught at the hc.c oi lh len

ci(nnes. L{r 'vas

appoint l r l toBiz iers lor the academic year 1935 }6.

' : { la in. /es / ) rcur (Nr l , l9}1). ' turopc -17 (19}5), pp. .+4s 18.

Rcr i t r r . Frtr . r t r { . , ,nr th i ! fo ies *ere rrpr inrrr l in rhr i ju. i icrrn r1i

I ' .1 ' \odatnn Jt \ dni \ I .1/orn 20(f)rc. 196.{) , pp. I I l l .

Conr i t i dc Vigi lancc t lcr Intc l lectrrc ls Ant i , f isc i r tes, l .c Losttsnt t r lc t patnnt

(Par is, 1935 ) .

Cangui lhcm was the anonvmous iurhor ol th is s ixtv t rvo pagc ( locumcnr,

pr int td in Cahors. The Comite de Vigi lance des lntel lcctucls Ant i - lasci*es

* 'as created in response to the l iebrurr) l9 l '1 r i<, ts in Par is and the threat

o1 frscism, and i t rcmi jDc, l in existence up to the rvar. I rs l t . rdcrr ut ' rc thc

rthnologist Paul Rivet , ' rho

chaired the commirree. rhc plrrr ic ist t ) ru l

l .angcvin rnd Al . r in. Du, ing th. \ ( vears, Alain was ol ien i l l and Lrn.rblc ro

att inr l vmt meerings: Crngui lherr s l i iend Michcl Al tx.rn, ln r ,>L, l , l srrb,

st i totr . lo. h inr , )n rhe\e o(( i ' \ ion\ (5re Jeannr Al t i . rndr, : . t<1. . l n Souvrnrr

dt . l t ichel Al tsnJt t : / f {on' , r . \ rcr , /ctrcs lPar is: Mercrr t t l r t r rncc, t . r56l ,

p.520). Thus, C.rngui lhem himscl l sas qui te c losr: t i ) rh( i r ( r i , )n ot the

comnl i t tee. lhc b()ol lct has thru: parts: "Prcposals lor an , . \gr icul tur . r l

I 'o l icy- ," a hvo-part apprndix con' ist ing oi the resul ts ol I survrr on rhc

"agr icul tural cr i r is ," ind "Notes on ' \gr icul ture

in f rscist I t t r lv 'n( l

( ;cF

many," rvhich dcr l r \ i th the ronsequences oi l . rscirr rotal i rnr innism in

1936

Cangri lhem rr . rs.rpp<, in l . r l r ( , l i ,u louse,rs prol i 'swrr o l th( . / r ,JJf d. t i< i t l ,c ,

beginning in Ocrober l916. I l ( kcpt th i \ re. iching posir ion unr i l rh. l \ .g inning

ol the \" ichy regime, . r 'x l l )cgin his m( r l ic , r l s ludics s hi lc tcachin{.

EL OGRAPHY

4()() 4(]1

A V TAL PAT ON^I 9T

' 'P. l \1.S<huhl . I :sai sLtr la f t t rn<xion Jc /a pcn carcrguc(Alcan' l9) '1)" Iuropc

.{0 (1916), pP. +:6-2 8.

Rc! ie\v.

' 'R.r1mon<l .4nrn, Ia Socnt logic ol tcntdnde 'o ' rcn] f ' r r ' i i 'c

(Alr in ' l9 ls)" 1ur?l

.1() (1916). PP 57l-7a.

Rcvies.

193'1

"Dercartcs ct la tccbniquc," in lro'our t/u L{' Contlris intcrndlnndldc Phih\oPhic

lCortr , rJ l )crcdrr . r ) , rom(l l (Pir i \ : l l tnr ' rnn, 19l l ) pp l l 35

Crngui lhem\ I i rst conlercncc paptr , rcPr intcd in

' ( 'Ai"r '5A- 7 ( l9Ui ) '

pp. 87-9 ) ; inclu<lc<l in th is r ' i ( lcr '

193 8

' ' : \ r t i \ i t ( 1t(hni( lu( t r t r , l r t ion. ' in Commu'r i " r r lonr c l r l r turr iotr t Sdci ' tc

t<,uloLrsain| dc phi los<' |h ic ( \ . : s le i7 anr l le i8) ' 2nd w r ics ' PP sl- i l6

r \ faPcrgncn r t thc mrrt ing oi thc S"ci i t i on Fcbruarv 26' l9 l l t A

l i r , ' tn<,rc t r Crngtr i lhtrr (J, . i t6) indicr t t \ th i t ( l iscussi()n rr f thc " intnrs

ing i l r rPortan(. , , fb io l"g" rn ' l 'socnlogtt whnotogi '1tr" l i r r phi lovrphv"

has betn t , rn i r te<l f rom thi5 Pr in led version l i r l lorvtr l b1 a t l ixussion tn

p.rges It6-S9

1939

\Vi th C.rDi l l t I ' lanr: t . / ror t l r /c / , , i?,( tuc.r dd rrrdlr (J\ ' l i l rn i l lc : ImPriDlcr ie F

I t , ,bert et 1 l ls , l9 le)

Ih is textbrDk h.r ' bccrrrnr t r t rcmclr d i t l i (u l t 1" t inr l i thc l l ib ln ' th iquf

nat i ,Jral f in Prr i \ hr \ ont coP! l 'hnt t $ is r ' rcbing rhc lv( t ' o l ' \ lar{ i l le

xhi lc Cangui lhtrr tva! i r the l ! ( 'c o l - l i ' r r l ( 'use l \ ro ' r Iher

textbrtoL; br

thc s.rn( . rurhors, , ,n pirch" l"11r an( l i r \ (hr t ic \ - th( ( r rhcr subi(( t \ th i t

Ii l '

{It

I

s( i r then pr( o l rhc phi l<. ' r , rphv progrrn, o l thc Ivcie - rh ich sere " l<,r ' th-

eomirrg," r r 'Lrc n, : rcr publ ishr, l .

1940-t912

1n rhe la l l of 19.10. C.rngui lhem tool lcavc i iom his t . rching at thf lv .ac ( i i

l i ru l"Lnc, ref i rs ing 1d t( !xh in the react ion.rr t c{)nrcxt i 'nposed br (hc Vich!

rrginrr . l1c srotc rD thc n, t , , r o l the Acar lenr ic dc i , ,u lour: " l h.r 'c n"t lx-

comt i a l ig i de phi lomphir to teach' l - . rb, , r , Familv. 1. , ) thcr land" ' ( rhc nn)t to

ol thc v ichl governmenl) . lk then dedicat . r l h insel t t , ' h i \ medic.r l stodir \ .

I { r r rnonr l Aron, sho.r lso.as in T,nr loUru ,) i ih( . r in)( . r rote , ,1 Cangui lhenr

rhrn: "Some, l iLc ml l i icnd C.rngui lh|m, sere gct t ing r tad\ to takr a modcsl

p.rn - s hich rvas glor i<,ur - in thc rcsist . rxrr ' ( , i / lnroiz ' r l lhr is: Jul l iaal , l9f l l l ,

p. la 'a ) .

In Ftbnrar l l9a), J( 'Jn Cl \ , r i l l is . r 'ho ras t taching phiL,w,phr at rht ' t ln i -

vrni t ' o l Str . rsb<,r | lg ( then at ( l . rmi,nt- l : r r rand in Au\ergnt) . r ' r ' ta l l t t l to

thc S,rr t , r rnnc in P.rr i . : he c,rn ' incrt l ( lnqr i lh, :m t , r rc1r la," h im in Clcnnonc

I crr . rnr l . Cangui lhcnr wis lppornrcd in Apr i l l9 ' l l . \ \ ' i th (- i \ l i l les and Lnrmrnucl

<l 'Ast i r r dc l . r Viger ie, Cangui lhem $i ! a \ r i tcr o l the t i rst 1r . rct , ) l thr rcsi :

r inc( rrwrnrcnt, I rh. t ( , r f t ,n, in lq+l (scc Sir incl l i , ( , lat : r<rtrvr r r t r / /ct tuc/ / t . p. 599:

( i i l les I ivr rnd l - r rn(ois Cor( l . r . .1 naus, . luwlFc! Io l ! : rna Jrrr i . r r . , ,ndn.c f t t

. . tuvcrgne 1910-t91.1lPar is: Prsses dc l . r c i t i , I9901, p. l l ) .

191?

"Cenif icar de phiLrrrphic gincral . . t de lor i { tuc. Indic i (n,n{ bibl iorr . r fh iqurs, '

Bul lutn <I Ia l , ( r l dr i l .crrrrr r /c - \ r ror l ' r r f r r 20. I ( l9. l2) , pp. I l0 I l .

A bibl iogrrphy ( l ; r sn,1l fn ls pr i 'par ing tht (crr l ) r r r . rs pir t o i thcir

t r<.nLt lc pht lo i+hi4 rhi( c( 'nrplcm(nt\ the bibl i< ' { , iphv pul , l ishci l bv

C .r i l l is in rhc / ju i /drrr th( ptu\rors l rnr .

"Conrment.r i rc au trois i imc chapi t rc de l 'hvolnt ion.r [ ! t r i (c," Bul ] . tn lc h l .aLuhi

dt :1turct de Sta^houra 2l ( l ( ) .12), pp. l2rr 1t rn<l lee-1,1.

402,lo I

i tZ

i l:= ii-=

1 ,

i1:

': :i i :=

l it=

:i:12

i, i

z;:

i =

:; !7

; =

;7|z

+'iz

: :

:i7=

=

;1

: i:

. =

;=:"i:t=

;-rl =

,---i

: :::

;iZ

a

,=4

'!az

r.i=

a

=::

-- r2

: =

:,

;:;l.ij:"=ii

," =

tii :

i+.

i=r

t =

r)=r=

:?i::i

=

-,2i:

: =

:i. ::

": ?

;E

iSia

rj+1

:

i=,_

==

i :

=:j"-

;i

; 2

'il=-ii=

7:z

Z :

1--:Z

l :

:Iit I

:: i

' :

:!5".o

dif

i.! :=

:; -

; ::l-

' ;

;zit=

;:i?-!i:1

iai

: l:::

ij;

EtlE

ErilE

;it:1

ii-=

i=::i:

.-r+

=jF

_iT

::j:=E

=

zz

,1

=;iiiz

::

:t;; =z

?:7

izi:i :7

:t iii,1

:, =j

ii,;)r==

=:!;i:=

-,;ii

11

=r;ii

i':i =

, 1i =

,;:=. a

=ii rii-:i,_

j i:'

i:rz

i ::i=

::':irtii+i-=

-,_!i

. :

)

-6+

i 4

i ?

;,i j

; =

i=t:i

o=

*=;iE

;ii i:

tt;1 :

;i'r=;;:ji',=

gF

: 4

a

iir+

i ::!ii,--*e

i.=:

d

: =

i:

; i=

S

:

=

| +

7':

I is

-

'=t'E

E

1

3

::! $

;ii;:: lli=

liali;i?

,,-'==

i;,;1z

ra;1

1; :::i;i::t=t

=,=

;-i1 .

Eta

-=!=

a=

i

;;i';+'+

::-"1E

, :izl

, i;"2

:::i=:

i t=

?=

ilZti;1

1: :

', iii; ;=

i:-1i:j u

i:ii:=iz

'i:i==

;i.: i1

'=:ii;i+

-: 2

-r:.:v:';';:i

i=z

j i::; i::ia+

;,2i1

:;Zii.'

'i-ti i=

:-ii:t-=

:f:ir=:z

iift"":!c

::c!:

A J TAI RAT 'NAL

5T

{ les Lrt t !cs de Strasbor-rrg. l , rsciculc l t )7 (Par i r : I ts l l t l les Lertr(s l9 '16) '

pp. 1 ' l l -75.

lnclrr<lccl . r ( i th rcvi \ ionr. in I o Conaaixancc d ' / ' r r r ' (1952)r ' \ t r rcts

l iom this rnir : lc ; r rc includtd in th is rc.rdtr '

"Ccorgrs Fr iedn'ann, f . ib i / t SPino/ ' r \ l 'at is: Cal l i rnar l , 1916)" ' Bul l t t in t I 1a

focul t l t ] ts Lct t rs, lc Strasborrr ,g 25 (19a6). pp 4]- '17'

Rer ir:s

t94' l

" I l i l i tu et norn,cs dt I 'honrnrr au t ravai l . " (ohi !^ i r l lcrnol iondu\ t t 'Dciolot l ie

23 (19,f7), pp. l2{) l6

An tssar , rn ( icoryts I r icdmrnn s l ro l ' l incs hunutns du Inoch'n ' \mt nt-

, / r r r ,c/ (Pi , j ' : ( ;a l l imard. 1916)

"J(rn Civ i i l las (1901-1914)." nt 416nnrtut dts onnics 19j9-t915' t ' ]u[ ' l ic ' r t ion\

<lc la Facul t t des I ct t ts t lc Str . rsborrrg. fascicule l0 l (Par is: t . t ' I lc l l ts

I r t ln \ . le l i ) , pp. 1. t l - ; t { .

\ \ i rh C. Fhr.srninn. "Avrr t i \ \c tncnl de' ' ld i tcurs," in iean Cavr i l lcs ' 5rrr /n

t a11r1uc ct lo th ior t t le l<t ic icn. . (Pir i \ : Prcsses t ln i tcfs i ta i res dr Fr incc'

lq+7), p| . , \ - \ i i i .

Secon( l . ( l i t ion, Prcss( ! t ln i \ l rs i t , r i rcs ( l t Frant '

, 1960; th in i r ( l i t i ( 'n '

Par is. Vr in. 1976; l i rur th cdi t ion, Vr in l9uT'

" I ' l . r r r r i t r : I Ia lbr ' . rchs, l 'hornme ct l 'oeuvre ' in t / lnror i<r/r l ts anni ts 19lq 1915'

t , rb l ic , r r ionr r l r la Facul t dcs I I t t res r l r Strasb,,uru. Fr<icul t l t )3 (Par is:

| , '

B, l l ' ' l , r ' r , ' . 1" 17t. t t " )o 4l

"Notc sur la s i tu l t ion l ) i tc cn Franrt i la phi losophic t ' io logiquc " Rcvur t /c

n, i rpr t , r tguc, : r d, : nro<r l r 5111947i . pp l l l 12

1948

LJ|rgui lhcm hr( l r r turned t( ' t f iching in Strasbourg in 1944r f ionr l ' i )+ l t unt i l

1e;5 hc $ as insPtctrur gt ln i ra l de phi l txophic '

ii,,l11t')

I

t949

" l ' r i lacc," in In lm. lnu. l Krnt , I 'sut t pour inrro<lwn n phi lot ,pht t lc ,oruty Jt

. r f t i r ( i . f i Di ! /dtrc (Prr is: Vr in. 19.19).

l ranslat ion, in l rodu(t ion anr l norcs br l toger Kcmp1.

"Pr i \cnir t ion," in"Nl i th imal i ( luc\( t1,)rmnl isnl(( ln id i tpra\ntap.rr( ; . ( . rn-

gui lh.r i ) , " l ) ! Jeio Cr\r i l l i \ , Rrf( ic ,ntrrnorr i r , r l r , l r p l i i 's . /* i i ] . l t ( lQ4q).

p. 15 8.

Posthumous publ icat ion ol )o rr t ic l f Cangui lhcm l i rund among thc

prpcrr l . f t t rv C.rvr i l le ' (pp. l ;9 6+).

' ' l legcl r :n l r :oct ," Br ' t n . l 'h iskrf t ' t t l t phibophi t n ' ) igt tusc l r i 29( l9.1l l -1e).

pp. l l l2-97.

fr t racts l rom rhir ar t i ( lc $(r . rcpubl i 'he, l i t . l l taaznc l i t t [ td i r . )<r\

(N,^. l99l) , pp. l6-2() .

Kurt ( jo l ls tc in. "Rem.rrqucs sur le 1:rrbl imc ip ist t rmologiquc r le h biologi t , '

in (orrrar t ' r . r 'dr .n.r l lc phi loryhi t r tu i r r i r r r ,cr . Lr ' \ l t lq. \o l . I ( l ' i r i ' l

I ILrrnrnn. le5l) . ptr . l l l - .1 l .

I rnslatcd l iom the tnul ish l , r { icorges t-rngui lhenr.rD( l Sintonf ( lJo-

gui lhrm.

199r,

"Fss.r is sLrr quclguer prohl inr t ; conccrnrnt l r n, ,nn,r l ct lc pathol , rq i ( t r rc," I 'u lJ

l i . r r i , , r ) \ .1. laI . rculr , l r lcsLtrrrrsr l rStnsb,,urg. fa!c i ru l r l r )o(2n( l f (1. .

Par i r : Lcs Uel les l .ct t res, l95t)) .

\ \ ' i th a nc$ "Prrhcc ( l ( l . r deuxi i .nrc id i r i , ,n."

tq5

' ' t - t nornrr l ct l . palhol , ' { iquc," in l { .na I f r ich, . cr l . , - \ r r 'nt r / i ne<lccint t , r t .

r . r , / , , , rd in. (P. l r i ' i Lcs Fr l i t ions nrcr l rcr lcs r le l . r l ) i rne l ra| \J iv, , l , )51). \ ( ,1. l ,

pP.27- l l .

l9s2

Bcsoins ct tcndon<,:r , Ie\ i ( \ .hois iE et pr i 'sentes par ( ie, , rges Crngtr i lh.m ( Par is:

I lachcttL. 1952).

A rcrdcr. (d i t . ' ,1 hr C.rngui lhenr. of c\ t ra( ts t t rkcn l ronr thc sr t rkr . t

b io logisrs ;nd phi lxophers, "

h ich rvas publ ishcrJ iD rhL cr) l l fc t ion "Tcxtcs

ct documents phi l ,A, ,Phiques" under his dircct ioD l h is .o l l . f t i t )n inclodes

other t i t lo cdircd by Gi l les I )e l t ,uzc, lcan Brun, l r . :nr is Counds, Robert

Pagt\ and Jacqur t;uillerme. as well as r ovo rclulr.e lnro,lution d l'histoirc

r /cr rocnccs, publ ishul in 1970 71. edi tcd bl Cangui lhcn lv i th studcnts

i t tcnding his scminnrs r t the Inst i tut d 'h istoire d.s sci t 'nccs at the t ime (scc

belos, 1970 rnr l le l l ) . Nlost !o lumcs include: l ive-page "Prcscntr t ion de

la col lcct i<,n s igncd tr1 Cangui lhcm.

I o Connatsoruc dc l<t t , . ( l ' . r r i \ : l {achettc, 1952)

' l \ !cr t i r { mrnt." rnonr ioning thrt somc ol thc r :ss.r1s inclrrr lcr l ha*c Lecn

reviscr l srncc rhcir l inr publ icat ion or or.r l Pre\ tnrat i , ,n (Pp 5 6) i ln" lntr i '

ducr ion: Ln l '!Dsac .r l t v ivanr." publ ished her. lor th( l i r \ r t ime (PP. 7-12)r

"L 'Exp6r inrent.r t i , )n en biologic animale." a lecntr t g ivcD ,) t rhe Centre int( r

nr t i i )nal p.r l t rgogiqut de Sivrcs in 195l (pp. l5-45 ) ;

" la Thior i ( cel lu la i r r" (pp. '19 98), l i rst publ ish.d in le4r, in the

.4 ' l ihn51cs 191 > , ' l rh, : Facul t6 dcs Lettres de Strash,urg;

" ; \spcc$ r lu r i t , r l isnre" (pp. l0 l -21), " lUichine et orgrnism' ' (PP. I2 '1

59) and " l e Virrnr t t ron mi l ieu" {pp. 160-91), thr( t lc . lurcs gi !en . r t th.

C,, l l igc phi lo:ophiquc in Par is in 1946-a7, lo l lo\r in i l rn int i t r t io ' \ l ro 'D i t \

" r ! r r r r , , r . rh, ; l r r l '+, 'phr r l , rn \VJl t l :

" t r nrrnn.r l cr l f P,rr l i , logiquc" (pP. l9 '1 21:) , pnr iorrr I prLl ishcd' in

1951, in th( l inr \ , , lumc of the Somnc , l r n idcLin, t (orr{r ' lordtrc, rd i tcd

bv the surgcon Rrne Lcr iche. then prol t sv,r at thc Col l igc de I rancc and

thrrL rppcndicc. i "Norc sur le passrgc dc h th ior ic l ibr i l la i r r : i la th i 'or ie

A V TAL RATIO\AL ST

ln| l r rdcd, * i rh revis ions, in Io Connoirsonrc t / r / . ] l ; r (195 2 )

4(Jt,

cel lu la i rc" (pp. 2l l l5) , Note sur lcs rapports dc la theor ie ccl lu la i r t et

de Ia phi lov,phie de Leibni /" (pp. 2 ls-17) and "Extrai ts r lu l )nrou^ rur

l 'onatanic du reryedu ( .no par Stenon en 1665 i messieurs r le I r \ssembla.

de chez monsieur ' l hcvcnot, , i Par is" (pp. 2l7-18 ) .

The sccond edi t ion, r i r is ie et rugmenrae," $as puhl ished br. \1r in in

1965, and has sincc bcen rcpr inred nunl t inesi extrrc\ f rom th. l i t rh edi

t ion (1989) i .e includc<l in th is re,rdcr. Thr brx,k srs t r rn, , la lc( l jnr , l r i l i . r l

and Spanish jn 1976.

" l a Cr6at ion art ist igue scl , )n Al , l in," Acfr . d. lmi tuph\ igut cr J, t norolc \1

(1e52), pp. l7 l - iJ6.

t953

"l a Signi t ic : t ion dc I 'enseigncmcnt de la phi lo5ophic," in t t D' t ianln. dc I . t

Phi losophic. IJne nqutre nktndtnndle dc I ' l iNL:SCO (P,rr is, t tNISC(), teS t) ,

PP. t '7_26.

Prccc<k.d, pp. l l 15. b! . r " l ) , lc h.rr ion communt rkstrptrrr , " r igned

hv ( iu ido C,r l , ,ger, . Georgcs Crngui l l r tm, Fugcn l in l . I ) , ,nJl( i I l , rc l inn, ,n,

Ibr :h im l \ ladkour, ( ; r rsr , r | t I4. ,n, !1, Nlerr i t r Nl<r,re, N.r \ . Ni l rDr , !n, l I tum

berto Pinera Llcra.

Cangui lhrm s t { , \ r i r rhc grnerJl pre!enrr t ion ( ' f rhe *1)rk (1,)n. br rhe

195!

l . rngui lhcm succceded C.r : t<,n U.rchr laal in the f . r l l o l le 5 5 ds pr. , t ( rn) . ot fhr-

lo,rphl at the Sr,r txrnne. in I )2r i \ . as s.c l l as <l i recrrrr o l thc Inst i rut r l 'h isr , r i re

(1, \ !c icncts r t drs t rL-hniquLr ol rhe Llnivcrsi tv oi p i r i \ . l l r r!nr i i inc( l rh,r . .

unt i l h is ret i f .ment in le7l .

td l :Dtmdt ion <lu onc+t . ! ( tuJh\c du\ I l t l " ct Xt I t t " ' i ic t . r

(par i \ : I )n, , \ .s Unj-

k.rs i ta i res d. I i r )ncc, l95t) .

Cangui lhcm's J i rsrr tat ion f t r the DoctorJ( 's

Ltr t res ' PrcParcd uncler

tht , l i rcct ion . ,1 C.r ' t r tn l ] lchclard. ' \ r tcond cdi t ion sa" prr t t l i thcd bv Vr in

in l ' r?7. I .hc bool s* t r rnshtcd inro Spanish in 1975 and Jrpancsc in l9EE'

F.xtracts l rom tht st ,cond cdirnx of th ls bool< are inclur lq l in th is r tader '

" t .e Prrbl ime des r{gtr lat i<,ns d:ns lorganismc ct d ins l '1 \oci 'nr , ' C'r i r r 'c ' r de

l . l / l ran. . kr<r i l i rc un,rrnr i / , :92 (Scpt.-Oc t . 1955).pP 64-81'

I hc lecturc, pp. t l4 73, is l i r l l ,xrcdbyadiscrrssion'PP'7l 8 l '

"Orgtrnismcs et modal( ,s micaniquo: Ri l lcx ions strr la biologie t :ar t is ienne' ' '

Rc"rrc pht lonphi<1ut l '15 (1955) pp 28l 99.

N,, t a r . : r ic . , bur , rn anr l r \ is o l l )cscartes '

"Sir th \ lc( l i l ' i l ior) ," t l i th i

d iscusr ion ol N4rrr ia l Gueroul t s intcrpretat ior l ' ) i

i t in the second volunx

of his Dcscorrcssci ,n /brrJrc </cs r<r i rons{Par is: AuLr ier ' 195l) '

1956

"l a P( ' rs ie dc l tene | . r iche. ' JRcvrc,"h i losophiqu" l '+6 ( 1956) ' pp l l i -17

A { ,mmrr\ r r : r i ts o l I cr ich. 's intel lcctu.r l tontr ihur icrns. tb l lowing

th. hnr( ,us surgfon\ ( l f i l th t - , rngui lhem had r i i tu*t l Lcr iche in Ic Nor

n, t l cr lc patholoyquc rn<l had publ i rhtr l ao rr t ic l t in a book c<l i tc<l bv

t( ' i .hc in l95l .

l9 5;

"Sur un. Fpist i 'mologic concord.r t r i rc," in ( ; . l lotr l igand et . r l . / /onnort i < i

Gavarr Bochci rd: ! tu,|.\ ttu Philon|hk ct ./ frr 'r.r'f

J'r r"cn"r (Prri': Irre$cs

UDi\ f rs i t r i r ts ( i f FtJn(r : , 1957-) . PP. l -12

"Fi ,ntcncl lc, phi lov)Phc t t h istor icn des scienccr," . lnno/ci r / i I ' lJntcrs i t l dc l \ t r i '

2 l (1e57), pp. )8+ 00.

R,:pr int | r l in I ru,1, r J h,Jr . , Ic dr r i . Pi ' l ro l t r . th\ ! . i t ' ( . r 1196$ ) '

t958

t.rngui lhtnr s a ' e lccer l a con. l , , r r r l ing nurrh r In th! l r r i t rnrr i ( {1r l lcrd!mr

. l ro +l r

ol thr : l i is torr o l Scirncr in l95lJ, and ht bcc;rme .r iu l l 'n(nr l l r

in 1960. l lc

'cnrd as

' icc prrs idcnt, , l tht rcadcmv i r rm l9 ' / l to 191i .

"Lr Physiologie animalr au XVl l l ' s i i r le," in Rcni - laton , , t l . , I l ts to i rc oLtnirul t

t /cr rc icnccr. vol . 2 { Par is: Pr. \ , i ts Univ( r \ i t . r i rc\ ( lc f rance, 1958 ) . pp. 59 J-619.

Llnthrngrd in thr ' ' r r iorrs rcpl int ' o l r l rc rvor l : inclur l rd in th i : rcrr lcr .

' 'La Phi los,phie biologic loe , l ' , \ugustc C<,mte et son in l lLro)ce en Fr i rnce:ur X1X'

si ic l t , " Bui lcth r . /c /o 5o<t i r t l runlaise dt phi la 'o l , i tc 5 l ( l95t l ) , pp. I l -26.

Rcpr inrcJ in Etu<lcr r i n i t to i rc phl l6ophi( . / . , nLn(,r i ( l9ar8)r { \ r r . rcrs

l rom this rnic lc rre inr ludcr l in th i ' ,c . r r lcr .

"Qu'est-ce quc h psychologic?" Acvuc Jc , r r i rdp}rr i . i u. . r , / f ,n,rdic 6l . l (19;8 ) ,

pp. I2- 2 5.

t .er turc gi !en.r t (h( ( , , l l igr phi lowrl ,h iqu( . ,n l ) { , (mhef lN. 1<)56.

I :o l lorc i l l , r "Remrntuf \ \ur 'Qu crt , , quc l . r prrcholrgie?" ' br R. I 'ages

(pp. 128-14). and.r c<,ncluding "Notc" bv C.rngui lhtrn. l \ rb l ishc, l agin in

thr: Cohicrr lour / 'ona/r rc in 1966 (rrpr i r r l d in 1967).rnr l in l : ru lcs <l hnoirc

r t t lc p l r l t rop,brr Jcs ' i r , ' r . . r

(196S).

l r , rnslatcd into Engl i rh in 1980. lncluded in th is,rader.

1959

"Pl lhologie ( ' r phvsiologic dr la thrroir lc aL, XIX' s i ic l r , " I / r . r / i t r 9 lor I952 58

( l t rs9). pp. l7-92.

1l , rsc, l on . r lc l turc Bi \ .n .1t thc i . r r r r l re de I lcr lcr ine, L ln i 'cr i i r \ , r l

Strrsb<,urg. on lanuary l { ) . I95u. Rrpnnred h Erul t t J histoir t t t dc phi loso

phi . . i . ! r (k n. c ' (196u).

/ho/ i : hr , l as i ts rr l r t i r lc 'Rc<rrr i l r | l ,s t i Iaux ( l ( l ln\ i i tut . l 'h i i r ( , i i . , l ( \

scienr:es cr r les tcchni , lur s r le l ' t in i renir t r lc l rar i . ; . " Jh, l i rs lo lum (193.1)

appcared in l915. publ ishe( l b\ thc "Li l ) r i i f ic f i l i \ A1(rn," tht mrjor I rench

publ ishcr t , r r phi lov,ph\ in Prr is. l r thc t i rne, undcr tht t r l i t< i rship rr l {bcl

R$, thc iounr l t r o l rhr lnr l i r i r , l 'h i r r , ' i r , r lcssr i rnLt , i r r r i rs l f rhDir l r ) . \ .

I!

()ther volumes t 'crc publ ishcd lor thc yean 1935 1935 and l9 ]?-18' thcn

publ ica( ion was intcrr t rpt f i l by thc war ' l t rcappe'rrcd in 1949 (volume 5'

<latcd 1943). pubt ished b) the Pr(rrcs l lnnersi ta i res t lc t ranct l hrce orhcr

volumca tere publ ish. t l ' re late<l to rhe ,vcars I hen ( iaston Bachelar<l rvas

t l i rector of the Inst i t t r t : in 1951 (( l r ted 1949-50) ' l95l (1951)and 1955

(1952). l 'he last volumer.rppeared under thc cdi torshipofCangLr i lhem: vol

ume e (1952-58) in l t )59, to lumc l0 (1959) iD lq60' volunr l l {1960) i ' r

1962, volumc l2 (1966) in 1968i volunlet I I (1969) ind 14 (1970 ?l ) ' (hc last

to appcar. d i r l so as spccial issucs of the Rrvue d i i {d i 'c dci "k 'n 'cr '

another

iournal polr l isher l hr (hc Prc\ \c 's LInn,t ' f r i r i i res <lc Lrante in le70 and 1972'

Reprintcd in I1tu../{r d fi 'srotc

et lc PhilosoPhrc J'\ J'ie"'J (1968)i extr:cts

1r( ,m this i r t ic te are included in th is reader '

' 'Arert issemtnt." /hal isg tor 1952-5t l (1959) ' p l '

L lnsigncr l . Announcement of rhe journr l ' : r raPpcaran!( ' r f ter a hir tus

olsevr:rr l years.

" l herapcLrt ique, exParim( ntat i . rn ' resPonsabi l i t ( r , " Rcvrtc r lc / 'c nscign'm.nt suPi '

r ieur I (19s9). PP l30-15.

Rrpr inted in l tuJes <! 'hntr t rc er dc pbi losopfr ; i J ' r rc icnccr i 1968 ) '

"Le' ConcePts ( lc ' lut te Pr)ur lexistcncd et ( le 's6lect ion nrturel le " en l85t t :

Charle r nar* 'n

et Altrtd Russcl wall'rc e ," Co nfifttu\ du Polors tlt h l)dtou

vr.rc (P.r i* 1959), { r ic D' no. 61.

Publ ic l tcture givcn at the Palais de I i D'couvertc ' in Par is ' on JanuarY

10, 1959. Rcpr inted in f . tudes d 'hsatrc er <L Phi ldr . 'P '1 ic ' /?J rc/cn'6 (1968) '

Rt! icu ol i \ laurrce D.rum.rs, ed. , , , r ' r , ) r? i i f ld r 'n ' . . r tPar is: Cr l l imrrd ' 1951) '

Archiw\ nt tunat ionol l , : l 'h tstaue des sc 'cntcs l2 (19;9) ' Pp 75-82'

1960

Cangui lhcm becamc r mcrrber of the Commission de phi losophic ' d '6pist6molo

gir ct d 'h isroin dcs scienccs ol thc Ccrmite nat ional of rhc Centr t nat ional dc

la rechcrchr, scicnt i l i r luc (CNRS) t lur \car ' l lc remajncd a m(nr l )cr ot rht c"n '

mirs ion unt i l h is rct i remr nt in 1971' chair ing i t f ron) 1967 to l97l

CR T CAL B ALIOGRAPFY

"L'Homme et l ' :n imal ; , r point de ruc psychologique sclon I)anr in," Rcvuc

. l 'h istoi dcs s. iences 1l . l (1960), pp. 8 l 9 '1.

Reprinted in I.udcr d ir kbn( d h fiilosaphic ,/,:t trirnccr ( l!)68 ).

Review of / l'c .4 urobior ray>hr ol Charlx ltortin (N($ )brl: l)ovcr, le58), .'1r.hr'vt'

intunauonales d 'h i r torrc t?es sr icrrcr l3 (1960). p. l5?.

Rcvicu of t tent ley Cla*. Owsei Temkin, wi l l iam L. Strau, ' .Jr . . eds. . I inrun-

n! t ' of Drrrv in l7J;-1E;9 (B,r) t inrorr ' : johns l lopl ins t lDj t r r \ i ty Pre\ \ .

19591, .1rchivcs intern. l t tanoles <l h isrcn, : .16 nirn.rr l l (1960), pp. I57-59.

Revie* otAlvar El legarcl , Darwn and t tu Gtncrol Rco/cr (Cotcborg: Alm(lv i \ t &

Wickscl ls, 19513). , lkhi ' / t !nt . tnat iotkt l t r df i ,1to,rc, /c i r . icn(. ! l l (19(,()) .

p. 159.

Rcviex ol Conrvav Zirk le, Evolur;on. t lor t ian Biolo11.v and thc Socra/ Stene ( I 'h i l

adelphi . r : Univcrsi t l ' o l Pennsyl"ania Press, 1959). l rLhives inrcrnatnnLt lct

I 'ht 'b i r . des sci .n(s I ] (1960), pp. 159-60.

l96l

' ' l ' fcole dc Montpel l ier jugtre par Auguste Conrt i . " lc Srd/pci l l '+. I (1961).

pP.68-71.

Papcr pr |sented r t rhc "X\r l ' Congr is intLrnar ional r l h i i r r>ire dc la

midccine" ( , \ lontpel l icr , Septcmbcr 22-28, l r l58). Rcpr inted in Etur l , : r

d 'h isroirc t t t lc pht losophir : r /cr scicnccs (1968); inclucled in th is rca<k r .

" l r Phvsiologic tn Al l rm.rgoc." "Jrr ' f t \ ic t ) lcs r I l r rc.ondt per i r r lc ," 'hrh-

niqurs r t probl imcs, l t la phls io logie au XIX' s j tc lc. ' in ReDi l ; ton, cd. .

l l t t to i rc gintrole d. ' ' . ,er .cr ,

t ( )me l l l : 1. , So?nc. cantcnpotuin. , \ \ )1. l . I t

I1 l 'n( ; . / . (Pir i \ : PrrsrL\ Universi(r i rc\ ( lc Fr.rnce, le6l) , pp. a75 7l l , . t7 lJ-

80. 180 81.

LInch;nged in the vrr i (Ns edi t ions ol the bool ; included in th is rear ler .

"Nicessi te r l r 1a'di l l i rs ion x ient i f iqrrr ' ' , " Revut & I tnscigncntnt 'upir icur

l

( lq6l) . pp. 5-{5.

fCommcnts lo l lowing th| lccrurc r{ t ) l i r ier C(xr i df l }cao(.gir(1. " t I l ) i lenlmr

4l l4r l

A V IAI RAT ONAI 9T

Dhjectni t r lsubiect i ! i t6 dc la mccaoiquc stat ist i ( toc et I 'cqunal( 'ncc c. 'brr-

ni t iqrrc cnr| t ink)rmrt iorr r t < ntropi , : . ' Bul lctn la - \ . r . , i . i l r . l , , (dtrc J, j

p l i loJoph,? s I 11961), pp. 203-10 in( l ,16.

fClaudc Bonnelnr. "Ricn ne la i \sr i t voir que Sartrc do iendrnir 'Sartrr , ' " , , l r rJ,

/ctrrcr , Sj , , , t , , r / , r , l luJtgr/ . , l in. l l -17,80a ( ] ( )61). pp. l l l4. l

Includcs segmcnts ol . rn int(rv i (a! r i th Cangui lhcm concerning S,rr t r t

at the t imr thc\ \ere both students at thc Fcole Normalr : .

| 96-

with (1. I apas$de, J. l iqucmal, J. L l lmann. " t ) t r Diveloppcmcnt . i l '6volut ion

io XIX' s i ic l . . " L la l is l1 l i r le60 (1962), pp. l -6s.

Can-qui lh lnr c, 'nducrtd a rr tk lv scminar r t thc Insr i rut r i 'h istoirc des

scienctr et <lc tcchniqucs <lur ing the aca<k mic )ears I958-59 .rn( l 1959-oO,

tr i malk thr centtnnary ol thc pul) l ic i t ion ot Darwirs O.+tn d/ Spft i . r ( rs

cxplained br Crn{ui lhcnt in th. ! 'Avant prop,)s, ' i p. l ) . lhr i r t ic l . , i ( , int lv

; igncd l '1 thc l iur . r r r thon, r , rs rr :pr intr , r l ar , r srr . r l l booL, / )u D, i , /op2crncnt

r l i l ro lurnn au l /1 ' r i ic ic ( l ) . r r i r : l ' ] resres Llnircrs i ta i res dr Francc, l985).

" l a I , lonstruosi ta . t 1( .monstrueu\," Dtral i rc. l0 (1962), pp. 29-.+1.

Uascr l r>n,r lccture givcn r t thc lnst i tut , ics hrutcs i ' tude' dt Bclgique.

in t l ,u$.1\ . , rn l : r :br t r . r r r 9. Ie62. t tcpr inr t \ l io thc seconr l , r l ' t ion, , i r )

Co,nd,$d,.r . / . /d f i . (1965).

IC,,nrments in] lgr igot ton. Phi l ' ,sophie, t962: Rappon lc . t l . I t icnnc Sour iau.

pr is ident h iurv (Par isr Nl in i \ t i rc de I ' idurr t ion nat ionJle, ln!r i tL, t P6dr

g, ,gr( luc Ni l ional , l96l) , pp. i - .1.

i \ ' l inrcog.rphcd.

196 3

' ' lhc Role o1 Analogics and 11<xlc ls in l l io l i )s ical I ) isc( ,vcr i r5," in Al is la i '

Camcron Cn)mbic, c(1. . 5. , r r i t . ahdr9. (London: l {e incm,rnn. 1963),

PP.507-21).

n

4t4

Paptr prrsentcd;t thr :5vntposium,,D rhc I I in(r . \ . , lSr. j (nce, ar t l ) ( , t iDi ,

versi t rof()x iord,ht ld( ,nJ, ,h9- l j . 1961. un( lcf rhe.ruspiccs ol thr t ) i ! i \ ion

, , f Hir ton ol Scicncc ol the Intcrnat ion.r l Ltnion ot rhr I I is tor ! . rn( l p| i lo i

ophv of \ r : ience. Rcpr i r t . ( l in I : rut tes t l 'h i : to i rc ct t lc phtotophic lcs scicnccs

(1968 ) . uDdfr rhc t i r l f " l \ lor l i lcs ct rnr l rg iL,s r lans la rhr our cne cn biolrg;r , . . .

" lntro<luct ion. La C()n\r i rur ion dt la phrsir ,L;gic comrrr t r icnce." in ( .h.rr l i , r

Kavscr, cr l . , t6rs io/ogr (Par is: Ldi l ion\ nr( ! l icates Fl , rmnr.rr ion. le6t) , v,) t . t .

pp. I l -4I t .

Rrpr inrrd iD [ tDJr\ J h 'noj t . t ! Jr f t ih)sophn, J. \ ! . , f r . r , ( l9r , l t ) , in, l

in thc scconr l edir iorr r r l Kavser 's f / r r !o/rar (Prr is: t t rnrmi l r ion, lqTo),

pp. l l -50; exrracts l i { ,m this art ic lc rr .e included in th is re.rder.

" l 'h istoire dos scieni :cs danr l i reuvn, ip istcnologi t luc dr,( j ; rsron l ] . rchclarr l . , .

. {nnot. l & ntnircrs i i t l . n/r ,1 j t l96I ) . pf . t1_ t9.

Repr intrr l in Etudts J histotre t , ]a pfr i toropir id der nrfn. . j (1968). t r . rns

l . r red in1. , I ta l ian in 1969, and Cenn:n in 1979.

" l ) i .1 lect iqu. cr phi lov,phie r l t r non cher Gasr,rn B:chrtar<1." Rcvue ht t rnor ionolc

t . ph i lo 'oph ^.

66 l t96\ ) . pp. 11i-5t .

Repr in(cd in 1: .uJcr J h isk) i t . t . tc th i t<. aphx, . / i , r r i , inccr. t iansl : tet t i r r t , ,

I t . r l i in in 1969.

"( ;aston l la.h( l i rd et les phi l ,x, ,phts." 5cicnrr , l .+ {r larch-Apr i l l96l) , pp. 7 t0.

RepriD&11 in Irurl.r {/hnare ct }L phto;qhr,/rr l r'cirici. {r.rnslrtcrl into

I tJ l i rn in 1969.

1964

"l I i \ t . , i f t . des r( l ig ions et h i ,u, ' i r ( dr ! sciencc\ r tms l . r th ior ic <lu l i t ichisme chcz

Augu(e C,,mte." in l l i lonocs . . t lc ton<trc,( i , r r i j . rot . 2: L ' lventurc . t . I ,c\pr i l

( l ' ]ar is: l i rmann. 196.r) . pp. 6.1-s7.

Conlnl ,ur ioD r( , rh. t ( \1!chr i l r in honor ol rht . h ist , , r i . rn oi sc icnct

Alexanr l re Koyr i : ( l i t92, lq6. l ) . Repr iDr.( t ia t t rxtcs r l .hnare et phi lotyhic

( i . ! i . icn. . \ i1968).

' ' I c Concept dr rr l lexe au X l \ , , iecle," in K.t . I lorhschrh, cr l . . tbn /nrAoorr .

bt: Bcr1lu: Dte Enoicklung lcr honr incntokn Phrsioh!1ic in l l unl l9

/ol ' !undtrr (Stungrrr : Fisrhcr, 196' t ) ' PP l57-67'

In Frnch. Papcr prercn( d al a srmPosium hcld in Mrinster on Septcm'

bcr l8 20. 1962. RfPr intcd in Ett tdes I 'ht totre u ' le f t i losoPhrc

t t \ \ ' i rnt t \

( re6lr ).' 'Cal i lc t : I a Sig ' ) i { ic i t iDn dt l

'x urrc ct l ' } leron dc I 'h( 'nrnrt ' ' ' '4r 'hncs tnr"

ndt ion. , lcs. ! 'h istoirc d6 r . icn.cr I7 (19{, '+) ' PP 209 22

Lecture given at thc tnsl i tut l ta l i 'n. in Prr i r , on June I l96f i )n thc

occasion of thc four hundre, l th annivcnrry ol Gal i leo's bir th Rcpr inted in

EtuJes <1'hrnirc a <tt philosoPhic dc' \.rcn1s (19681'

iConrments in l 'Poinr dc vue phi towrphi t luc sur I ' inadaptat ion t lans lc monde

contempc,rain." Rcrherr icr o J iborr ( l \ ' larch 1964) ' pp l09-58 and l3 '+- le

Cangui lhem\ t ornmcnrs are part o l the r l iscussion on a paper prescnrcd

L'v Pierre Col in bcar ing the .1bove-ment ioncd t i t le '

196\

La Connoissance dc ]a v i r (2nd ed' I 'ar is: Vr in ' 1965) '

Rcpr int o l the l iht r l l r t i r )n. publ ished bv lLrchettc in l952 rr i th a nerr

' ! \vert issement," vrmc at ld i r ional re lerences ant l tht ' ' rddi t ion ol the strr t l l

"Lr N{on5tnro' i i ta (r lc m{ 'nr t rueLrx " f i rst prr t ' l ish"1 in l962 lh is edi t i ( 'n

brs been r .pr inted manY t imes.

Extracls l iom the stcond tr l i t i ' rn of th is book ( 1939) arc publ ished in

l l ) iq readcr.

"L ' l lcrmme dc \ 'asatr : < lans Ie monde d+ CoPerni ' : ls '+]" ' in Contntntorot ion

uncnne)lc r1u quantnc c.ntcnd|" d. h rr'ort <l \ndri Vtso 19-11 a obrc lt)61

( l t russcls: Palais dcs Acadtmies, l96q) 'Pp' l4s 5 ' t '

Rrpr int t r l in t ru, l rs d h,r l , , tc cr Jf Pi i l rxnPl) i r ' lcr r ' i ' l ] 'c ' ( l ( )68) '

"L'lrlie rle m{rlccint, r'rptrimentale selon Claudc Bcrn:rcl" Collrences 'lu

Palats

c/r b Di i r , r / r ' , :ac (Prr is: Uniw'rr i t r ' r lc lJrr is ' 1965). s6r ie D' no l i l l

Publ i ( . lccturc givcn at the Pal ; r i r dt la l ) 'couverte, in Prr is ' on I ieb-

nr i rv 6, lqr ' i . RcPrint( ' . l in I ' tud. , .1 'h i \ t . i r ( t t dc phi lotophrc l ts scicncts

i l

(1968i ; cxtracts f rom (his art ic le are inclucled in th is reader.

"Gott l i jed Kol ler , Das Lcben dct Bnlogen Johannes.t ln l lc f /d0/- /85, l i . " / r r 56

(196s), p. 110.

Itevieu.

" fh6ophile Cahn, 1a Vie et I'oeuwe d'Etienne Gcoffro.v SaintHilatre," Isr 56 ( 1965 ),

pp.2.{-{-46.

Revier'.

lgrdgation de phtlosophi.. I96i: R,rppon <lc tl. Gcorges Conguilhen, prisidcnt

du jun lPat ist Ministrrre de Icducat ion nat ionale, lnst i tut Pidagogiquc

Nat ional , I965 ) .

Mimeographed.

''Philovrphie et Sciencc," Rcvu? dc l'lnscignentcnt philoirphiqu. 15.2 (Dec. 1964-

Jan. l96s ) , pp. l0-17.

An exchange with Alain Badiou, broadcast on French educat ional tc le-

v is ion, Janurrr 2 ) , 1965.

"Phi losophie et Vir i te ," Rtvuc de I ' tnsci6lncntnt phikrophigue 15.4 (Apr i l 1965-

l \1rv 1965), pp. l l - l l .

An exchangc, in the rvake ol tbe discussion si th Alain Badk,u in Januarv

1965 (see above entry) . on French educ.t ional teLevis ion, * ' i th A. Badiou,

D. Drevfus, J l l . Foucaul t , J. Hvppol i te, P. Ricoeur, broadcast on March 27,

l9( ,5.

1966

le Nornal ct h potholog,gu. (Par is: Presses Universi ta i res de France, I966).

Repr int o l the secood edi t ion, wi th i rs prel ;ce, publ ished by Les Bel les

Lcttres in 1950, and including a new second part : "Nouvel les r!f lexions

.onrerndnt le normal er lc pathologique (1961-66)," pp. 169-222, and a

br ie l 'Avert isst ment" (p. i ) . The "Notrvel les r6f lexions" correspond in part

to a course given br Cangui lhem .r( the Sorbonne the prrceding ye. l r (M.

Fichant, "Georges Cangui lhem et I ' id!e de la phi losophic" 119931, p. 38).

t h;s edi t ion appeared in thr "Col lect ion Oal ien." edi ted bv Cangui lhem,

. l l t ' 1t7

and whi(h included stod;cs in thr h i r to^ ard phi l ' r r , rphr ' . , f b io logl- and

medicine. Among the t i l les aPPcaring in th is ser ies uere r t rks bv several o l

hjs \tud!nt\, Ylett! Conry, lrrnqois Dagognet, Nlichcl Foucault ant-l Canillt

t . inroges. / -e Norma/ cr te pothologique wasrtpr in led in that col lect ion ( the

fourth an,t i i l th edi t ions " t rc

id(Di icnl to rhis ont) !nt i l 19lJ ' l . shtn tht

"Col iedion Gal ien" ceased to exist . l hc tcxt th{ jn aPpear!d, unrevised, in

the ntw col lect ior) "( lurdr iSc" (Pn' ists t ln iversi tJ i rc i r l ( F ' rncc)

The book u'as t ranslated in io SPanish in 1971, Gc.man in 1974, I ta l ian

in 1975, Engl isb and PoYtugucsc in l918 and lapantsc in 198l '

"Le Tout et la par. ie dans la penstc biologique," Les Etu. l?s Phi losoPhiques, n s '

2 l .1 (1965). pp. l -16.

Reprinted in EtuJes dl isbne et de Ph o\oPhie der scie'.er (1968)i c{tracts

from thi \ ar t ic le rrc ioc\r l td in th is re.rdcr '

"Pr6facc," in Claude Btrnard, / eqons sur /cs phtnonines de Ia vi': .onnunt olx

dr i 'n?rur . t , r ! r i v igcrdut (Pat is l Vr in. 1966). Pp. l -14.

Includcd in th is reader.

' 'Le Conccl t et l , r v ie," Rtvu. pl i loropl iquc <i t louvon 6a ( i \1ar 1966) ' Pt ' '

193-223.

8.rscd on tso publ ic lcctures given at thc Fc<r le des scienccs phi lovr-

phiques et re l ig ieuses ol the t -acul t i 'universi ta i re Saint l ouis in Brusseis,

on Februarr l2 and .11, 1966. Rcpr inted in futdcs <1'hrstoire ct dc phiLmphic

der Jctc ' .$ (1968). Extracts l rom this art ic le are included in tb is reader.

.lgrlgatnn dt phitosophrc, 1966: Roppon & M. Ceorlles Cangutlhcn' prisident

du i r r ) , (Par is: Minist i rc dc l '6ducat ion nat ionale, lnst i tut P6<lagogique

Nat ional , 1966).

Mimeographed.

"Qu'csc-cequelapsvchologie?"Cohietsp, .urI 'an<r/ ! ' , r2(Nlr fch196{r) .pP. l l l -26'

Mimeographed repr int of thc art ic le, lb l lo led bv "Remarques sur 'Qutsc

ce que l r psvchologie?" ' (pp. 128- la) br R. Pagts, and thc concluding

"Note" b,v Canguilhem, all rlready Publishcd in thc Rcvue de nitaph.rsiquc

tt dc noral t in 1953. Repr intcd in rhe l96i cdi t ion ol thc Cahi . t t Pour

/ 'onoiyse, then publ ;shed by thc E( l i t ions du Seui l , and again in EruJer r / t i r

,116 4r9

rorrr cr dc phi lorophr de: s. , fn! . ' (1958 ) . l h t Ghn\ pour / dndtr r , ' , qhich

l i rst appearcd in mimeograph ibrm, were publ ished by the Cercle d '6pis-

t i rnologic dc I 'Ecol t Non}al t Supi : r i rurc. a grorp ol stu, l t 'nts c lo\e ro

Louis Al thusser.

Publ ished in Fngt ish in 1980; includcr l in th is n.rder.

Review of " l \ '1.D. Grmek, ed., Claudc Bernard, Cahrr de notes (1E50-l l l60)

( lar isr ( ;a l l inrard, 1965)," Rcvuc d hrsrt r rc c/c, 'c i!r . f !

l9 (1966), pp. 405-406.

f"Du Singul icr et de la s ingular i t6 en ip ist6nrologie biologique," Roue inter-

nt tnnalc dc phi losophie ( le66), f . l l5. l

The surnmarl ofa lecture C.angui lhem gave to the Soci6t6 belge dc

phi los, ,phie on Frhruarv 10, 1c61.

l96t

"- lhao. i . er technig(re dc I 'expar imenr,r t ion (he/ Cl i ( rde B{rnrd," in Et icnnr

Wolf, cd.. Pnrlosopi;c ct ndtho<!aloqic scienrifiques rlc Claude Bernorrl (Paris:

N1i \ \on, I -ondat ion Singtr-Pol ign.rc, 1967), pp. 2 l - l ) .

Paper prcsented at an intcrnat ional col loquiun organired lbr the cele-

t , rat ion of thc centenary of thc p!bl icat ion oi Claude Ecrn.rrd 's /ntrodur-

tnn i | ' l tu lc <le la niduine e^pi t inent. t lc , in 19t,5. Repr inted in Eruder

<i 'htr to i re cr tu pht lo:ophuJts scrcntts (1963). t ianslared into Cerman in

1979. Extracts f rorn th is art ic le art includcd in th is rcader.

"Lln Phvsiologisto phi l<xophe: Clrudc Bemard, Drrr ioaur 5.4 (196?). pp. 555-72.

l -ecture given at the Dipartenrent de phi losophir , L ln ivcrsi te de Mon-

tr i . r l , jn thc 1; l l . , t le66: included in th j5 rrn( lcr .

"Mort de I 'honme ou 6puisernent du Cogitor" Ct i t iqu? 212 ( lu ly 1967), pp.

599-6t8.

Lssavr revi$v of l\lichcl Foucault, lcr ,tlors cr /cs .fiordr (Paris: Gallirnard,

1966). Al$ publ ished in l ta l ian (sce belorv. r lvo cntr ics down).

"Du C.,nccpr scienr i l ique i la rel)cxion phi losophique, in Cah,ers dc phr losophre,

publ ished bv the Croupc r l ' i tudo dc phi la$Fhie d. I 'Unirersi t i de Par i r .

UN[F-] i ( i [ .1. no. l (Jan. le67), pp. 39-69.

TA lecture by Cangui lhem (pp. 39-s2). fo l lowed bv a discussion.

"Morte del l 'uomo o est inzione del cogi to?" in Michel Foucaul t , Ie Ponle e le

cose (Mi lan: Rizzol i , 1967), pp. 412-31.

I ta l ian t ransl . r t ion of the text f i rst publ ished in French.

1968

"Claude Bernard et Xavier Bichat,",4dcr /u XI' Congris intemational d htstorre

det s.ien.es ( 1965 ) 5 \1968), pp. 287-92.

Published in Erudes d Iistoirc et de philosophE.!es rciences(1968).

Etudes d'histoire er de philosophie des scicn.cs lParis: Vrin. 1968).

Includes:

'Avant-propos" (p. 7) j

"L 'Obiet de I 'h istoire des sciences" (pp. 9-23). previously unpubl ished,

based on a lecture given at the invi tat ion of the C.nadian Societv lbr the

History and Phi losophy of Science, in Monteal , on ()ctober 28, 1966;

republ ished iD I ta l iaD and Cerman in 1979i Cangui lhe'n had given a ser ies

of lccturer on "La fonct ion et I 'obiet de I 'h istoire des sciences" at thc Ecolc

Normale Sup6r i!ure in I984i

"L 'Homme de V6sale dans le monde <le Cope.nic" (pp. 27-3s), pub

l ished ;n 1964, repr inted as a pamphlet in l99l ;

"Cal i l !e: la s igni l icat ion de I 'oeuvre et la lcqon de I 'homme" (pp. 37-

s0), publ ished in 1964;

"Fontcnel le, phi losophe et h istor ien des scien( es" (pp. 51-58), pub-

l ished in I957:

"La Philosophie biologiqu! d'Augustc Comtc et son inllucnce en France

au XlXc si ic le" (pp. 61-74), publ ished in 1958i

"L 'Ecole de t lontpcl l icr jugie par AuBUstc C.,rntc" (pp. 75-80), pub-

l ished in l96l ;

"Hist . , i re des r!l ig ions et h istoire des sciences dans la chior ie du f!t i -

chisnre chez Auguste Comte" (pp. 8l -98), publ ishcd in 1964;

"Lt 's Concepts de' lut te pout I 'cx istence' er de's!lect ion naturel le ' cn

1858: Char les Darwin et Al f red Russel wal lace" (pp.98- l l l ) , publ ished

in 1959;

"L 'Homme et l 'animal du point de vuc psychologir ;uc selon Charles

Darwin" (pp. l l2-2s), publ ished in 1960i

"L ' ld6c de m6decine expenmcntale selon Claode Bemard" (PP. 127-42),

publ ished in I965;

"Th6or ie cr techniquc de I 'exp[r inrentat ion chez Claude Bernard'

(pp. l4 l -55), previous\ unpubl ishcd;

"Claudc Bernard et Bichat" (pp. 156-62), based on a prper publ ishe<l

in the proceedings of thc Xl th Internat ional Congrcss for the Hisr t ,n ofSci

ence, in Warsaw and Cracorv, on August 28, 1965;

"fEvolution du conccpt de rnethode de Claude Bernard i Gaston Eachc-

1ard" (pp. 161-71), pre ' iouslv unpubl ished, based on a lecture given at the

invi tat ion of the Soci6t! de phi losophie de Di ion, onJanuary 24, 1966:

"L'llistoire des sciences dans I'oeuvre 6pirt6mologique de Caston Bache-

lard" (pp. 173 86), publ ishcd in 1963i

"Gaston Bachelard er les phi losophei ' (pp. 187-95), publ ished in 1e6];

"Dialect iquc ct phi losophic du non chez ( laston Bachelard" (pp. 196-

207), publ ished in le61;

"Du Singul icr ct de la s ingular i t! en epist imologie biol( '8 iq ' re" (pP.

2l l -25), previoudy unpuhl ished, based on a paper presentcd to rhe Societc

belge de phi ]osophie, in Brusscls, on February 10, 1962, t ranslr ted into

Cerman in 1979i

"La Const i tut ion de la physiologie comme sciencc" (PP 226-71), PUb'

l ished in 1953r

"Pathologie et physiolog'e de la thyroide au XIX" s idcle" (pp. 2?4-30'1),

publ ished in 1959r

"Modi les et rnalogies dans la, l6couverte cn biologie" (PP 105 l8) ,

publ ished in Engl ish in 1963;

"LeTout ei ln prr( ic ( lans la pen:ee biologique" (Pp. i l9- l l ) , publ ish.d

in 1966i

"Le Concept et la v ie" (pp. 315-5'+), publ ished in 1966 l th is art ic lc

is !omet imcs crroneouslr c i tcd as " t a Nouvel l t ' connaissancc de la v ie."

Il

.{

t

120 421

which is ac(,al ly thc t i t lc o i the subsect ion of the book to which this ar '

t ic le belongsl ;

"Qu'est-ce que la psvchologie?" (pp. 365-81), f int publ ishcd in 1956;

repr inted hcrc \ i rhout the comment by R. Pagis and rhe fol lowing "Note"

bv Canguilhcm. both of rvhich can be found in thc R.vuc d( nitaphvsiqk et

de norolc;n 1956, antf in the repr ints of the Cohnc pour I onolvse in 1966

and 1967i

"Tha.apcut i ( tuc, cxp6r imcntat ion, rcsponsatr i l i t i " (pp. l8 l -91), pub-

l ished in 195c.

This trooL has becn reprinted many times. lt rvas translatcrl into Japancse

in 1991. Extncts f rom the f i f th edi t ion (1989)of th is book are included in

this reader.

"Biologie et phi losophie: Publ icat ions europeennes," in Raymond Kl ibansky,

ed., I o Phila'oph'! .ontenporoine, Chtoniqucs, vol. 2: Phtosophie <les sciences

(Florcn.c: l , Nui) ta l ta l ia Edi t f ice, 1968), pp. 38?-9a.

A review ol *orks publ jshcd betrveen l9s6 and l9{ , ( , in bioloty and on

the historr o l b io logy.

lComments in l "Object iv i te r t h istor ic i t! de l i pensee scienr i l ique, ' lqdr ' ror

p/r?r 'c 8 (1963), pp.24-54.

Cangui lhenis comment can be found on pagc' l9-41, 46-47 and 5l-5 2.

Repr inted in l . -M. Auzias et a l . , Structurahsne et nd.rnml] (Par is: l0/18,

1970), pp. 205-65; Cangui lhem's comments there are on pages 235-39 and

260-62.

"R6gulation (epistemo|tgie)" Lncvclopaedia untvrrrd/r I4 (Pitris: Encyclopaedia

Llniversal is France, 1958), pp. I 3.

Rcpr intcd in l i r l losinu t 'd i t ions.

"La Recherche erp!r imentale," Rcvue t /e / 'cnrrgnmtnt phlot tphque tE-2 (Drc.

196?-J.rn. 1968). pp. 58 64.

An c\cban{c wi(h Char lcs Mazi i res on exper inrental research, broad-

cast on French educ:t ional te levis ion, Februtrr) 6, 1967.

"Lc Vivanr," Revuc </e / 'en\c i |nenent phi losaphigue 18.2 (Dec. 1967-Jan. 1968),

pp.6s 72.

lj

tl

l

CR l CAL. B BLIOCRAPts\

An cxchangt $ i th Franeois Dagognet, broadcast on I- rcnch educat ional

te levis ion, Febru.rry 20, 1968.

"Un l \ {odi . le n 'est r ierr d 'autre que sa lonct ion," in \4 in ista 'c dc I 'Educat ion

Nationale, En,r?tic,r phtlosophiques: A I uso# de\ pnJ?'stu'l (le philasophte

de I 'ensdgn?n.nt r . . r rJdire (P.rr is: Inst i tut p idagogique n.r t jonal , 1968),

pp. 133-16.

1969

"lean Hyppolite (1901-1968)," Rcvue /e mitaphrrigue er dc rr.rfdlc 7.{ (April-June

1969), pp. 129- l ( ) .

Tr ibute to Jean l lyppol i te, the respected scholar aod translator ofHegcl ,

at tbc Ecole Normale Super ieure on January l9, 1969. Cangui lhcin t rnd

Hvppol i te had been students at the Ecole Normalc and bccamc col leagues

rt the Llniver\ i I r o l Strasbourg and, later, thc Sorbonne.

"A!anr propo\." in Domjniqu( I ecoun, l ' Ip i1 ' t inDlogic htxornluc r1e Gaston

,d. .4. ldrd(PJr is, \ ' r in. l96e). p. 7.

This brnL i r I . :court \ mastcr\ rhesis, prep.rred rndtr tht suptrvrs ion

ofCangui lhem.

L'Eprstenoldqiu <li Gaston Bacheldrcl: Scritti di Congutlhm c Leroun, trans.

Riccardo Lanza and , \ {agni (Mi lan: Jaca Book, 1969).

I ta l ian l ransht ion of Dominiquc Lecourt 's I 'Epist inologie histor iqu? dc

Goston Bachelaf t l l$ i th Cangui lhem\ " Premessa" on p. I I ) , to u hich a scc-

ond part is added compriscd of three art ic les bv Cangui lhen on Bachelard:

" l a stor ia dcl le rc ienze nel 'opera epistemologica r l i Gaston Bachelard,"

pp.87-9l l r "Caston Bachelarr l c f i losof i , " pp. 99- l0Sr "L, : d ia let t ica e la

/ i losot ia del 'non' in C.rstun Bacht ' larr l . " pp. l0?-16. lhtsc rhrcc art ic les

l i rst : rppe.rred in Frcnch in t96l .

197 0

With S. Bachclard, J.-C. Cadieur, Y. Conry. {). Ducrcr, .J. Guil terme. p.G.

122 42f

Harnamdj ian, R. Rarhtd, C. S.r lomon'Bavet, . l . Sebesr ik, Int tudu.t i .n o I 'hk-

rorr r iarrrranrci , 'o l .

l : t lentents et inst tncntr . I r . \ r . ' r . , l io i r ; r (Prr isrHarhette.

r970).

'Avant 'propol ' (pp. i i i -v) bv Georges Cangui lhem. Publ ishcd in Cangui l -

hem\ col lcct ion "Textes er documcnts phi losophique," i r is a imed mainly

at students in the l inal yean of the lvc6es. At the t imc ofpubl icat ion, thc

authors werc al l part ic ipat i g in Cangui lhem's rveeklv seminars at the Inst i

'ur d hi \ r . i rc d(\ \ ien, . r , r de' rc, hnique' .

' 'Qu'est-ce qu'unc i<l i<. ' logie scient i f i< l r r?" Orgonon 7 ( 1970). pp. l -1.3.

Based on an invi tc<J lecrure given ar rhe lnst j rute for rhe History ol Sci-

ence and Tcchnologr ol the Pol isb Academy ofScienccs, in Warsaw and

Cracow, in October 1969. Itcprinted in Id;ologic ct ratipndl'ti tlans I'hinoirc

des sciences t le la vr 'e (1977) Extracts f rom this arr ic le are included in th is

"Bichat, Marie, Frangois-Xavier," in Char les C. Ci l l ispic, cd. , Dict ionarv oJ Str

.nt i fk Bioqnphv (Nc\ | Y<-rrk: Scr ihner, 1970),vol .2.pp. l22- l I .

"Pr!st 'ntat ion," in Crston Bacht. l , r rd. far , / . r (Par is: Vr in, 1970 ) . pp. t - 10.

Cangui lhem edi ted th is col lecr n of ar t ic lcs, \h ich B.rchelard puhl i5hed

between l9 l l and l9 l . l .

"iudith Swazev, Re/leres ond )toor IntefFotion: Sherrington\ Comcpr of Integrativc

.4rrton, I Iarvarrl University Press," C/to .4led,rd 5 (1970), pp. 364-65.

Revicw.

!ntroduct ionl "Georges Cu' icr : fourn6es d' i tudes organis!er par I ' lnsr i rut

d 'h istoire dcs sciences de I Unirersi t6 de Par is, let l0 er l l mai 1969 pour

le bicenrenaire de la nr issance dc C. Cuvier," Rcyuc d'hi ' t \ne des s| , t rcct

2 3.1 (19?0), pp.7-6.

1971

Cangui lhern ret i red that year i rom his professorship at the Sorbonne, and from

the direct ion of the Insr i tut d 'h iJtoire des sciences ct r les techniques.

424125

"C. Koncze.rsLi. !a Psvcholozl ie t lvnomqu.i ' r / , , f .nJ.. vdruc (Parisr Fl. lmmirion.

iel0). ' Rd ua p,rrr/oroph,, luc i6l (1971). PP. l l9-20

Rr! ic t ! .

"Logique dL: v i rant et h istoire de la biohgic," Scicnces 7l (March-APri l l9?l) '

PP.20-25.

An rssay review oirranqois Jacob's Ia logtquc du v,v. ,nr (Par is: ( ;a l l i

mard, l9?0).

"Crbani \ . Pir . rc-Jcan Georges," in Char lcs C. ( ; i l l ispie, ed. , Dict ionorv ol Su'

cn. l , ( Bt .ar . rpfr t (Nes York: Scr ibner, Iq?l) , ro1. I , PP. l - i .

"Dc la 5L- icnce er de l . contr tscjcDce." in S. Bachelar l et a l . ' Homnr, tgr , i / ran

Hr p2oir t . ' (Par is: Presses Univer ' i ta i rcs dc f r rnce, l97l) , pp. l7 l - l t { )

A contr ibui ion to a book publ ishcr l in honor olJean l l )PPol i tc th : ( :

vears afrcr h is death.

With S. Bachelard, Y. Conry, l . Cui l lerme, P.G I I 'mamdj ian' R. Rashcr l . C'

Sal('mon B)r'et, J. Sebe\tik, lntfodu.rion ri / fi,rroire d.' ntc'.cJ' !ol. 1: Obi':t'

n i t lo i /c, t rurrp/cr . Icrrcr . iotr ls (P.rr is: I l . i .herte, I97I)

Secon, l and l lnal ro lume. fo l lo l ing rhc ooc put ' l ished th. p.^ t , , t ts rcrr ,

\ i th r n( w A!ant-propos" (pp. r-+).

I o nonol t h patologi to (Mexico: Sigl( , r t iDt iuno edi tores. l97l) .

A second <l i t ion *as publ ished in l9?l l ; th is t r . rnslat ion Ias madc l r '>rn

the | rench edi t ion of 196r, , including i rs nes scci ,nd part .

197 2

"Pr i f . rce. ' in In i l i r tu L, tnortk, Pr6: tnt i : par Ur\ \ tchon. Cj l l<xn.Lru' \ '

I nr*us {Par i \ : Vr. ' "n. l ' l l . ) l .pp. l - ,1.

"P16l ict , " i r r Gaston Bachelard, L 'Engogcnttnt r . r r r 'dr . r i , r re ( l 'ar is: Pressrs I In i

versi ta i rcr de France, 1972), pp. 5-6.

' 'Phvr io logir : animale: Hi*oire," I :nor lo2oecl ia uniruk 's

l2 (Par isr LncycloPit f -

d ia Univcrsal is l r rance, 1912). pp. 10' t 5- i1.

Rcpr inted in the ne$ edi t ion ol 1939 unr ler a s l ight lv di l l i rent t i r l t ;

inclLrded in th is rcader.

''l klie <k, nrturc dans lit thi!rie et la pr:riquc mi:dicales." rUAicctri, Jc / /romn,c

.1] (Nl . r r .h 1972), pp.6-12.

An cxt .act i l in. luded in th is retrder.

It lrornal ct le pothologrguc (2nd rev. ed., Paris: Prcssc! Unnersitaires dc lir.rncr:,

t t )1)1.

Rcpr int o l the 1966 edi t ion, r i th son:c "rect i l icat ions dc dat: i ls ( t quel-

ques notcs compl imrntairei ' (addendum to thc 'Avcrt issement" ) . fh is cdi-

t ion has since gonc through several pr int ings. Extracs l rom this edir ion arc

includrd in th is readcr.

lo ,tlothindtisotion des doct.ines infom6: Colloque tcnu d I'lnttitut (1'hktairc .les

nrenrt' lc l Llnivcrsiti d! Pa s, 'oD'

Ia dircction <le Gnretes Cangutlhcnt (paris:

I l r rDanr. Ie72 ) .

' :q\ , )nr pr-r)p(^ (pp. 7-9) and commcnts<,n pages 67,68, 69, t rnd l l l -14

l :v Cangui lhenr. i h is c,) l l ( , !u ium wa\ held Junc 2'+-26. 1970.

t973

' ' I ic . 1nLrc/ ,1<rc</,a un,, . / r . / , , l6 ( l , i r i i : t ' rc lc l , , t , lc( l i , t ln i rcrsal is Francr,

l9 l I ) . PP. 76.1 69.

Rctr int i . ( l in thr j tconclcdi t ion of 1989r included in th is rcar ler .

197 4

' 'Sur I l l is t<r in. i l rs rc iences dc la v ic ( lcpuis [ )anr in," . l i rcs Ju t / / / " C onUris in l . r -

n<tional <1'htstoirc tlcs scienccs | 197 t ), Confircnccs iniircs \Nrosc rx: Nauk,r,

1974), pp.4l r , l .

Translated into Cicrman in 1979.

' '1, 'hn Bru{n (1715 l7t l lJ) . L i Th6or ie de I ' inci tabi l i t [ r le l 'organismc ct son

imporran(e histor ique." ALt.s.h Xl l l " 0onylr is lnt tnot ional d 'h isroirc dt

r . icr . . r (197l / ( iUoscorv: Nauka, 197.1), Sect ion IX, pp. I4 l - .16.

Rcpr inted, x i rh modi l icat ions, and under a <l i fk.rcnt t i t le, in I t l lo logre

cr rorionaltti dLtns 1'histoirc des scienccs h lo vic 11971).

" l l i \ t ( , j rc dc l 'homme et natrn.dcs chosts sclon Argusrc Comte dans lc P/aa

Jcs tnrou\ s.!.ntifiques pout tiotqonNr ld socitti, t82)," L?:; t:tu.l.\ ftilaso-

427

pl iguer (Jul)-Sepr. 1974), pp. 293-97.

Bascd on : paper given at a col loquium hr:k l at the house ol dugu;tc

Grnte, in Par is, on lunc 27, 1972r includcd in th is reader.

"La { luest ion dc I 'dcologie: La Technique ou la ! ie?" Dtdbguc (Bru\el le\) 2 l

(N' lnrch 1974). pp. l7 '1 '+.

Bascd on a lecnrr t : g iven at the " lournats ( lu protestant isme l iba, .1 l , " in

Si \ te, on Nolcmber 11, 1971.

"( iaston Bachelard," in Scient idt i c tecnologi (orremPor. , rd, (Nl i lan: \4on<l lor i ,

197.1), vol . l . pp.65-6?.

Das Nonnalc und r las Parholotrrhr. t rans. Moni la Nol l and RolfSchubcn ( l r . rnk-

lur l , tser l jn, Vienna: Ul lnein, 197'+).

Translat ion ol thc l9 l2 sccond. reviscd Frcnch cdi t ron fh i \ I ran\ l i r i , )n

$as rcPr inted in 1977.

197 5

' l {ugLrsre C, 'Drrc," in Sdc idt i c teoolog' tL lL or lTini o/ I97j( ] \ t i lan: Mondad,>r i .

IeTt) . ,o1. l . lp. 125 28.

ICommcntsinl . lc tc 'd. lo io i . . t , ' . t l , ru. 'J t t t i t (P.rr is: \ ' r in, le75J.PP. lso i i l .

( )n Annc Fagor. " Le 'Transl i r rmisnrt ' de 11atrp. , ru is." pp. l6 l - r -s.

I hese werc the pn,ct 'cdings ol a col loquium hc' ld in Crtr t i l in I )cccrn

l ,er 1971.

"Pour la phi losophie," ld Nduvc//c cf i t tqu. (Nlay 1975 ) . p. 2e.

A short let ter by Cangoi lht 'm ans$er ing quest ion\ rc{ . r rd ing oppo: i '

t ion to rc l i ) rm of thc nat ional progr.rms of the lvcr:rs, * h ich xould al lLt t

the te:ching oi phi losophy at that l t :vc l . l -hc t i t le is not Can{ui lhcrn s; a l l

anrwers given bv ! ' rench phi losophers $ hom thc joumrl cont.rct* l *cr :

publ ishrr l under th is namc.

I tnornole e t potologico (Rimini : Gurraldi , l97i) .

T.anslat ion ol the 1972 second, revivr l Frcnch cdi t ion.

L a Jbmocidn .l.l n)ncet>ro rfc rcfltio n hs silllor I f1l.r' .Y[/// (\hlencia, Brrr elona:

luan I l i teras, 1975).

Translat ion of the 195 5 f i rst Frcnch cdir ion.

A V IAL R^' OI!ALIST

t97t

I t et nort <lc Jcon Covor l / t rs (Anrbialet lTarnl : Pierre Laleure, t976).

The texts included ha<l not becn prcvious)y publ ished:

"Avan.prop(,s" (pp. 7-8) i

" lnaugurat ion de I 'Anrphi th6;rre Jean Cavai l l is i la nouvel le Facul t6 des

l . r t t res de Strasbourg (9 mai 1967)" (pp. 9-34);

"Comm!morat ion i l ( ) .R.T.F., Francc'Cul ture (28 octobre 1969)"

(pp. 3s 39);

"Commemorat ion i Ia Sorbonne, Sal le Cavai l lds (19 janvier 1974)"

(pp.4t-5.1) i

"Bibl iographie: Publ icat ionsde jeanCavai l l i i ' (pp. 57-61).

A ncw c( l i t ion was publ i rhe( l in 1984.

"Qual i t6 de la v ie, d igni t6 dc l . r mort ," l t tes du ol loque non. l id l Biologie et

dev.ni t dc I 'homn., Univerr i re de Par is. le l6 (New York: McGraw I I i l l ,

1976), pp. 521-)1.

Final repon ofa commission pres!ntcd at ao intrrnat ional col loquium

held r t the Sorbonne in Pir is, Sepiember l9-24, 1974 ( i t is fo l lowed by an

Engl ish t ranslat ion ol the texr, pp. 532-)?). Cangui lhem was a member of

the French org.rnjz ing , ,Dd re.cpt ion commit tec ol thc col loquium.

"Nature ddnatur6e ct Nrturc narurantr ( i propos de I 'oeuvre de Franqois

Dagognct) ," in Sdvd' . , tspirv, bs lmires de Io ror ion (Brussels: Facul t6 Uni

versi ta i rc Saint 'Louis, 1976), pp. 7 l -88.

" l l ruolo de l l 'epistcmologia nr l l i s tor iogra{ ia scient i f ica contemporanea,"

S.i.n/a &Tccnica '7 6: .4nnuano della Enciclopedi.,.le d Scicnta c de o lacnko

(Mi lan: Mondadori . 1976), pp. 42' / 36.

Rcprinted in ldioloBie d rauonalitd tlans l'histoirc des sticnos de 1o vic

(1977). Translated into Cerrnnn in 1979. Extr t rcts f rom this art ic lc arc

included in th is reader.

" l \ ' larc Klein, 1905-1975, ' +chn. ' inenduonales d 'hktone des sciences 26.98

(1976), pp. 161-6a.

KIcin h.rd spent hir carerr rs i proFssor.r thc Llni lers i ty ofStrasbourg J

42U.+29

medical school rvhtre Cangui lhcm hacl complete<l h i \ ( l .grce in nredic inc.

Klc in cont inued to teach at th! uni \ers i ly when i t was moved ro Clcrmont

Ferrand dur ing t l re Gern)an orrup.) l ion ln 1944, thc ( ;csr ipo arrested and

deported him to the conc(ntrr t ioD camps ol Aurchwit?, ( ; rossrosen and

Buchenwald, f rom where ht ' r 'as l iberated in l945 He publ ished wit lc lv

on histology, endocr inology an( l on hisrory ol b iomedical scicnccs ln th is

obi tuar) , Cangui lhem suggested tbrr Kl t in 's histor ical PaPers bc col lected

and publ ished as a book; the book rv.rs in l ic t publ ishcd in 1980, and Can-

gui lhem wrote the introductbn (see bclor ' , second entrv undcr 1980)

I o conoscenza della vita ( Bologna: ll l\lulino, 1976)

I:1 ':onocinicnto de Ia vida (Barcelona: Editori.tl Anagrama' 1976)

t977

Lltulogic et ratiandlite dans I lrirrorre dcr rcrcn<.'r ,/c ld ttr: No'veller itul6 d'histoite

ct d. phi losophie des s. i tn(cr (P.r is: vr in, 197?).

tncludes:

"Avancpropoi (pp 9-10)r

"Le R6le de l '!pisr imo)ogir b io l tg ique dans I 'h i*r ' r ioArrPbie scient i -

f ique contemporaine" (pp. I l -29). publ ished in l t . r l ian in 1976i

"Qu'est-ce qu'une id6ologie scient i l iquc:" ' (pp l l -45) ' publ ishcd in

1970;

"Une Id6ologie m6dicale exenphire. le svsteme de Bnmn" (pp.4?-5'+) '

bascd on the paper publ ished in 197'1 under a di l lerent t i t le in the Proceqf

ing' . i rh, Xl l l rh Inr , rnrr i , 'nal Congres' lorrhel l i ' r , r r , ' l S, ren( c in Mu*

, os. AuE,rsr l8-24. laTl :

" l 'Ei let de Ia bact6r io logie dans l . r f in dcs Thior ies medicaler ' au

XIX's iecle" (pp. 55-77). bascd on a lecture presentcd in Barcelona in

Apr i l 1975, t ranslakal into ( ;crmrn in l9 ls i

" t -a t .ormat ion du conccpt dc r igular ion biologique aux XVl l l ' ' et XIX'

s ieclei ' (pp. I l l -99), an ex(en( l (d vcrsion ol thc papcr publ ished, also in

1977, in thc prreedings ol a conterrn< e held in l9?+;

"Sur I ' t l is(oire des science: de la ' ie

depuis Ihr$ ' in" (pn. l0 l - l l9) .

A V TAI RAl OI!AL ST

pobl ished in I97'1 in the proceedings of thc XI l l th Internat ional Congress

f, ' r rh" l l i ' torr " l \ . icnce in l lo- ot .

"Li Que!t ion dc la normal i t6 dans I 'h istoire dt la pensi t b io logique"

(pp. 121-19), bascd on a paper prcscntcd at a col loquium organizcd by- the

Internat ional LInion ol the I l is tot) and I 'h i losophv o1 Sciencr. , in JYs;sk) l : i .

I . in land, in. lune- ju l1 le73.

The book rvas t ranslatcd into Cerman in 1979, Portuguese in 1981,

Fngl ish in l9 l i8 and I ta l i rn in 1992.

A sccond cdi t ion apperred in l9 l t l . Extracts l rom the l98l t t r : rnslat ion l r1 the

f i rsr edi t ion are includet l in th is reader.

" l a Format ion du concept dc ragulat ion biologique aux XVl l 'c t XVl l l 's i ic les."

in Andr i L ichnerorvicz, Jacqui , ' t ions, Fran(ois Perroux, ( i i lbcrt Gadol l ie,

eds., / ' / / lc de 16l lu lat ion dons /er r t rnrrs (Par is: Nlaloine-I)oin, I977),

pP. 25 19.

Paper presenttr l at the Col l ige de Francc in Dcccmber 197'1, at a col-

loquium orgrnized bv the edi tors of thc proccedings. on the idr :a o1 n 'gula

lion in scirnce. {n cxtcndr:rlversion was publishtrl tht samc vc.rr in /diologic

er fttranaliti don\ I'ht'toft .l,Js vicnres de Ia vie.

I o I'onotion du .on.epr dc ri/1ete out xt ll' et I l/i/'riir/er ( 2nd ed., Paris, Vrin.

t9J"/ |.

lhe l i rst edi t ion had brtn publ ishcd bv the Presses Univcfs i ta i rcs dc

Franccin 1955. I h is neN edi t ion, "ra:v is ic ct augmcnt6e," includes a 5h(, . t

"Av. r t isscmcnt de Ia deuxi i rne a{ i i t ion," c i ) r rect ions ol mispr ints and a

"Compl6ment bibl iographiquc" (p. 202).

lxtrats l iom this:r t ic le . r re included in th is rcadcr.

"Jacques Rufii6, De la Btolo5lic a h culture (Paris: 1976)," tn T lopocdia u w:-!alts

(Par is: Encvclopacdia Universal is Francr. : , 1977), pp. 378 ?9.

Rlviov.

"J. Schi l ler ct T. Schi l l t r , Heni Durrocher," ) rchjv. \ int . rnatnndls . l 'h istoirc des

rr icnrcr 2T (1977), p. 3.+0.

Rcvis.

"Souvcnir dc t .ucien l lerr ," Bul lct in de la So.t i r i 'Jcr dm,r dc I ' l .col t Norntalc

.+lo 4]r

BL OGRAPHY

Supir icurc l319 (Nlarch 1977). pp. l2 l l .

On thc occasion ol the l i l i ieth anni lcrstr fy ol l lerr 's death. ln 1912,

Cangui lhem had publ ishcr l a ro iov ol a col l rct ion ol Herr 's rvr i t ings :s *el l

as ol h is biography bl Ch.rr lcs Andler.

" Lfs machines i go(:r i r , " I e i t londc \Apr i l 6, 19'71).

Rcvie*,ol l \ , l ichel Foucaul t , Blandine l larrr : t Kr iegel , r \nne Thalamy,

Fran(oir BcSuin and I l runo fort ier , I .cs ) , lochinct d guir i t (z,d\ or ig inc ' dc

I 'h iptral not l t rne 1 (P)r is: lnst i tut de I 'environnrmcnt, I976). Cangui lhenr

is incorrect lv idcnt i l ied at the bottom ol thc rcviov rs "Prolcscur au Colhgc

t976

' 'Une I ' idagogir : dc l . r guer ison est-el le possible?" Nouvc//z r , : r rc /e psrchonal tst

l7 (19i8), pp. I l -26.

' 'Le Concept d ' id io l , ,g ic \c icnt i l ique: Lntret i tn r lec t ieorgcs Cangt i lhcm."

Raison pr iscntc +t ' (19 t 8 ) . pp. s 5-68.

Fol lorv ing the previous vear 's publ icat ion ol h l io l t )g i t ! . t kr t jandl i t i ddns

/cr r r icnres dc /o r ic, *hich includcs the anic lc " t lu ' tst ct qu'unr: id io logic

scicnt i l iqrre?" ()n p;rgcs 55-5U. Cabr ic l Cohau comments on that a. t ic lc )nd

rr iscs l ive quest ions. rh ich Cangui lhem ansrvrr \ (pp. 58-6( l ) .

"Cr l l f \ t in Bougla," lnnuoirc ie l ' , lssociot ion dts ani tns i l i rcs <le 1 'Lcolc Nortnalc

iupir icurc (1978 ) , pp.29-12.

Cangrr i lhem had wri t ten his " t ) ipklme d' i tudes supir i t r r rcs" undcr

the superr is ion of Ci lest in l lougl i in 1926 (see above, l i rst cntrv un<l t ' r

te2 6 ) .

On thc Norn,t l ant l rht I l t tholo. j i@|, t rans. Carr lvn B. Fnw(ct t , \ ! i th rhc cdir()

r i : l col labor: t ion ol Robrr t S. Cohen. Introdrrct ion bv l \ l ichcl Ioucaul t

( l lordrecht: ReirJel . l97r l ) .

I i inslat ion o1 thc 1972 src<,nr l , revir td f rench r :d i t ion. Rcpr inred br

Zone BooLs jn t989r extr . rcts inclu<tcd in rhi \ re,rder.

A V IAL RAT ONALIST

O nornal c o parololyo (Rio de Janeiro: Forensc'Universi tar ia. 1978).

Porrugutse tr , rnslr t ion of the l97l sr :cond. reviscd French edi t i r ) r r .

1979

"L l l is to i re des \c icnfcs de lbrganis:rr ion de Blainvi l le et 1 'Abbd MauPicd," Rrvu.

. l 'h istoir . dc\ \ . icncc' ]2 (1979), pp. 7 l 9) .

Included in th is reader.

"Pr6face," in Othnrar Kccl, La GdndaLtSTe <le I'hisrapdrtologt. (Paris: Vrin, 1979),

pp. i - ; i .

''Prilacc," in fran(ois llclaporte, Ic Scronr/ regnc de /d r.rrr. (Paris: Flammarion,

1979),pp.1tO.

Translatcd intr : Engl ish in l ' )81 anr lCcrm:n in l91l l .

"l-'ogg.tto della stori.l (lcllc scienze." in Gaspare Poli//i,.d., Scicnto ?.1 cpirtco]^-

logia in Frun. io ( t900 1970) (Tut i i t Loeschcr Ecl i tore. 1979). pp. 200-16.

Translat ion ol " t . 'Objct de I 'h ist , r ; re dcs sciences." publ ished in J: turJtr

,l ht:t,;trt u lc phtla:ophic d.s \L).nr.' (1968).

ttt's?nschoftsg$.hi.htc und Epis'rn@l.tqK: {'csannttu .1ul:iitte, Wolf Lepenies.

ed., t r rns. Michael Bischoffand \ \h l ter Sei t tcr (Frankl i rn am Main: Surkhanp

Vcrhg, 1979).

A reader ol Crngui lhem\ rrrr ls. including:

"Di. (;cschichte dc. \l'i\scDs.h.ikcn im cpisremd,,gi5chco \\/erk Ci\t,,n

Bachela(1" (pp.7-21), f i rst publ ished in Frcnch in le6l :

"Dcr Gegenstan<l t lcr Wissen,!(haftsgeschichte" (pp. 22-17), l i r t t puh

l ishcd in Freneh in 1968r

"Die Rol le dcr Epistemologie ;n der heut igen Histor iograhie der Wis

senschal t t 'n" 1pp. l8-58), f i r \ r publ i :hed in I t i l i . ln in 1976 anJ in I r rench

in )9 '7 '7.

"Die Epistcmologische Funkt ion des ' I inzigart igcn' in der Wisscnschi l t

vom I cbcn" (pp.59-7'1), l i rst publ ishc( i in f rench in l9f ,8r

" l -heor i r r rnr l lcchnik dcs Frpcr iment i t rcns bci Claur lc Bcrnarr l " (pp.

75-88), l i r \ t publ i !he( l in f rench in 1967;

412,+t J

AL' ' ]GRAPtsY

" l ) ie I lerausbi ldung dcs Konzeptes der biologischen l l .egulat ion im 18.

und 19. Jahrhunr lcn" (pp. 89- lD9 ) , l i rst publ ished in Fn nr h in 1977r

" l )er Sei t rng dcr Bakter io lo! i t /um UntcrgrnS dcr 'mediz in i , rchcn

lheor ien' im lq. Iahrhundert" (pp. l i9-109), l i rst publ ishe( l in l - r rnch

;n 191'J i

"Zur Geschichte der Wisscnsch.r l ten vom Leben sei t l ) i r$ in ' (pp. l l . { -

i3) . l i rst publ i rhcr l in F-rcnch in 197.1.

1960

' ' l I Ccrveau et la pcnsce," l rospcct ivc ct Sonrd 1.1 (Summcr l9 l to) . pp. l l l -911.

Bascd on a lccturc del ivcrtr l on l -chruar1 20. 198() , at r c( , , r l i rcncr

organizcd b1 tht " lU{,uvemcnt unirrrsel de 1a re 'ponsibi l i t ( scicnt i l iquc. '

in Par is. Repr inre( l $ i th ()mc corrcct ions in 199l .

" l \1rrc Klein, h istor icn dc Ia biologie," in Marc Klein, Rcl lonfs d un hnlolpt t :

f.votution <fe I oppn,tu sc'cnrifique. l'1 nrion.ntnt nidicol \troshourqeos \l' i\:

l i .nnann, 1980). pp. \ j i - r i i .

Src Crngui lhem s obi tuarv, ,1 Klc in abole, 11l th.n(r \ un( lcr 1976.

" l ' r i ' lace." in Andr i Picht)r , El i rncnts pout un? thiorrc Jc /o bro/o<7rc (Par is: Nlaloine,

l9U0), p.7- l (1.

' 'C,)n( l i t ions ( lc lbbjccr iv i re scient i l iq rrc. ' Roi 'on pi 'entc 5 5 ( l9 l to) , pp. l l l 81.

' ' \ \ hat is Psvchofogr i ' IJr :ohtot ond Conxiourn. I r T (198f)) , pp. j7-50.

frrnslat ion h\ l { , t rv l f t l l )a! ics 0l rh( , rcxr f i rsr puhl i rhed in l95l i .

1981

tt t . r loqro. neionLl oh nas t i innr h t t (L isbon: Fr l i l r ' , r . J0. l98l) .

I tanslat ion ol the l i rst I r rench c( l i t i , rn (1977).

Uiolo c rt totion.tliti dans /cr rc,cnccs J,: /rr ric: Nourcl/cs car<les d'hirltirc a Llc

phj lonphi . des l . i " ,L! ' 12nd rs. cr l . , r i rh correcr ions, P,rr is: Vr in, I981 ) .

An I tn l ian rr . rnslrr ion ol th is.( l i t ion rras publ is |cr l in 1992, and rn

I :ngl i rh rrrn\ l i i r i ( ,n iD le iJ8

/

"P16tacc." in l l tnr i Pcquignol , l ] . t / r ' . r i t r . ,n u\ ( f ' , r r isr \ i in, l9 i l1) , pp. i r .

This tcr t r r . rs.r lso inclut l t r l in the scccrnd cdi t ion, ntr l r ent i t le<l l i r , / i rmr

dc dentain: l iu lh Lr i t r . r , . ! \ ( \ ' r in. I9t l6, pp. i \ , wi th a "Compl iment potrr

unt: nouvcl le 6di t i t rn," p. v i ) .

"Gustarc i \ ' l i ,nod, pbi lovrphe. pidagogue." in I ouis Crcs, ed., Gusravc , t ' lona<l :

lln Pionnicr .n iducdtion. ld ( /arscs nourc//cr dc /d lii,lrdttor (Paris: Conlita

unircrs i ta i re d ' in lormat ion p.al . rgogiquc, l98l) , pp. l5-19.

"whrt is r Scicnt i i ic Idcologv?" R.rr ' l rcol Pni iorplr '29 (1981), pp. 20-2s.

l ianslat ion and an intrx luct ion br MiLc Short land, pp. 19-20.

t982

with C. L.rptrssadc. J. Piquemal. I . t l lmann. Du t) tvt loppencnt d l ' [volutnn au

l / , ( 's ;Ar/e ( f 'ar is: I ' r tsres t ln i rer s i ta i r es , lc Frrncc, 1982).

Repr inr i ) l thc strr lv in /hoi , r ( le( ' { ) ) . publ ished in 1962; wi th a "Pre-

scntr t ion" b\ Fl icnnc Bi l ib)r . )d Do'niDique LecoUrt , pp. v-v i . A n. \ ,

idtnt ic.r l edi t ion appc;rk( l in l9t i5.

" l ioresord," in l : ranlois l ) t l . rporre. Norurci 5ctonJ ( ,ngdr, ' r (Cambridgc. N1A:

!1lT Prcss, 1et i .1) . pp. i \ \ i i .

I ianslat ion ol rht book l i r \ ( putr l i ihed in French in 1979.

"Emile Li t ( re, phi losophe de l i b io l . )e i ( et de la midecine," Cr:ntre ink,rna'

ti,,nal dc svnthi:sc, lircs lu anlbqu. l:mib Lnt.i l80l-1881. Paris. T 9 octLlve

/9,9i (Prr is: AlbinNl ichcl , 1932),pp.27l 81.

' I hcsc proccedings r lso c(rnsl i tutc a special issue of the Revue Je sr nt i ise

106- l0 l i (Apr i l -Dec. I982) i include( l in th is r{ ,adcf .

198 3

Cangui lhem qas auar lcr l in l9 l l l , in rhsLnt ja, thc Sarton \4tr la l , thc highest

honor of thc Histor,r o l Sr i tnt : t Soci f t \ (scc bclo*. in Part l ivo, cntrv under

l9 i l .1, for tht n: l rn ncl r ) thr c i t i t j , )n) .

411 . ' ] t

R IOI,R]PHJ

t t uJ u l 'h t t totu et dc pl i lov, t i r f Jcr ' . icnr.( ( 5 th td, Par is; \ r in. l 9f i ) )

Includes;r l l thc lcxtr publ i \ht( l in th( le66 (di1ion, Plrr : "Puis:ancl r t

l imi ter dc h rat ionr l i ra cn mcdtcint ." . r lscr publ ishet l in rhe prxccdings

,, i r , "n[ren.. in lqSlrpp. ] l l - "1 ) .

F\ t r rc ls includr( l in rhis rc i , l r i .

"Vorworl , " in Franqois Del i tportc, D,,r zr t&rc Nrr t r r rc lc l , nhcr. l i ( I : ru len . lc\

l 'eyletabi l i : ;chen in l t lahrhundcn (Fr.rn(turt : L l l ls t t in iUdtcr ia len, I98l) ,

PP.7-9

Translat ion of thc tcxr l i rst publ ishcd in l : rench in 1979.

198 a

"Pr i 'cntr t ion de l 'Anatomie," in ( i . Crngrr i lhcm. C l ) tbru, G. Fscat, I - l Guerv.

J. Lambcrt . Y. Michau<l, A. M. NlDUl in. . l r . r r . r r t f , t un tpr t lntL oouc: Franqois

n. / l i . .g r { Prr i ' : \ i in. lcR4 l . pp ?- l ( ) .

An introduoion to rhe proccr<l i r rgr o l r c, ,nI r , :nc, : , orgrnizcd tr l Can-

gui lhem. and hcld on \ '1ar l '1, 1981, rr rht l \ lusi t Cl . r r l ie Brrn.rrd in Sainc

Jul ien rn Beaujohi ' , r , r t l iscuss rht $t , rL\ , ' l I - r .1n!oi \ Ihg<,gnet l ) . rg<gnct

hnd \r i t tc 'n his dis ler t r r ion, Lr R.rko, ! . /cr rcma, l . i (Prr i i : Pres\es t ln ivcr

si ta i res de Francc, 1964). un<l t r Canqr i lhem \ \uPcrf is i , rn.

"PuissJncc ct l imi tes r lc 1a rr t ion.r l i re.n mcdet inc. in Char les Nlarx. ed. .

.tli.lcdn., '':ienc.

et rcchniqv: Rccutil ,l'itl..lct rilqics i I'ocLosnn <lu ctntcnarc

<h la non de Claut le Bcrnonl ( l i i l l /S; , \ l (Par is: Edi t ions du Ccntr t nat ional

dc 1.r rcchcrche scicnt i i lquc, lL)8 ' t ) . pp. l (J9-10.

Rcpr intcd in the l l f th edi t ion ol Lrudes d'histain ct de phibsoPhic de\

. , r , .c. ( lq8 r) : i r r . l r r , l , , l rn r h i . rc rder

"Gr*on l l . rchclard. psychanalyst t : dtrns I l ( i te s. ient i f iqucT" l l Pntol lan 21.5

(Jan. Junc lesa). pp. le-26.

Publ ishcd in rn issue ol the j , ,unr,r l r l t rotrd to "(hston lhchcl : r rd

Ui lanci( , cr i t ico di una cpisrcnro)dgi . r . "

"Entrct i .n avec ( icorgcs ( i rngui lhcm" (r i th Jtrn 'Pierrc Chrcr i rn-( ;oni rnd

Chf ist i , rn t -a7lrr i ) . in /n 'nrrp/rnrt : Canrtvr 5.7.5. I ( les. l ) . pp. l l l .+.

t985

lcomments in l Comit! consul tat i f nat ional d '6thiquc porr les sciences de la

l ic ct de In snnt i , Ropport I9t .1 (Par is, Lr Do.ument. ] t ion t ranqaise, 1985),

pp. 132-84.

Comments on three papers presenter l bv F Q'rar6, M. Glorvinski and

M. Pel ic ier at a roundtablc on the "Probl imes d' i th iques posis par la re-

cherche sur le syst imc nervcux humain," organized by the French Nat ional

Commit tec on Ethics in the Li fe Sciences and Medicine, Decembcr 6, 1984.

Emile Boutroux, Des Vditds itenelles chez Descarrcs, Thdse latine traduitc Par N{.

Gcorgcs Canguilhem, 6live de I'Ecole Normale Sup6rieure (Paris: Vrin, l9us).

Repr int of thc 1927 edi t ion, then publ ished by F6l ix AIcan, lacking

the preficc by t-6on Brunschvicg; r'ith a shor( "Av.ln.Propoi' by .Jean-l uc

"trr igmentr ," in lqevue , le ni taphvsiquc t de morcic 90.I ( 19115 ) , pp. 93-98

"Str ik ing l iagments" sclcctcd f rom the worls ol C.rngui lhem, b,v Dina

l l r t 'v l ls , Claire S.r lomon-8avet and Jern-Jacquts Sr lomon.

"Dc\crrres ct la technique," Cahrcrs5.7.5.7 ( l9t i5 ) , PP.87-91.

Reprint of the paper f i rst publ ishcd in 1917.

1986

"Sur l " l l is to i re de la fb l ie 'en tant qu'a:v inem.rnt , " Ic Ddbat 11(Scpt, /Nov.

l9{36), pp. l7-4{} .

Note on the ci rcumslances surrounding Cangui lhem\ report on Fou-

crutCs doctoral d isscrtat ion. Didier Er ibon publ is l red the report 'n

1991

(st belor l , f i rst entry under 1991).

l9E7

"1, l )ccr( lcncc de I ' id6e de progr is, Bouc dc mitophtr iquc ct d. no.dl .92

(1987). pp.4l?-54.

1i6 417

"l-ccturc et souvenir dc J.an Bnrn." in Ftanqois Dagognet et a l . , I lne phi l<xophi t

du seui l : Honnage <i Jd.rn B.u, ( l l i jon: Edi t ions Univcrsi ia i res ( l ! Di jon,

1987), pp. l -7.

Publ ishcd in a Fcstschr i l t presrnrer l to Jean Brun, a Frtnch phi losopher

who had bccn a *ur l tnt of Cangui lhcm at thr I vci! Ferm.rt . in Torr louse,

in 1917.

"Discours dc Monsicur Ccorpes Cangui lhem prononc6 le 1" d6cenrbn' 1987 , ;

I'occasion de la rcmist' ,lt' lr Midaille d'or du CN RS." .rr'ldoillc rJbr du CNR.\

/9t7 (Par is: Ccntre Nat ional de la Recherchc Scient i f ique, 1987).

A nvo-page pr inted tcxt of Cangui lhcm's acccptance speech ol the

CNRS's gold mcdal for scicnt i t lc achievements.

"Avert issement c les 6di teurr i Ia premiere 6di t ion," in Jcan Crvai l las, . lur /o

I .ogique et Ia thtor ie de Io rc,err . , r ( ' t th ed., Par is: Vr in, 1987), pp. ix-x i i i .

The l l ts t three edi t i , rns, beginning in 1947, had been publ ishcd b' thc

P.csscs Univer\ i ta i r ( ' r d( , Frnnce.

J-etou t 'o Byour i ( lbklo: H.rsci L ln ivcr\ i ry P,cr( , 1987).

Japanesr translation. bl llrkehiu.lilizanr,r, ol ltliorn,i ':t

L Potholoatquc.

"Prel ice," / I r t t ' r r und l r rhnolog_r '4 (198?I, pp. 7-10.

This tcxt $a\ Cangrr i lhem\ conrr ibut ion to "Science: la rcn,r ix,rncc

d'une histoire," a col l ,xguium hcld in memory ol Alexandre Koyre in Par i .

on Junc l0-14, l9t l6. l t i> pr inted here is the introduct ion to a special jour

n: l issue of the proceedings ol that col loquium.

1988

IdcoloSl.v ond Rdtiondlitt n ttu Histor.r ol rhe LtJi Srienccs, trans. Arthur (iold

hammer {Cambridge. MA: Nl l - r Pn'sr . l98l t ) .

Translat i< 'n of the seccrnr l . rcr isc<l Frtnch edi t ion (1981); extrrcts in '

c luded in th i : readrr .

"Prascntat ion," in )res Sch*anz. Fyinel l . t n onnok'once <lu rnt t t i l (Pdr;s:

E( l i t ions Social!s. 1988), pp. l9-22.

" l c Stntut cpist imologir lue r lc la midccinc," l lnni) , . rnt l Phib 'opht of th. l4 i

A V TAL FAT ONAL 5T

Scirnces l0 (suppl . , 1988), pp. l5- .19.

lnclu( lcd in th is rerder.

l lanshoooincn no rcktshr ( lb lyo: t io* i L lnnersi tv Prcs\ , l9 iJf t ) .

lapancse translrtion. bv (\amu Kananrori, ot I o lorntotion tlu nnept rlt

" t r \ rnt i , .oncrpt ! u lS,r i r ct qLrest jon phi lov,phique," C i ts Ju t in inoir t

tu phnuophte 8: l ( r J.rr t i (Strast ourg: Edi t ions C(:ntrr de Docrmcntat ion

en I I is to i ( de 1a Phi losophic, l9 l l t l ) , pp. l l9 3 3.

Ihc text o la lecnrre givcn r t thr t ln iversi(v oi Strasbourg in l lav l9 l i8.

PLrbl ishcd as a L,r , t l t t in l99t l . , rnr l igain, in pnrt , r r thc introduct ion to r

bool in 1992, undrr the l i t le " t a \ant6. ver i te du corps."

198 9

" l es Nlaladies," in And16 J;cob, td. , Fncyclopidic phi losophique uniRB.11.:

I ' t lntr . ts phi losophtqu.. vol . J (Par is: P(:sses Unnersi ta i f t r de Fr in.r . l9 iJ9),

pp. l l l ] -16.

lnclu( l .d in th is rradcr.

"Phvsiologie, I ' Phls ioL,gie animale - t )b jcct i l ! et meth(xlr , " fnctc lapaedrt

r ln, ' r . 'd l iJ l8 (2nd cr l . . Par is: Inc!c lopacdir t ln iversr l is France, 1989),

pp.:44-46.

Jtepr int l rom tht l i rst edi t ion.

"RaSula( ion (epistcnni logie)," f r . ! . lopdc./ id univcrsalrr 2 j (znr l ed. . Par is: Fnc\-

c lop. tc<l i r Univen.r l is F.nnce, 1989). pp. 7 l l - l l .

l {cpr int l rom the l i rst edi t i0r .

" \ ie," Lnc.r t lopoedto unir tsolx 2) (2Dd cd., Par i r : Lncyclopacdia Llniversal is

Frrnt e. 1989), pp. 516-53.

Rcpr int l iom rhr i i rst r r l i t i i )n i txcerpts f r , 'nr thr l i r : t cdir i , rn are in-

c ludtd in th is r tar lcr .

Ttu Norntoland tht Patnolot icdl (Nrw x,rk: Zone Bools, l98e).

t lepr int ( , f th( t r lnsht ion puLl i .hrd bv Reidt l in 1971]; r \ t r i ( rs inciuded

in th is readcr.

"Pr!scnc.r t ion," in Franqoir Delaportc, H,rroirc r / r io / i : r , rc louni { I r . r r is : I } rvot ,

leSq), pp. l t l l .

l ianslared inro Spanish in I989. F.ngl ish in l99l r tu lJap:n$( ( in prfs!) .

"Pr61icc," in Anne Iragocl .argeaul t , Lts Couscs & ld noft : Uistoirc nantrc l lc . t

locteurr d. r isqu' : (Pir i ! : Vr in / Lv(,ni Insl i rur int . , ( l isc ip l in i i rL ( l 'atudes

cpist inrologiqucs. l9R9), p. x i i i .

"Pr6scntr I ion," in, l . l iLht l FouLouh phlosophc: Rcncontre intcn. t t ionnl4 Pdr is 9,

10, t t jdnrter /988 (Par is: Scui l , l9 l l9) , pp. I l -12.

Bl td on a 'pec(h

l r r r thr col lo lu iLrnr or! .anizer l hr the lwrci . r t ion pour

le Ccnrre Michel I ouerul t .

"Prr l ic io," in Ff i inqois l )e laport t , Hisror io <lc lu f rchre anort l lo (Cemca: 1t l I

UNn$1. 1989), pp. l1-1.1.

Sp,!nish t r in\ l i i i . ,n Dl rhe rcxr publ i ,h(d l inr in 1, f t .n( h (sef abolr ,

rhr(c rntr ics up).

19 90

"Phi lovrphie d 'unc evict ion: I 'objct cor l rc la rhosc, 'Acyuc r /c rni , tophvsnpt et

dc mor. , /c 95.1(1e90). pp. 125 29.

t{ t ! ic$ ol I : r . I r !o i \ t )ag, ,gne(, I / , )4, j d. / i ) r / . . ( P.) , i \ : \ r r in, 198.) ) .

Id Sant i . ,ont"pr wl t tntr t cr quert ion phlauphniur (Pir-BJlmai Sabl . \ . t990).

A thir tv{ ix pi tge booklet rcpr inr ing th. rer t I i rsr publ i rhcd i r r lL) t l iJ .

l9 9l

' 'Rapp<,n dc l \ { . Uangui lhcn sur l f 'n.rnu\cr i t

drpo,Jr p,rr l \1. Nt ichct foucrutr ,

d i r t i teur dr: l lnst i tut l ran(.r is r l t l lambours. L,n ruc de l 'oLt i .nr ion r t r r

pfrD j \ d ' inrpr in lcr ( , ,mrnf rhisc pr jn. 'pale dc , l ( , ( ror i t a ' le n. \ . "

C.ngui lhem's rrp,rr t ( ipr i l 19. t t )60) on Foucaul t 's doct<irai d isstr t . r -

l ion t ' l lb l ished under rhc r i t le to l rc t < l intson: t l ts totrc r tu to l l l tL d t 'nat

. ld$iq.r . (Par is: p l ( ,n, lq6t) , in t ) i<t i t r F-r ihon.. l t , ( f r . / /du.dulr(2n( l c( t . , t , i r is :

Fl . rmnrar ion, l99l) . j ,p. l5 U-6l .

.+]8 419

"Qu'est cc quirn philosophe !n Francc aujout<l'hril" Connentdt. l.+.sl (Spring

I99l ) , pp. I t tT- l2.

()ccasioned bv the as'arding oi thc Jean Crvai l lcr Pr ize ro I (an-Picrre

Saris for his book ,tlocfiin( ct tonnmicdtion lPari;: Vrin, 1987), ar the Ecole

Normnle 5upir ieurc, Mrrch 10. 1990

"l legel en France," , l faqol ine l i t t l rcnc 293lNov. I99l) , pp.26-29.

f .xtracts f rom rhc a( ic le publ ished in 1949.

I 'Honnc de ltdsoh dans h non.I d? Coptnic (Pitis: Lahorat<rires Dcl.lgrangt. I991 ).

A repr int , ls a bookler, of the art ic le f i rst publ ished in 1965.

"Ti moignnqe." in Soci t l t i dcr mis <le I 'Ecole n,rror.r lc 'uplr ieurc,

Bul / r r in 186

(Dec. l99l ) . pp. 20-2 3.

C):r Jean Hrppol i re.

"Prelice," in Fr.rnsois Delaporte, The Historv oJ Ycllow /:.rer (Cambridge, N4A:

MIT I ' ress, l99l) , pp. ix-r i .

Enql ish rranslat ion of rhe t ( .xt f i rst publ ished in I r t 'nch in 1989.

Kol lokush Kogalutcxuralu Kcnlr l (Tokvo: Hosei Univer\ i ty Press, l99l) .

Japanc:e tr.rnslarion. bv Os:mu Kan.rnrori, Shunsrrkc fvlatsuura, Shoujift,rr

Koga, Muncvoshi Hvoudou, li*rko Moriwakiand Kiiko Hiranatsu, oi Erudcr

l htstotc ct dc ph onphic d.\ scitntcs.

t992

"l'ostlice." in Jcan Ga,\on, t<l.. BuJfon E8: Actcs du Colloquc inrernotional Parx-

. t loml,uJ-Dt1on \Par is: L ibrair ic Phi loscrphiqrre Vr in ' lyon: In5r i tur intcr ,

d iscipl inaire d '6tudes ip isr6mologiques, 1992). pp. 745 .19.

"Ouverture," in El is ibcth Roudincsco, d. , Pens. ' r lo fo l ic : l :sats sur ictu]

/oucaulr(Par is: Gal i l6e, 1992), pp. le- .+2.

Opening address given at thc col loquium on the " l l isroir! de la fo l ie

trentr . , . rns:prt \s," hel t l b,r the Soci6t! d 'h ist . i re dt la psr<hiarr i r t r , l r l . r

psychnnal \se, in Par is, on Novcmbcr 21, 1991.

"LJ s int6, v6r i t i du corps," in l \ ' l ; r r ic Agnis Bi j rn.r f t l is , ed. , L 'hontne er Ia nntt

(Prr is: Seui l . 1992). pp.9- ls.

4.lo -14 |

P:r t ia l repr int of the rext publ ished ovice before, under the t i t le "L '1

santa. conccPt vulEr i rc ct . lucst i ( ,n Phi losoPhique' ' ' in 1988 and 1990

l<l.ologia 4 zion.tlitd nclla ttotia d.11. \.i'n/' dcllo vito: Nuovi studi di notio e

filosofic d.lle scicnrc (Florence: La Nuova Italia Editricc' 1992 )'

Trnnslnt ion, $ i rh .n introduct ion bl lacquts Cui l lcmt ( :ee bekrw' Pa*

Two). by Paola Jcnis ol the 1988 French revised edi t ion'

1993

"Lc Cerveau er ln pensee," in GeoryJ.r Cdr)rui /hetn: PtulasoPht ' h istorrn <lcr

scicn.es. Actes du cot lo<1ue (6 7-t <l icenbrc 1990) lPar is: Albin N4ichel '

1993), pp. I l - l l .

R.p. int o l rhe n( ic le or ig inal ly publ ished in 191t0; the subt i t les that

har l bcen ar l led br the journal ; rc omit tcd, and sonrc oi thc or ig iDal Par ' ) -

qraphing has heen r t 'establ i rhed ( tec p. 1 l n l ) '

" l ' re i ice," in facques Piquemal, fssais er /e l ons ' l 'h istune 'Jc

10 nidecinc et ' lc

lo

biojor i . (Par j \ : Prclsc\ L ln i l t rs i ta i r tsd( Fr incc, l9q3) 'PP 7-8

' 'Prcl :ce." in Frangois Dchportc, ( tunt tsu no t&nhi ( fokvo: lUisuru Shobo'

I9r l I ) .

J ipanesr t ransl i t ion of the te ' ( t l l rst Publ ished in French in 198'r '

Part Two

l SELFcTIoN {rr RFvrLws ^ND

C{JMMENTs o: l C^Ncul l l I I 11's WoRKs

193 3

lrrrmonrl . \ ron. " Ri f l t rn rrs sur lc 'prc i l i rmc int igrr l ' . " I i l ' ' ' ! Pk' i "Jr ( Fth l9I I ) '

pp.96 99.

On " l r I 'a ix \ in! .esenc" ( le l2) .

1946

Daniel t aga.hc, "Le Normal et le parhologiqrre d 'aprts Gcorges CangL.r i lhem"'

Bul l t tut t le 1o tact t t i <teslcxrc de Stt ' r rbourt l4 (19'+( ' ) ' pP l lT- i { ) '

A revie\v ol Cangui lhem\ le ' l1 ! tud) lagachc' 'vho

was '>nt

r>f the ear l r

proponcnts ol psychornalvsis in Francc, had entcrccl the Ecolc Normale

Supi ' r icurr in 19l ' t , the r . rnrc 'car ' rs Cantrr i lhcrn l le ' r ls t ' t l rqht r t the Llni-

vrrs i tv oi Strarhrurg rvhen ht !vrde this art ic lc l h is reviet l :s : lso ptrb-

l is l r td, in a s l ight ly short t r form, in the Rcrue de nircPhv' iqu< ct dc norol t

5 l (19a6), pp. 355-70

t9s6

P. Delrunnv, Rcvics of Io Iotn. t t ion Ju conal le l lc" (Par is: Presses Uni-

ve, \ i ta i rcs d! I i r rnce, 1955) ' , l rchvcs intcrnat ionales ' l t i r ro j r f

d 'J J" 'n(r ! e

(1e96). pp. l6 l -62.

F.ll., Rcvict ol t,r fonnorn n Ju conc':y tlc rll"rr au I l // 't

x l'/t'" Iiicl'r i Prr i\:

t ' re 's.s Llnivrrs i ta i rcs dt France, 1955), I ' t lnnie Pstchobt l i ' |@ 56 (1956) '

P i le '

( )n ly thc iuthor 's in i t ia ls arc gi ten

r95',:

t \n, ,n\ ' r ' rusl . t {e! i .s of t , i Fornotton t lu <ontt1 ' t dc 'LJl f \ '

du\ ' \ | / / ' et I l ' / / / '

r t ,c/cr (Par i ! : Prcsses t ln ivcrsi ta i res tJe France' 1955) ' kvuc t lc rn i r t tphvuque

.r <i ! r rordl .6 l (19 57) Pf.99- l { )1.

l95E

i\ lv in P l )obstvage, Rcvir : r 'o l / -o tornat ion r lu conLCPt dc r i f l^c dr^ ' t t / i " cr

{ l / / / ' ! ta.1c\ ( Pir is: t r r r \ \c\ Universi ta i rcs Jt Francc' 1955) PhtosLph and

l f i inon cr oi ,q ico/ Rcrcar.} l i l (sfPt ' 1957-Junc 1953) ' PP 56s 69'

1959

Jean t heor lor id i r , Revieu ol " l r : r Conccpts c le ' lut tc p,rrrr I 'existcnce' ct d,

\e lect ion natu.el le ' (1959)," Atuhiv. t intunol iondle ' .1 'hNoirc des' i i , r 'c ' l l )

(195e), pp. l l -31.

1964

Pirrre Machcrc), "1.r th i losophi . ( l { , l i ic ience de t ictrgcs C;ngui lhcn. I ip ist i

mologie ct h istoire des scjcncts," I (7 PcnrL l I I (196'{) , PP. 5( l7a

With a l i r re*ord bv Louis Al thu\1er. pP 5( l -5 '1.

1967

Jf in Licroi11, "Le Normal r t Iepathologir l t r r ' , "1c) londe, lan. l l -9(19b1),P l l .

Rcviov ol the 1966 c( l i t i , )n ol the booL puhl ishtd Lrnder that ! i t lc

1968

Freder ic L I lo lmes, Rcvi t ' rv ol Claude Btrnar( i , l . (o,r JUf l r r Phdnotnincs dt Io

r ic c.molun\.rur r rn im.ruy.r , iu\ v i<r,rrdur (P i \ : Vr i t t , Lq66). in l i r 5e. l

(1968), pp. 149-50.

t i . I tudolph. Rt ' r ' i r .* o lCl . rudt scrnard, lcqons sur i l phinont incs <le knrc Lont-

, l rurr d l l \ dntn. ,u\ . t du i l / i r . ru\ (Pir is: Vr in, 1966), in. l r .hr , . ( ,nr . / l l . r

t io.dlcs .1 'h istoirc <16 'c i . rccJ

2l .82- iJ I (196E ) , pp. 196-97.

1970

\l,ruro Di (;iandomcnicr,, Revirs of I.rur/es d'hittorc er dc phlotophic drr r.r'..r

(Paris: \ i in, 1968 ), / :ptrrcmr .1 (1970). pp. I I l -1.1.

ln I tr l i . rn.

CR T CAL B BLIOCRAPHY

i442

.14l

Annette Lavcrr . " l jor a 'Comnri t ted' Histrrrr of .Sciencc," Ht: torr o] St ienct 9

(1970). pp. 101-10S.

Revicw ol Erutlcs d h,rro ne et .le philotuphic .les sc;tnces (paris: Vtin, l96ti).

19? l

F. Courtis. Review of/nttuduljon i) I'htsto;rc des r.iercc!, vol. I (paris: Hachcttc,

t971), Etud$ phi losoph;gucs 26 ( t97t ) , pp. 12.+-25.

t97 2

Dominique Lecourr , Pou unc (r i t iquc d. 1 'q1slA' ,o/orrc (par i \ : Mrspero, 1972).

Chapter 3: "L 'Histoire 6pisramologique de Ceorgcs Cangui lhem,, 'pp.

64-97.

l i raneois Rosso, "Chroniquc des sciences de la \ je." , .1rc}r ,e j de phtosophic ) \

(1972), pp. a69-508.

An essav rsvirs, includinS c, ,mmenrs on numeruus *.or ls ofCangui thcm.

Jean Srarobinski, Revieu of Itudes r/lrstoi,c et dc phitosophie.]er r.ren.er (paris:

vr in, r968 ) , Bufe! in ol ' th. H$tot , t of , | .d ion. .+6 (re72 ) , pp. s8-89.

197 3

Jamcs L tarson, Revie* of Erurjcs dhistoire et.lc phitosophie der rcieD(.J (piris:

Vr in, 1968), I rs 64 (1973). pp. l l5-16

l \ ' t . Eck, " f c Normal et le patbologi<1uc," La Noutel lc prcsst n idkalc 2. t ( )an.

l9?3), pp.5l-56.

A <lcfcn:e of Cangui ibcm s r ienpoint against at t . rcks made t , r F.

Duyclacrts in his book Io Not ' r .n . le nomol cn pychologic c/ ,nni ue (par is:

Vr in, 1954).

Mi.hcl Fi .har! . "L '6pi \ r imologjc en france," in F-raneois Chatt .L, t , cd. , Za

phi losophi t ou 2t l s i ic le (Pi t r is : H,chette, l9? I ) , pp. 129-?t .

Frr t ! -our ol th i \ essa! (pp. l6 l -70), undcr rhe t i t le. .Epistemologi( ,cr

44144\

.-. RIT]CA L A]B!IOGRA Pts Y

histoire dcr rc iences; Ie rar ional isnre appt iqu6 dts sciences biologiques,, .

d iscusses Cnngui lhem's epistcrrological v iews. A second edir ion wie pub-l ished in 1979.

1974

Ylon Gauthier, Revierv ol Io ,,nollirna tudtjon d.s doctines ;nformcJ (par,s: Vrin,

1963), kr 65 ( t974), pp. 5 27_28.

I r.:nqojs Russ.,, "Epist!mologic er hisroire dcr sciences,,,.tf. hnes tfc phtlosaphic37 (19'74), pp.6t7-57.

A revics ess.ry rhat commenrs on man! ofCangui lhcm,s works.

G. Quan,r . "C. Cangui lhcn:. stor ico dcla :c;cnzd,, , I t prorcgoro t l l t971l ,pp.9s-96.

r977

J.A. Schuster, Review of lo .Uathtnot isat ion d$ do,: t t ,ncs infome\ (par i \ : | ie.tn. \ iu, t9 '7 )) , Annals oJ. t r ie,ce l4 (1977), pp. 78,8t .

1978

,\{ ichel Foucaul t , " tnrroducr jon," in Ceorges CanSui lhem. On thc Nornot andLhe Pathologrot (Dordrecht: Reidel , 1978), pp. ix_rx.

For a s) ight l_y r l i l lerent t raoslat ion ()1 the samc rexr, 5!e lecon( i enrrvunder 1980.

trerct t Nlcnr le lsohn,. ,Ediror ia l Nore, , ' in C;corges Cangui lhcm, On the Ntrnnland rhc Pothologiot lDordrecht: Reidet, l97B). pp. rx i i j - rs i r :

c iuseppe Quarta, " tdeologia e stor ia del tc screnTe in ( ; . Cangui lhcnl , , , Bol /ef , ro.1i

'totia della fttost{k) 6 (r978), pp. 219_5r.

1979

Wi' l l I epcnics. , .Vor l ,emelkung r les l tcrausgebcrs, , , jn Ceorgrs Canguithcnr, , r iJ_

A V TAL RAT ONAL 5T

' .nschaft tges.hrhte un. l EpnknnloBje: Gc'dnn.h. Auhntu, wol i Lepenics.

cd. ( l ' ranklurt am i \ ' la in: Surkhamp \er l i lg, l97e).

lntrrrduct ion to th is reader.

S. , \ l . r rcuLci , Rcr jov of la conasrotvt , fc l lo t i r r ( t lo loSni : l l l \ lu l ino, 1976),

RNntu c tt.d .lt \toti.t tltlh llksolia l4 ( I') 7r) ). pp. 2 26- I l.

1980

Onrella Costa. Revieu ol idiolo17ic ct rationnltl .l<tn' l8 s(icnus Je 1o vic (Paris:

\ r r in. l9 l7) , -S. ;cnrn l ls (1980), pp. 22?-35.

Nl ichel Foucaul t , "Ccorgcs Cangui lhem: Phi losopher ol I r ror ." tdcololy and

Consciousncss ? {1980), pp. 51-62.

l ianslat ion bv Graham Burchel l bared on tbr: samt Frcoch or ig inal uscd

br Carolyn R. Fascett in 1978 f i , r thc intrrr luct ion to hcr t ranslat ion of

Ihc Nrrnal and t tu Pathologirdl . lhe f rench tert used bv the tso t ransla-

rors di t lcrs in many wavs l iom rhrt publ i rhcr l in Fn,nr h in l9 i l5 unr l r r thc

r j t le "Li t Vie, I 'e\per ience et la science" (sec bf l '^ \ . un( l ( r Iq85).

C, ' l in ( ; ( , ( lon, "Thc Normal . rnd thc P.r thological : A Note on Ceorges Cangui l -

hLrn, l< lunogr ond Conr. ,d,rrr . i j (1980). pp. l l 16.

RLrrst l l Nlaul i tz, Rcvics ol On t tu Norntol . tnd th. P. t thologi f t l ( l )ordrccht:

Reidel , 19711), /s i , l1 ( l9 l iO), p. 67,+.

198.

\ \ iA. Albury, Rcvicrv ol On t lc Normal an<l the kt holognal (Dordrecht: Rcidel ,

1978), Cl io.ahdico 15 (1981), pp. I l5-16.

l \ l i lc Short land, " lntroduct ion to Ceorges Cangui lhem." RoJrco/ Pi i losoplr '29

(re8r) . PP. l9-20.

,\ note on Cangui lhem, introdrrc ing an Fngl ish t r , rn\ l i t i , 'n ol "Qu'cst 'ce

qu'unc ideok,gie rc i tnt i l iqut?"

14ir t in 5tnum, Rcvicrv ofOn r ic \ , rmolnJ rht Pathola4Kol( L)ordrecht: Reidel ,

19'7, \1, lounol af the t tstorv ol t l tJunt dn. l .Alhc. l S. ienct : ' 36 (1981), pp.

u8- l l9.

i'.

416 417

OGRAPHY

198?

Nl.Short land," l l is taser( i$h!olLj lc." i ( /cdlogrdndC,nr. iourn.$9(t9trr-82),

pp. l l i -22.

A rer i .$ ol On rhc Ntnro/ ,rnrt rhr. foriolooroi { l)onlrccht,l97n).

' lamavo, Rul P6rez, t i fr . .r (rU( \ i .o: Ft Colcgj i , Naci.,nal, 1982).

A cr i t ical evaluar ion ol Cangui lhcm\ rvork, in p.rr t icular /hc , \brn,a/ . rnJ

th? PatholoU!rc| . on ?p. tS +1.

198 3

Christophcr Larrrence, Revie$ ol ( ; (orges Cangui lhcm, On the Nomot anrt thc

Potholol l iLal (Dordrechr: Rcidrt . te78), anr l of l : Kr;upt Tar lor , / ic Con

':epts oJ IIlness, Dkeosc ond )1thus (Canbridge: Cambridgc Universitv t,rcr(,

1919). Br ihh lournt t b h. rk , , f - \ .k ' ,n. j6 (1981), pp.9t_96.

1984

$/ i l l i , rm Coleman, [Lxtracts rrorn rhc c i rat ion rvr i t tcn and rei( t b! $, i i . rnr

Coleman, on rhe occasidr oi rhe a*anl o l thc Sarton l \ {edal o l . the l l is ton

ol Science Socir : ty to ( i rcrgrs Cangui lhrm, on 28 Oct<,ber l r )u l l , , .pr i le

innounccmenrs, ' / ' i r 75.2 (198.1), p. 157

Jcan Pierrr : Chr i t ien ( ;oni , , .Gt l rgts Cangui lhcrn. 190.1_, ' , in I lenis I tuysmnns,

et l . , Dtt t ionnoirc <lct phi lL,hph$,2 vols. ( t lar is: prrsses Universi t r i res dc

France, 1984). vol . I , pp. 16r)-65.

An an: lvsis ol Cangui thcrr 's nr i r rorks.

t985

I hc Ib l lorv ing art ic l* , , r , . pubt i ,he( l in i sp(r i . r t issur ot Bcyre r /c nir , tphrsryut

ct dc norcle 90.1( l9U t ) d. !o((<i ( . Cani tu i lhenr:

l r rnqoir Dagognet, " t ln l . oeu\re en rrois tcDrPs" 'pp 29- lU'

Cangui lhem har l been Dngognet 's dissert t r t ion suPcrvisor '

Nl ichel Foucaul t , "La Vic, l 'cxp!r ience et la scicnce" 'pp. l -14'

' I he French

'crs ion of Foucaul t 's introduct ion to thc Engl ish t rnn\ la '

r ion of le Normo/ ct /c pt tholot l iqu. .

l lenr i Piquignot, " ( ; ( i , rgcs Cangui lhem ct h midecint" 'pp )9-;{) '

Cangui lhem had wri t ten a preface to I 'equignoCs book' l i { t / / t r cr i r rc

r ,cur, in 1981.

Jacques Piquemal, "C. Cangui lhem, professeur de Tcrminale (1937-19 38): Un

Esr i dc t6moignage." pP 63-83

lacr lucs Piquenral had hccn a student ol Crngui lhem in Toulotrs< Inr l

later in Par is.

jcrn Jacques Salomon, "Ccorges Cangui lhcnl ou l r moderni ta," PP. s2 62

Salomon had been a studcnt ofCrngui lhcm in Par is

Bertrand Saint-Sernin, "Ceorgcs CanguiJhern i ln Sorbonne" 'Pp. 84-92.

Saint-sernin had bcen a student ofCangui lhtm at the Sorbonnc

[; \nonvnrr ' !s] . "Eibl iogr iphic ( lcs t r t rv iux de Ceorgts Cangui lhem," pp 9s-105

This bibl iogrrphr Pir t ia l ly covers Ci ingui lhtm s I r i t ings and gnes a l i ' r

of Cangui lhem's courses at the Facul t [ r l r r lc t t res of the Uni \cr t i rc de

Stradnurg, at the Sorbonne and at the Inst i rut d 'h istoirc dcs sciences.

G.fl. Brieger, Review ol On the Nornol ond th. fddolotirdl (Dordrecht: Reidel'

1918), Bul lct in ol tht Ht ' torr of Medicinc 59 |19 35 ) ' pp l 32-33

l9E6

C.M.P.Nl. I Iertogh, Btthelard en CanBuilh.n: tP'\tenolo{lische Discontttu'Ictt en

het ncd*h narnbuor ip (Amsterdam: VU Ui lgever i j ' 1986).

D. Chcvroton, Revier r . r i Du Ddvcloppcnent i I ' ivolut ion (Par is: Pre:res Uni-

versi ta i rcs de Frnnce. l '185), / : ' lnnlc Pr-rc lo io iTrgur 86 (1986) ' pp.2?5-76'

1987

lhe journal rrorp.dirc t t Sanrd publishcd a special issuc'+0 (Winter 1986-87)

t

d416 4.+9

on " l e Normal ct le pathologique en quest ion" in honor ofCangui lhcm:

Franqois Dagogn*, "Le Normal et le pathologique." pp. 7-10;

Jean-Claudc Beaulne, "Canqui lhem, Foucaul t r t lcs autres," pp. J l -20r

Christ iane Sinding, "Rel i re Cangui lhem. l )c la Nonl) t iv i16 i la norm.r-

l i tc ," pp. 2 l - 2 5;

t lenr i Piquignot, "La Cl in ique facc au del i techniqrre." pp. 2?-1lr

Anne Fagot Largcaul t . " l 'crs un nouveau natur;r l isme," pp. 13-38;

Denis Versant, "Epistemologie de I ' inccrtain," pp. l9-46r

Hcrv6 Le tsras, " l a 'nomrc' d imographiquc: Pol i t iquc et i i l6r l logic dan\

les sciences sociales," pp.47-50;

Ci l tes Err ieau, "( ln Pr.r t ic i rn ( i re aux c,>nceprs: 'Nornr. l ' er 'pI th, '

Iogique'pour le g6n6ral isrc." pp. 5 l -5 2;

Siuart F. Spicker, "L 'Un et le mult ip lc: L 'Epist imologie m6dicale l ian-

qaisc vue des L|SA," pp.53-59;

Irran{ois Raveau, "Pour un dial(}gue na(urc/cul tLrre: Les Vues de I 'anthr<r

p<, loqie Dr6dicale." pp. 6 l -6) i

( h i r les Er is\ct , "La' l )ouNe' h isroirc rk la lo l je: Aranr et apr is la psv,

rhi , r t r ic . . . . " pp. ( t l -66;

Mircel Col in t rn( l Thierrr Guichard, "D6vianrL' . ps!chiatr ic et societc:

Lcs Impuissances du corps vrc ia l , " pp.67-69;

l \ l i re i l le Delmas l \ ' lar ty. "Nornrcs et droi t : Rcpire5 pour unc'mi5e en

<rrmpat ib i l i t6." ' pp. 7 l -76r

I ' r , lnqoise Cai l l , "Fxemplain, ocirnographie. . .Le Nornral ' en 16,olu,

r ion permanente," pp. 77-79.

SlLa( f . Spicker, 'An Introdut i , )n to thc Medical Episremology of ( ;eorges

Cangui lhem: l \ ' loving bcrond N4ichcl Foucaul t . " The Journdl o l ' t tedic ine

ont l Phi losop l2 ( l9 l l7) , pp. le7-411.

An .rnalvsis ofOr rrSc ,\'ornol antl rhc Patholollical.

\ l is<1utz ( i r rc ia, "La cr i t i (J r l r la histor i r r logmit i ta r le las c i t :nci . rs en l , r

epjsrrmolDgia dc ( ;eorges Cangui lhcm," in Angf l lU. L. , rcn,o, Jose L. h*

set itnd Francisc(' V;squtt, l.stuitos lc historia tb los rrn'trr, vol. 1: Lockc, IIunte,

Cdrgdt lnen ( t .os Palacios, Vi l lafranca: A.M. Lorrnzo, 1987), pp.95-126.

Pichot, Andr i . Rcvi$v ol Du Divclopptntcnr A f in lut jon ( I ' . l r is : Pre\ses Uni-

vcrsi ta i rcs dc t r rance, 198 5 ) , f rudcJ pl5i iorop.rr igucs '12 { 19i37 ) , pp. 3 29- 30.

1988

Franqois Azouvi , "Cargui lhcm, Ccorges," lc Di i , . , r 50 ( iUa\-Aug. 1988). p. 216.

A short b iographical not ice.

198 9

Car) ( ;ut t ing, . t l ichcl loucoul t s ArLhacab oJ S. icnt i l i . Rcoron (Cambrr, lge,

Cambridgt ' Uni ' , : rs i t1 Prt 'ss. 1989).

Includes: discussion ol Cangui lht 'm s "ork,

pp. i2 5a.

Kenneth A. l r rng, Rcview of ld.olog.r an. f f ic t ronoi r t ln thc I ls tan ol thc I i l t

St icntcs (Cambridgc, l \1A: Nl lT Prcs. let i lJ) , C1,o l l l . . l ( l9 lJ9). p. .107.

1990

t)rr i r l l l ra in. "From the Hjstorr o1 Scjentc to the S,xjol( ' r ! , ,1 th! Nornr i l . '

Contcnporar.v Sotrc log.r l9 (1990), pp. 90:-e06.

I rcvierv ot Ihc Nornnl an<l r ,6c / . r rholor i .d/ {Nc$ lor l ' Zone l lools,

1989) is sel l as ol those rvor ls ol 14ichel l 'oucaul t t r . rnslatcLJ into Engl ish.

\'1. Ercshchkl., Rcvicrr of/Jcolooy ond Rdtionalttv in th. llisrr ol rhc Iift Sctcncs

(Cambridgc, l \ '1A: MI I Press, 1988), Q:ort i r l r , Acrrc l f r l Biolorr 65 { lq9{)) .

pp. 58 59.

S. Ci lmu, l tevieu ol Thc Nornal on<t thc Par lo lot t r . r / (Nc\ York: Zont ' Bools.

r9ire), i r i r 8 l (1990), pp.7.16,48.

I losard l . Karr . Review ol Ihc Nor,rol un<l rht Potholagnt l lNclv ) 'ork: Zone

Boi)ks, l9 l t9) , /ourndlo/ lnt . tu l isc ip l inot . r I lk tor . r 2 l ( t990), pp. l ,+r- ,+1.

C. I ax n nce, lteviex ol /r/eolo17r' onrl Rorronalirr in thc Histor) ol th? I if. S.i.n.cs

(Crmbridgc, NlA, l \1 lT P.t .ss, l9 i l l t ) , and ol l l run<, I atour, lhc Part , :ur in-

J.15()

tnn of l rcncc lcambt idgc, l \ ' lA: I tarvard Ltniversio t , ress, l9B8), , r | . , . i , .d/

H,r .or f 14 (1990), pp. l l l 1.1.

Rogct Smith, Rev'ew of/rlcoloor: and Rationdhtv in th. Itktorl ol the Ltfc Sticnccs

(Crmb. idge, J\ ' lA: Ml t Prcs, l9 l l l l ) and ol lhc Nrrma1 dn.t th. Pdthoh\fdl

(N.w York: Zone Bo(,ks, l9 lJ9), /nn.r t o l S. ,cn. . .17.2 (1990). pp. 199-201.

t99l

Jo) l l )^cv, Revieu of / r /co/ogr ond Rdt ionol i t ) . in thc t t is to ol the Li / . S.knccs

(Crnbr i ( lgc. MA: Nl l l Press. le l t i l ) , / ' i ,82 (1991). p.610.

firll j,rrion. Rttn'u <tf I<liololltc tt rortordlirl (P,rris: Vrin, \97'7), Revuc de l'lnnitut

J. i t . , . r / . ,4r . I I ( le9l) . tp. 167 70.

(;. K.irn1. Relict! oi tladoqy and Rationaltt! in th. Histar). ol th. I +; Scjcn..\

(Canrbr idge. IUA: Nl lT Pft \ { , lq88), I ry i ronm.nt dnd Pldn i ! D-SD.i , ! t <tn<l

Jf . r . r q ( l9et) . PP. l7I i -1.

11. Nic(r l in. "Th( Sd( i . r l . rnr l thc (ogni t ivr : Rcs,rurccs l i , r thc Socic, l . , [ r o l S( i -

rnr i l ic KnDt! l rdgc," / l i , tD\ ont Phi lo\npht olS.r .D..22 (1991). pp. 117-69.

An e\s i ! re l i .w ( ,1 Ih. \ , , rn)d/ ond th? Pdthologirc l (Xew Y()rL, 7( ,nf

BooLs, I989).

R. () lb! . Revic$ ol ldcololy onl Rattonol i tv in thc H[tot ! of th. I i lcSciut . r \

(Clmbridgc, .MA: MIT I ' rcss, l98t l ) , Br i r iJ} /otrnal lor t tu I tstor.v ol Scicncc

21 (r991), PP.494 96.

D. I r , r tcr . Rtvierv ot I tu Nornal onJ rhc Padolr9rol lNeu YorL: Zont 8rx,ks,

te! ,9) , Jorrnal of t tu Histor.r o l l tn logv 21(1991), pp. 542- '15.

1992

P.rfr Osrlvald, Rerirw of i hc Norntol dntl rh. ldr iol i ,a/r. .r1 (Ncw york: Zonc

U(xrks. l9tt9). /orrrr. / / . t th. l l iston ol t tu B.ho' ior.r/ J-. icn.c' 2lt (Ocr. 1992),

p?.1)2-)1.

iacquc; Cuil lerme, "Pn.senrrzionc dcl l 'edir ionc iral irnn: ceorgcs Canguilhem,

un en,e modcrno?," in C.rngui lhem, I. tutogio e t<uin".t l i td nclto stori t t r tc c

l' ,.n/,| del\.1 vit.Jj Nuav, rru<1, <lt storia e flosofia,r'ciic scrcnzt (t;lorence: La

Nuol i lLal i r Edirr ice, 1992 ) . pp. v i i -x! i .

Jacques Gui l lenlc h.rd been a rrudent ofCangui lhenr in Par is

1993

{'torges Cangutlhen: Philosoph<, hirroricn dcs scicnces. Acres du colloquc (6 7 E

dxmbre 1990) lPar;" , : Albin Nl ich!1, l99l) .

Edi ted by thc <,rganiuen ot thc crnloquium: Et ienne tsal ihar, l \ l i re i l le

Cardor, Franqoisc Durour. l \ t ichcl Fich. int , Don) in iquc L(court rnd i rcques

lncludes:

Michel Fichant, "Georges Cangui lhem et I ' lda'e de la phi losophic,"

pp.37-48;

Francoisc Du(,ux, "L ' lmtrginaire biologique du pol i t iqr . re," pp. 49-57;

Et ienne Bal ibar. "Scicncc ct t6r i t t d ins la phi losophi t ' ( lc Gcorgts

Crngui lhem," pp. 58-76:

Hrl l ine Vir in, "G' : r ' r rL s Crngui lhem et le genic," pp. 77-89i

Jean Pierre 56r is, "L l l is t . ) i r r ct la v ic," pp. 90- l0 l :

Franqois C()s, " t jomm,rge i CanSui lhenl ," pp. 10,+- l t )9;

Claude Debru, "Georges Canguilhem et la normativiti du Pathologiciuc:

Dimensions ip ist6mologiqu(\ ct athiqucs." pp. I l0-20i

Anne Marie i\{oulin, "La l\4trdecinc modcrnr sclon Gcorgc' Crnguilhem.

'Concepts en at tente ' , pp. l . l l J4;

El i rbcth Roudincs(o. "Si tuat ion d 'un &,\ te: Qu'est-cc que h ps, !cho-

logic-r" pp. 135-44r

Yvettc Conry, "La Fr>rmarion du concept dr: mitanrrphose, t ln Essai

d 'appl icat ion dc la probl lmat ique cangui lh6mienne du normal c du patho-

logique," pp. 145-57i

C6rard l \ lo l ina, " 'D,rn ' in c ' t \Val lacc. . . ' , t rentc ans trpras," pP. l5 l t -74;

Pascal l issy, "Developpcl l r ( 'nt ct tcmps gan[alogiquc," pp. 175-93;

je.rrr Ntathiot . "Gcncl iqut ct connaissancc r le la v ic, pp. 194 2{J7;

152 4t)

Gerard I ehrun. "De Ia sup(;r ior i te dtr f i lant humi in dans l ' I ro lur ,on

rr iotrrrc. pp. 20l l -22;

I - rani ; , , is Delrporte. " l a Probl!nat i r lur h istor ique dc I r v i ( , " pp.

Al fonvr M. Iacono, "Ccorges Cingui lhcm t t I 'h istoire du concept df

16t ichismc," pp. 2 33-42;

Jan Scbcrt ik. " l -e R6le de Ia techniquc r l ;ns lbeuvre de t leorges Can-

gui lhem, ' pp. 2+ 1-50r

Marc .Jeinndr i !1, "Sur le Cc,nccpt de morrvcrncnt !o l (nr ta i rc." fp. 2 5l-6l i

Donr iDjquc Lcc, ,ur t , "La Qutst i ( ,n de I ' indiv idr d 'apr is Georgcs Can-

gui lhem, ' pp. 262-70;

Alain Prochiantr , "Lc Mat6r ia l isme dc ( ;u,rges Cangui lhem," pp. 271-781

Francisco.J. Varela, " ' l e Cerveau et la pensee' ," pp. 279- l . i5 i

Pierre Macherev, "De C.rngui lhen. i Cangui lhem en passant par FoLr,

c iu l t , " pp.286-94;

Alr in Badiou. 'Y a-t- i l une thi( , r ie dr | s | jc t chez Cangui lhcmr" pp.

)ves Schrvartr . "L lne Rcmont6e en rrojr r .mpr: Georgcs Cangrr i lhem,

l i v ic, Ic t r i t ! r i l , " pp. 105-2lr and

Michel Degu_," , "AI locut ion de cldturc," pp. 12.1 i0.

lnch'des a let tcr rcccived from Cangui lhem, on p. l2 '+.

Franqois A?ouvi , "LIn Nlai t re in l lucnr et d iscrer, ' lc , t fonde, Nlav 27, 1991.

Rcvir\ ol C!d.q.J Cdnlluilhen: Philosopht, h'\r[rin d.' rcicnrcs. A<t.',1u

.o/ /oqu. 1I , r r i1: Albin \ l ichel , l99l) .

Didicr Fr jboD. "CrnguiJhem lc prt(D." l . Ncl l r . / { )bnyr, , rcur ( lur(h IR-14.

l99l) , p. 56.

Rcvies ol Ccorgcr Canouilhot: Philosopht. htttoicn <les \.i.n.e'. tlctes Ju

coi lor7rc ( Par is: Albin M ichel , 199I ) .

Marc Regon, "King Cang," Lhi fdrk, (Feb..1, legl) , pp. l9 21.

Inkrrmat ion on Cangui lhem\ l i l i ' :nd ror l . on rht : occasion ol the pub

l icr t ion ol G..orqcr Congui lhen: Phi lo:ophc, htst , ' r rcn dci sr icrrcr . :1crci </o

.o/ / . ,9u. (Par is i Alhin Nl ichel , l99l ) .

Acknou' ledgements

The compi l i r i , )n of th is bibl iogrrphv benel l tcd subsrrnt ia l lv l rom the tcncr

ous issistanc. of many pcopte to "hom

I am great lv indebk\ l ard vtrY Srr te-

l i r l . Thcsc int lLr t lc : f raneois DehPo.tc, Claud' ' iu i 'na( l Ntoniquir Drr id-N{ 'nrrd '

Pietro Cor: i , l ld l ine \ t r in, i rcq(rc\ ( ;u i l lermc and Iur Schsartz ' who prrv i<lcd

photocopics , rnd r tk rcnccs () l t ' t lcs di l l ic ' r i t tL. l (x ' tc ' ! r )d

( i ' : ' r rges C' :nuui lhem

shogavenr, c, ,p ies oirarc i tcms l r lsorvish tothant t$o01m) reserrch ' r \s is

tants. St iphane Castonguay who ronducttr l thorough scarches in bibl iographi

cal data banks, and Vincent Paquctte (ho transcr ibc<l d i f lerent version' of

th. b ib l iogr: lphy, as wel l as the documcnral ists ol our research cent ' r ' Pierre

Di Campo and iv lar ic Pi!r rc IPPersiel , rvho dedjc ' t t r l r rnr th r ime rn( i *crc

rc 'markably ingenuous in procur ing texts I r lso s int r ( ' thanl the authLrr ' r i f \

of the Bibl iothdque nat ionnle in Par is ' x 'ho provided mc ! ' i th a microf i lnr 01

the ctmplete Libres propos d nioin. t ' inal l l , I {ant to strcss the exccPt ional com

prtcnce, rh. , ( ,ughness and dedicat ion ot the edi tors at '1 ' rne Books' panicul ' r r l1

\ ' tc ighan Crlc, r ' i thout whom I ,voul<t h.rve maric numerr iur inconsistcncics ' rn ' l

mistakes. () fcorrrsc. any remaiDing del lc icncv is tu l lv mit tc '

454l t t

Notes

L j f in-Fr inrois Sir i r ) f l l i , ( ; i r l rdrnD inrc l lnut l lc : { l . ignrui cr lormo/rcns

dans I 'nrrc dtu:11ucrrc ' (Pi , r i \ : I : . rvard. leuiJ) , p. +65.

2. Ib id. , p. 599.

l . { icorges Cangui lhcnt, 1r \brnrdl t r k pathalogkluc (Par is: t ' r rsrs t ln i -

rcrs i t i r i r ts r l t F-rrnc. , l ( r6(r) i l \orntul and t tu l \n lo l , , r rnal , t ran; . ( . rn i l ln R.

Fiscrrr (Nor York: Z,)nf l l toks, l t )81)) .

+. Je. lnJacqucs S: lonr,n, "{ ieorges Crngrr i lhcm ou l . r m<,t lcrni ta," i {cvuc

d( nl toph' iquc ct <!c n)or.r / . l ( l9 iJ5).

5. touisAl thu5ser. "Prt l r tnt . r t i , )n," in I ' ierrc l \1:chcrv. "1 r l 'h i lonlphicdc

h r i tncc dc Gt '<,rgcs Crngui lhtnr," to Pcn,r l l l (1961),p. ;1.

{ ' . Cangui lhem, " lntrr>r l r rcr i , ,n: lhe R, ' l r , ,1 Fpi \ r rnolog\ in C, 'nnmp(f

rar\ l f i \ tor \ o l Scicncc. ' in ldcolo ond Rornnaln in rhc I l inart oJ thc I i lc

. \ . i .D.rr (Clmbridge, NlA: l \11 I Prcss. l9 l t l l ) , p. i ) .

7. lb id. , p. l .

i l . Hruno L: tourrn<l Ccol l l lnvL.r , 'A H,x, 'n i f ig l ) is . ip l inc Short o l t ) i \c i

t , l i , rc: {S, , . ia l )Srudi . r , ) l S. i .ncr inFran(. . - \d. j r r i SruJrcrry ' I t rcnr i I71l9l t?) .

9. CanSui lbcm, " l Ohjct dc I 'h ist<i i r t dcs sr : icncr:s" ( l96l t ) , in l r r , i . Jhir

to i f t . |de lh ib phic<lcrr .kr . . r (5th ed.. Prr is: \ ' r in. I98I) .p. IL

10. lb id. , p. 16 a,rd Ie Ip.25,26 ol th is n. . r<1,:r .

l t . , id. . p. Iu.

12. Cangui lhenr s Doctorat d ' f t r i , Ia ! :arr l ' l t ton du contcpt <le r l f l ' : rc aut

I l , l i r r , { / / / l r ; i r /cr(Prr is:Pr(ssesUniversi ta i resdcFrance'1955;Vr in 1977) '

l l . I : r inqois Drg(,gnct, 'Une Otuvre cn t ro is tcnps. ' ' R. 'uc de ar ' : ropt l r r4ut

ct d( mordlc I (19u5) P 30

14. lb id,P 3l .

15. I t l i ( j .P l l

16. C.rngui lhenr, " I hc Quest ion ' r i Normi l i ty in thc Histort ot Bi ' togic i l

' fhought" (1e73), in /d eolof l . t dn( l R') t ional i ry 'P l2u and see p 205 of th is rudcr '

17. Cangui lhem, t tu Nornat ' tnt l

thc Pathologrc ' t l p lSland scc p 34l o l

I t t . lb i<I . , PP. 196-97.

19. Cangui lhem' "Le Conc'P( | t ln v ie" ' in ErLtdes d 'htstotrc et L le phi losophrc

dl r r ienccr, p i35.

20. Digogntt , "Oeuvr(" ' P l2 '

l l . t c ConcePt," P. l6{)

22. tb id. , P 162.

2J. \ l ichel Foucaul t . 'La \ / ic . ) cxpir ience cr In scicncc. ' ' l lcvrrc dc ni t ' r '

phts i . tu. et . le rr ,arct tc I (1985), t ranslatcd as thc lntr( 'duct ion to I le Nnrmal ond

2'+. Jcan Cavai l l is , i thot l ' ouondt ique ct fontol isnc: Es\oi ru le Ptobt 'm'

lu lon<ttncnt r?. t mur. t r j . 'aarrques (P'rr is: I le l ]n lnn' lq l8) ' Rfm'rrglrc j 'u ' /d lor '

lndt ion (1. lo rhior l ( dbstnne des enscmblrs ( t 'ar is: Hermann' 1939); Cangui lhem'

I'ra a )lon t)t Jun Gvaillis' in Lct C'trncs lc Bourleror (Ambi;let: Pitrc Laleure'

te'7 61.

?5. Crrai l les, "Prore\r int ismc ct I l i t l r r isme: La cr i \e ( lu Protcstant i5me

al lemand." ErPr i t (Ni , \ ' . l9] l )

l . lnr ( )Nr r NIE I t IoD() l ( ,cY

l . l l i l r :nc Mctzger, 1o Ccnice dt : Ia vt ' :ncc dc\ ' r i r f ' rur

(P'rr is: Alcan' l9 l8) '

2. No <loubt, a "n: tural objccC is not natural lv natural but rat lx r the objcct

ot lommon txPcr ienct an( ' PcrccPtron r l i rh in n cul ture For cxrmPlc ' the ( 'b jcct

' 'n l incral" rn( l the i ,b 'ect ' . l : r1-stal" havc no signi l icrnt er i r tcnce apart i iorn the

nct iv i (y of the quarrymrn or miner, l rom work in a quirrv or mine. To drvel l

on th is commonplace here would take us too f ; r af ic ld.

l . Quotcd in MetTger, la Gcnise, p. 195.

4. This is, jn part . the subjcct ofa study by Jacques Piquemit l .

5. "Theotet ical pract ice dls s i th in the g!neial det in i t ion <. ' fpr , rct ice. l t

Korks on a ras mater ia l ( represent: t ions! concepts, facts) which is given by

orher pract ices. whether 'empir ical , ' ' technical , ' or ' ideologicdl . ' . . . Th( theo-

ret ical pract ice ofa science is al*ays cr :mpletc l r d ist inct f rom the ideologicr l

thcor!t ical pract ice of i ts prchistor l " (Loui l AI(husrer, for , /drr . t rnns. Ben

Brewster fNc'v York: Vintage, I9701, p. 167).

6. See my "Caston Bachelard," Strcntia, c tecnologi.ontcnryokrnci 1,pP.65-

67. IBachelard's * ,ork in thc history ol science and epi*emology is much bet '

rer knorrn in Europc than in rht Uni te<l Statcs, *here his reputat ion i r pr ima

ri ly as a I i terarv cr i t ic . lntereste<l readers rv i thout French may !v ish to.on\ul t

my tranr lat ion of I lc Ncv Scrent i f ic Spir t (Aoston: Bcncon, 1985), u hich ron-

tains biographical and other informat ion. - TRANs.]

?. Gast<,n Bacbclard. I? llatdriahen. kttionnrl {P:rir: Prcssts Unjvcrsitiiirc\

de France, 1953).

8. lbnl . . p. 86.

9. See Annc FagoCs paper, "Le' l ransf i r r rn ismc'de l \ taupertuis," and mv

rcmarks in tht 'ensuing discrssion in . l t tes t lc Io Journi t , l lau2cruir , Cretei l ,

Deccmber I , 1973 (P.rr is: Vr in, I975). Emi le Cuydnot in L 'Evolut ion dc ld pcnsie

scicml\oe. h*crcnt ' : \ t le 1o vic out.Ll i i ' c t .Y l i / / ' r i i t i c ' ( t 'ar is: A. 14ichcl . l9 '11)

gocs so far as to cal l lv taupertuis "a genct ic i5t" (p. J89 ) .

1rr . Jean C]. lvai l lcs, Sur lo logtqu la th iot i . dt 1o v icncc (3rd cr l . . t 'ar is:

Vr in, 1976), p.70.

l l . Ib id. , p.78.

12. [ ln rrench: l i 'octurc. Thc rvor<l , lvhich is to br compared * i th the no'

t ions ol rn epistcmolot l ical b l a l ( ruplurc) or " tcar" ( r / i r , l i rurc) uslr l by Bachclar<| ,

ts l rorrrvcd l rom Jcan Cavai l l i r : " . . . . er l iacrunx d ' in<lcpen<lance succ$sivts

qu' chiqL,. l i , i ! d i tach( nt sur l 'ant i r ieur le prol i l impi ' r ieLrx r lc cc qui v ient apr i \

'x ic. \ .d i , c in.nt cr porrr Ie d6passci ' ( \ur / r r io t l tga. ct Lt th iot j ( . p. 28).)

I4t6 1t7

13. Thc respon* t . r Darrv in in Francc has bcen studi(( l l rom the standpoint

, ) l cr i r rcal (Pis i fnr( '1.)gv l r r Yrt t t t ( i rnr , r ' I ' lnraxlucoon <i u Jarr I n i t r r , ' ut lk 'n(

n,r I / I '5t4. /d ( P.rr i \ : vr in ' 197'1) '

14. See Alcxanttre Kolr i ' "GaJi l i 'e ct Platon" ' i : iudc' J l tstui rc d ' 1 ' ) P'n\ tc

r .krr , r . tuc (Par is: t ia l l im:r<J, l97l) , pp l66-9s' and EruJes iTal i i icnncs (Par is:

t t . rmann, t9 '+al) . Ar thc beginning ot thc lat ter Iork Koyr i stat ts that ht

bonorrcd thc tcrm rnul i r r ro ' f ron Bacht l ' r r r l l r is i rut th ' ! l in tc Nluvcl crpr i t

nrcn. t iguc ( l9 l+) ani l Io Phi losoptu Jt t non \1940) ' epi* t r ro|rgical d iscont inu-

itr is rlescriberl using mctaphors borro$cd 1r{'m biolog,v l his crrl'v Bachelardiitn

locrbulary was cl in l inat t<l in lavor of"c 'p istcmological bre ' rk" in Ic Ror ionalnarc

dppl iqui \ t94<)\ .

r5. Nlaur ice Cl i rvel in ' I o Phlosophlc noturdl t ' lc

C'r l i i i ' lPrr i \ : Arm'rnd C(nin '

l96l l ) , conf i rns thc val id i t \ o l thc ' \ rchimtdcan modrl rnd chr l lcnges thr

usclulncss o1 thc t ' latonist af l i l iat ion'

16. Lur lor ico ( icymonat, G'r l ' /co C'r / i / " (Tur in: l inaudi ' 1957) '

17. Koyrc, t t r rLx.gal i / tennes, pp l l t -1) '

18. i rcqu.s f i . lucnral ' 'AsPccts r l t h P'rnsce ( l : j \ l rndel" ' lcctrr tc delncrcr l

r r thc Palais d. l i D. lcouvCrtc ' Par is, l96s'

19. In th is casc' thc namc l ]1 ihc scicnce rvas t r rnslerred P(xt ho' to thc

idtologv; in the c.rse ofatomism. i t 'v ' rs

the othcr tay arornd'

20. ( lcrd Buchdahl . "On the Pres(rPposi t ions () f t I i5ror i '1ns ol Scicnct in

Al istair Canrtron Crornbi t rnr l l \ l ichret l losl ins ' er ls i 'n"r ! / t Sct 'nt f I (1967) '

pp.61 11.

21. Set the inrugurr l lecture in a course on the gcncral h istor l o l xr iencc'

Col l ige <lc l rancc 1\4arch 26, l l tg2) Pr inte( l in Rcvre oct lenrolc ' l \4ar 1 ' l i l9 l '

p. l '1

22. Bacht l . r r , l . I ' .1.r ivrr i rdr i ' ' r ' i ' ! rc dc la pirs; '1uc td ' r")Pordr ' f (Par is:

Prcsser Universir . r i rcs c le Frrnce. 1951) ' p 25' See r lso " l 'Acnral i te dc I 'h i \ t ( ) i re

des sciences." lccturc ( le l ivcrcd at thc P'r la i r < lc la f t icouvcrte ' Par is '

21. l lachclarr l ' l 'Act jv j t i rdt ion<tht t ' p S Seealsolc Ratbn') l isn1c ' tPPt i t tut '

f . l l2: "Ri t i ( ,n.r l i \ t th inking ( l ( r (s not 'beqin ' l t corrccr ' ' I t /c I ]u/ ' r f t l ' r ' l t

.+58,+t9

rI

{

i l.l . Thr imas Krrhn, lheStructurcofScint i l i r l tcvo/ur ionr lJnded.,Chicago:

t l r r i !e^ i tv ofChictrgo Pft ' : i1. 1970) i Ttu Captrni tan r \c<, /utmn (Ncs Yor l : Vin-

r ; lgc, 1959)

25. I : rangoir RL,\so, "Fpistanlologi t et h i \ to i r r dcs sciences." i l r r , i r ,vcs dc

thi losryhic J1-1 11911). Fathrr Russ<i l iequent ly rc lcrs t { } the imPortant rvork

(nt l . isn and thc Crc*h o/KnortJcdgc, cdl ter l by lmre Lakatos.rrrr l Alan Nlusgraw

(C,rnr l \ r idge, LIK: Calrrh. i ( lg. LIni \eni tv I ) rcs, 1970), rn s 'hnrh KLrhn' \ idt l i r {

( i i r ( r '5st<lat length in i l at t imes severelr cr i t ic ized by t -a latos. Kar l Poppcr;ul

j 'aul I -eyerabt:nd

26. Sce Buchdahl , 'On the PR,suPlo' i t i ( ,ns o1 l l is tor i rn i of Science "

17. for a cr i t i<1uc ofcxtcrnr l ism, scc Kovr i i . " l )crsPcct i ! . \ \ur I 'h i l to i r t ( lc \

sr : i tnt i . , " i l f rur lcr r lh i r roni dc i r r p ins. i i r , r r r r r l igut lh istut i i . I t , )mmt' t ( )n

r prpcr by I lenr i Cucr l rc, "Some I t is tor ical Assumptions . l tht I l is torv ol SL i

cncc." in. \ .C.Cronbi t , t r l . , Scicntry ' r thanSTc (Londonr l l t j remann. l96l) .

28. J.T. Clark. "Thr: PhiL,sophv r . , l Science lnd l l is t , , rv o1 Science," in

1\ l r rJr . r l l Cl . rgct . cd. , Cr i in l Problens h tht HLrtorr o l Sr icnt , :12n,1 ct l . , Nladis, ,n:

t ln i rcr i t r o i WironsiD t ' rc\ \ , l96l) . p. i0 l .

29. Kovr i . , l rnn, tht CIoscl t tbr lJ t ' , rhc Inf in i tc I tnt tcrsc lBr l t imore: John*

I lopkins Llnivcrsi tv Prc!s, 1957).

10. Str: Kovri, thc lsrrononjcal Rcvohrton: Coperni&', (tp/i'r, Borc//i. tr:ns.

R.F.W lUa( ld i !on l l th.rcr : Cornel l t ln ivc. i i t ! Pf tst , l97l ) , p. +l) .

l l . Foratr i t iquc.st l r1 ichel Fouta, , l t , Ih.Onlcrol Ihtnqs:1n,1rchoc,,1L..1t

ol th! I Iwnan S( i .nccsl l9r ,6 l (Nc* r( , r l : Vinragf, l97l) , pp. 115-65.

32. Scc I ) iqucmal, 'Aspects dc l . r pcnsi 'e de \4endcl ."

l l . Kovre, f tc . , lnrononical Revolut i ln. p.11.

l+. A.L. lc i t t r les, "$/c. id der Segr i inder der Lehrc 'on

dt 'n Rel)cxbc* 'cg

un3enl" ! ,cr tc/ lohrrr l t i l i 1 .1rc prckt tschc l lc i i lundc (Prague, l8s8), vol . . l ,

pp. t0-72.

15. Du Bois-Rc\m(,n( l is kno*n l i , r rhc co,c luding rorr l , " lgn<,rrbinrusl ."

ol h is 0hcr , l ic Grcn/! t /cr Norurcr lcnncnr { 1874).

16. Du I ]o i \ - l t ( !nr , 'nd, "( i rd j< htnisr tdt aul Johrnrr$ I lLr l lL.r , " in RcJcn

{ l t ip, ig. 1887), \o l . ) , p.20'+. Thc ter l r l r l ) is ad( l ' ' ( 's \ r rs l i rsr publ i rhcr l

in thc ,lbhandlungen tler Aka<lcnie '\er

l4lrssansdofien (Bcrlin' I85 91'

17. See Du Bois-Rermond\ lccture on t-a Mettr ie in Redea (Leipzig l886) '

vol . I , p. 178. D! Bois-Revmond surel-v *as not unaware that La Mettr ie had

sought and lbund asylum nt dre court D{ Fi 'dr : r ick I l in l l48

lE. Dt ' Bois-Relmond neglccted r point that Ias c lcar to Konrar l Eclhard'

namelr , , the relat ion bet*een the problem oIsympathies and that ofrel l!xcs'

39. I havc not been able to consul t rh is wor l ' but I have alread;- noted [ear '

l ier in the rvork l rom *hich th is cxcerpt is takcn - Tn'rNs ] that Prochaska uscd

rhc concept ofrcf lect ioo in hi ! Pfr f r tu l 'g i ' o{ 1797'

-10. Rcder, 2nd ser ies, ro l 2 'p 2O5'

al . lb id, P. 317.

42. According to F,itz Lei..tnc' Lei4Adcn M Gcschi'hte du tl'dnin \194))'

p. 121, Prochaska performed morc than thrcc thous'rnd oPernt ions m removc

'11. Du 8t l i : -Rcymond's lecturc is not mcnt ioned in Fear ings te '<t or

bibl iography.

44. ts i r inr i l fe, Luvi t a Gcof l rov So;nr-Hr larrc ( t 'ar is: L ibrar ie J B Bai l l i i rc '

1890), p. ,+ l6 i comPare Duvcrno), Not icc histot t ' lue sut hs oural les t t lo v ic t le

11. Lc B'on Cuvier (Par is: f .G. Lcvraul t ' l83j) The"scienceoff inanc!" ' in$hich

Cu' ier took . { ,urses nt rhe Carol inc Academv, includcd economic theor! and

pract ice, "pol ic\ sciencc" rnd tcchnologr '

45. Blainvillc' Cuvrer ct Gcofftnv Sdin''Hi|'tnt' PP '{8-'19

46. Georges Curier, H)stdi 'c Jdr { ' "n 'c ' ' ' r tu ' f i l r r

(P')r is: Fort iD' N1a'son'

l8 '11-.+5), vol . l , PP. l4-15

47. ts la inr i l le and Nlaupied, Hrrotre der rc iences d? I 'oryanisal ion et ' le

kuts

pro1lr is. connt base dc ld Pi i loroPlt ' (Par is: J l -ecoffrc ' 1847) ' vol 2 ' p 65'

48. Ib id. , vol . 2 ' PP. 253 17). 28{) '

-19. Ib id.

s0. ib id. , P. 295

51. Cuvier, Hn' ire, vol. 3. pp 55-5{t '

s2. Ib id. , P. 61.

51. Blainri l lcand N{aupied,l / isroirc. vol ' I pP xi i i -xiv

46(|461

54. lb id. , P. xvi .

5 5. lb i r l . , ro l .3 'P la

56. lb id , vol . I ' P ' 246'

5?. tb id. ' P. 284.

58. ' fhe concePt o{ mcasurc in comP'}rnt ive rn ' r tomy aPPeari in Ctaude

Perrault, architcct and anatonrist ln rhe prel;ce to 'UilDDirts Ptur rervrr d l'h"td'rc

naturcl le des aninau! l671-76), hc wrote, ' ' l t has been nectssary to agre! on a

Measure or a Modr-r le, as one does in archi tecture - 5o that ' when one savs' lor

crample, thatadoghasan elongatcd htad atmal l venrr ic le ' and an uncompl i -

cJred leg, i t is onl , \ b) !omParison ol ' r l l these Parts s ' i th ' l l

the parts o1 the

hunr;n body." Quoted in !rd'rqoi' Dagogn(t' Pour unc thiarie giftrob du formts

( l 'ar i ' ; : Vr in, l9 l5) . p. l?8 Brr t lor Blairv i l le and l" laupicd' rhc mtn-mta5 r t is

thr : morc-than'rninal 'man: that is the cr i ter ion ol perfect ion in thc scr ies

59. See especial lv Btainvi l le and Maupied's Hrsroire ' vol l ' pP l5 'nd l l? i

and {usier cr Geoffrov Saint-Hi latu ' p ' 431: "M Cu! ier ' in my view' is onc ol

the ost emin(nt examples ol pol i t ical phi losoPh) in act ion-"

60. lb id. , rot l 'P ' i i

61. lb id. , vol l 'P 16'

62. lb id. , P.529.

61. Ib id.

64. Ibkl . vol .2, P.58'

PAR t Two: EPlsi !MoL()cY

l. Ar istot l t ' D. onin.r , t rans Kcnelm Forter ind Sih ester I lumphrie: ( Nc\r

Hrvcn, CT: Yale Unnersi tv I ' rcss, l95l) ' ) l l ' i r t 2 l7-19' P l6 l '

2. Ib id. , 11.2, ar t .25a' P l84'

l . lb id. , 11.3, PP. 196-203'

'1. Jean-Baptistc I amnrck. Rcrirruiti sur /'or174nis'nion 'las 'orPt

vivd lParisl

fayard. 1986).

S. Lamarcf , Phi losophlc nologtqv (Prr is; Chtz t ) 'ntu et L 'A(t!or ' 1809) '

!o1.2, p.6.

6. Ceorgcs Cuvicr, Roppoa llistoriqut \t)t h' Ptogtis d':s s'ien':cs ndttttttct

Jtpi is t7 t9 jus '1u'd cc i . ,ur (P.r is: De L' impr imeri t impir ia le, l l i l0) .

7. Ib id.

f l . Nl ichr: l Foucaul t , fhe Onler of Things: . ln 4rrhacolo11.v of the t tunrcn

Sr, .n. . r f l966l(Neu York: \ r int . rgc, l97l) , ch. i l .

9. ( )11o R,)nl . Inc l r , r r rD.: o/ Brr t f i (Ne'r Yt ' r l , l larcourt , Bnrr ' , le le) .

l { ) . RanL, I lcnlrrr5o/thc Bnh oJ thc Hero. t r , rns l : RobbinsandSmith I : I

Jel l i f le (New York: R. Br(nncr, le52).

I l. Claude Bernarrl, Intnduction d 1 /tu.l. d. 10 ni.lc(inc .xPirin.ntolc \ltatis

an<l Nerv Y<,rk: I . ib.air i . 1.8. Bai l l iarc. I86s), v, ,1. l . p. l .

l . l . Rcoi ' t )csc.rr tcs, " l ic) t ise on , \ ' lan" (Al XI . ) t )1 202). in l )cscartcr :

5.1. . r , , , , Pf i ihrol / rndi l l i ; r rn9r, r r . rns. lohn C.,1r jn! l ) , )nr , Roben Stoothol land

Dugrld Munloch (C,:nl>r i r lgr , UK: Camtrr i r l t t Uni ! . rs i tv Prcss le l i '1-91) '

v, ,1. I , p. l0 l l .

l ] . Dcscart( :s, "Prssionr,) l thc Sool" (AT XLl6 '1 65), in ib id. , vol . I ,

i r l . .17, p. J46.

la. N' larcel lo Malpighi , Dt lbrntar ionc pulh in ora (Londini : Apud Jornnenr

Nl.rr t ! r ) , 161I l l66ql) .

ls . Caspar Fr icr l r ich Wol lT, I l tor ia g 'n, :kr tnn,r { } l r lac ad Sr larr : L i r tcr i \

l i rndel ianis. 1759), and Dc lornar ionc inte* inorunt 11168-69).

16. Cott l i icd Wi lhclm l c ibniz, Ihc, l lonodol t tg.v al I t ib ' t r , t r ins. Hcrbcrt

Wi ldon Crr ( l . rx Angi , lcs: t ln ivcrsi tv of Sort thcrn ( ' . r l i l i , rn ia Prers, l9 30 ) , p. 1 I 2.

l?. I e ibni , "Let ter to ; \nr . ru ld, Nor ' . 28, 1686. ' in G. l 'J4 Leibnj . : Phi la$Phl

rul I ru l r . ed. . rnd t r . rns. Roger Ar ies ; rnd l l . rn j t l Crrber (hrdianapol is. !N:

HrcLftr , 19U9), p. I to.

18. Danic l Duncan, I l ts tont tu I 'aninal , ou h ronnaissanc du corp: nmi

par la nitanique ct la poft .hin'( (t686).

19. Char l ts Bonnet. " . l ib leau des considcrat ionr sur dcs corps orgrnis is,"

inIdn inginis ie phi lorophigr. (Cenc\a: C. Phi l ibcrt)r 'd B Chirol , I769).

l r ) . lnrranuel K,rnr. Crrrrgn'ol JuJ,qr)crrr , t r , ) t ) t . I r r r is Crctr l I ler t r l i th

(() \ l ; ,n1, UK: Clarendon Press. 1952), ar t .65, pp. 2(f22.

21. luguste Comtc, ( ourr dc phi losophie postr tv ' : (Prr is: Schlc ichcr l r i res,

1907 2.1), vol . l . lLrsrns'10-44.

162 461

:. ' . t 'aul- j r iscph Barthez. Nouccour di iments elc h t i tnc dc l 'ho'r lnc ( l ' r r i ' :

( ;oujon ct Brunot. 1806), ro l .9.

21. Comte, Cours dc phi lo, jof i ic posi t ive, \o l .4, l ( \s( 'n ' t8

2+. Srrnard, PorLr, notcr J. t , r . l icr (Par is: l i l , r r i r i t j .S. Bai l l i i re, l9 lT).

15. t { rnr i At lan. "Nl , , r t , , r r r i t l " in I 'Or5lontsornn hr, t /ogl ,1rrL cr l , r t , r r ,1 ' r rL Jr

/ t r l ' " ) , r r r , ,n (Par i ! : He rm,rnn. I972).

. lo. Jorge I u is Borgcs. "Thl Aleph" (1962), in . l Pcrsono/ r lntholo51 (Ne*

York: ( l rovc, 1967), pp. l l8-54

27. Antoinc August in C,,u.not, Con\ i . l i rat iont w la morchc dcs id ies cr <ict

i ' incntns , lons bs tcnpr m(,c/crnfJ ( l lucnos Aircs, F. l Atcnc( ' . 1e6'1), vol . I , P. I 16.

1S. Brrnarr l , Aapporr rv 6 prr11n\ t ) t nonhc Jc 1. , p,blra/ogic ainr i ru lc cn

/rr :nrc ( l ' . r r i r : L ' lmpr imeri( InrPer i ) le, 1867), p 2l1 n 209

. lq. Blondlot , torn in l8 l t ) . rvas a prof i 'ssor ol chtmistry at the lacul ty 0l

Nancv. l l is l ls tu lat ion rcchniqtrL is disursrcd by l lcmarl in lcsson 26 of l .cqonr

dc phn. lot i t opirdtoirc (Par is: L ibrair ie J. l i . uai l l i i rc. l819).

i r t . Albrecht von l la l let , Elc : | . r t t l pht s io lo| i<rc ( 176.1). ( ,1. 4, p. 26

l l . 5. . Fr\ ! in l l t inu Ai l r rknecht, Jh. .of , . lStutrsarr : FnLc, l9 l0) :"1) i (

thcraprc i r Fcgel iucr rvahr lnr l r lc ' I9. jarhun<lcns. Ortmctrhtsthc l r t t t t t t tunLl

2.+ (Nl , r rch 1969); 'Aspccts ol r l ) r l { is lorv ol l hcrapcDtiLs," Bul lct in . l t tu l l t r

tor . t o l mcdidn? 16.5l t96)) .

l . l . Bernr( l , Pt in. ipcs <!c nik( iN erpt i , ,enr.r /c (( i ( rva: Al l iance Culturel lc

du I i r rc. re(r t ) , P.2l l .

J l . ( oui \ Fr i \ . i r . I , ; l l , i l , r r tL, t lLr n/Jcrrn, ( l ' , r r is , I i l , r r i r ic J.B. l ta i l l icrr ' ,

1857), ! . ,1. l , p.401.

l+. ican Bapt i \ te l loui l l :u,1, l , ra i rur /o 2hi losophic nt idtrc lc cr sur les oini-

rc l t t t \ <1, : lo ( l inrquc ni</ t .dh ( I , i r is : .J. Rouvier er t . Lr uour ier , l t i ]6) , p.7s.

15. foucaul t . Ttu Btth of rh, : Cl tn ic. t r rns. A. i !1. Shoidan Smith (Ner ' \ ' r i rk:

Vintagc, 1975), p. 192.

16. I i r t r ; is . lur) t ( ( i in Pr isr ' , jd. ! ' . . , /c t i ix r . r J. nnr/ . ' inr , r , ,1. 2. p. t6J.

}7. ln rnar( | , Prn.rr \ ,1. n id(n. rp i t incnklc. p.1+2.

18. Ci t ( { lbvBoui l l t ru( l inIsai sur la phi lonphn nidicole cr sur lcs, t in intn[s

tt. td cltnittu. n[dicolc ( l8 36), p. 69.

19. Bernarrl. i nrradur rion d l'itudc de lo n6<lecine expirinentale, vol.2, ch.2,

s!c. - l : 'Viv i \ect ion."

a0. tsernard, Pr,rc?er de nddecint expirinentoh, p. 44O.

.r l . lb id. , pp. l?9-80.

42. In his way, Bernard rernained faithful to Cuvier's vie\'! that the nervous

svstem is the animal and cssent ia l ly thc only organic regulator.

41. See Mirko Drazen Crrnek, Ratsonnemcnt cxpirinentalet rccherches roxi-

coloBiqu6 .hu CL Bernu rd (Geneva, Par is: Droz, 1973), esp. pp. 408-16.

4,+. Rcn!-Theophile Llyacinthe Laennec, De I'Auscultotion mldtdrc (Paris,

:819). p. 5?.

45. Frrnqois D.rgognet, "L ' lmmunit6, h istor ique et m!thode," lecnrres at

thc Palais dc la Dicouvcrt!, Par is, January 4, 1964.

46. On Ehrlich ,rnd his rvork, see Hans Loewe, P.rul Ehtli.h, Schtipjir del

Cf icmorh!.dp,a (Stut tgan: \ \ ' issenschaft Ver lagsgese) lschal i , 1950); Fel ix Mart i

lbanez. I l . ' . l / inr l und thc t tbr ld of Paul F.hntcf i (Ne$ York: '958),

pp. 2s7-69i

t !on \ t rgcl , "Paul Ehr l ich," tuvu , l 'hr to i rc de Ia nidc. ine hibrci . lu.84-85

(1969); and Paul ine 1\1.11. l \ { . rzund.rr . "The Ant igen-Ant ibody R!r ( t ion and the

Physics and Chemistry of L i fe," Bul lenn of rhe Hstory of t . t ic inc 18 \19t4).

pp. l - .2 L

47. OD Ihcsc mattcrs, sec Dagognct, ld Rdiror d ier rclrad.r ( Paris: Presscs

Llnivcrsitaircs de Frrncc, l96a), and Sutrlalin. thirupeuti.l!. et Jornation d?s

conccpts nt iJtcoux,;n homage to Caston BacheJard (Par is: Presses Llniversi ta i res

r le Francc, 1957).

48. Bachelarr l , lc l lat i t io l isnc ror io"r / (Par is: Presses Universi ta i res de

lrance. ]95]) , p.202.

.+9. Dagognct, , i / l t lode\. t doct t ine dans l \ teuvrc dc Pd' . r r (Paf is: Presscs

Universi ta i r ts de France, 1967).

50. lb id. , p.67.

P.\k r TrFr! : l l rs r oRY

L Nly undenr.rnding ofcel l thcoryo*esagrcatdeal to Marc Klein, H, i ro i .e

des ongines dt la thiurc cc?/u/aire ( Paris: I lermann, l9 36 ).

454 46t

2. Robert llooke, ,llicrogrcphia. or Sont PhvsioL,arcol D$ri/'o^ ol inute

Bodks Madc bv ognifvintt Glass. with Observarions and lnqurn'r lhocupon (l_on,

don, 1667).

3 See, fbr example, P. Bouin, Augustc Prcnant and L. Nlai l lard, I f , r r r l

. t f i r ro/og'( (Par is: Schleicher, 1904- l l ) ,vol . 1, p.95, f ig.84; orMaxAronand

P ierre C rasse, Pr ic,s dc biologic oni na le lP at ;st Masson, I939). p.525, f ig.245.

4. Ernst Heinr ich l {acckel , Cemeinvcrstr indl , rhc l /er}e (Leipr ig: Krr tner.

1924), vol .4, p. 174.

5. Comte Bul lbn, H,rron( noturcl le des onino,I (1748). ch. 10.

6. Buffon, Des 1: i lmsnrr , in ib id. , pr . l : on l ight , heat rnd f i re.

7. Ib id.

8. tb id.

9. tb id.

10. On Oken as a nature philosopher, scc Jcan 5tr<,h1. torcnz {)lrn urJ 6cor.g

Burlnrr lZur ich: Ver lag der Corona, l9 l6) .

l l . ( )n Sch$:rnn and ccl l thcorr , r te tht tundamcnt i l work ot Nl . r rct l Flor in.

Narrronrc rr r l i t iat ion <le la th iorrc ccl luhirc t lons I 'ocovrc lc l f r t i r , /orc.SrAronn

(Prr i r : t l r rmrnn, 1960).

l-1. l\'larc Klein, Hiidirc dct origincs dc la thionc Lcllolotrc. y;. t9.

l l . On the or ig ins olcel l theorv, r r : l . Walter \ \ i l * ,n. "Ccl lu lar f issue and

th. Dasn o{ thc Ccl1 Theory," tur 100 (August 194.1), p. t6 l { , and "Dutrocher

and thi :Cel lTheorv," lsn 107-108 (N1at 1947), p. l . { .

l.+. llieckcl, D,? W'.|fit/.l. in Gcntinftr(d'dlr.hc ryerl.', \ll1. l. p. ll.

15. KIc in of l i rs addi t ional in i ; rmarion on thir point in his "sur l r r r l :buts

de h th i 'or ie ccl lu la i re en France," I i ra lo 6 (1951), pp. 2s- i6.

16. Jern Rostand. " l .es Virus I rn, tc ines," in Bmlogic cr mlder inc (prr i r : Gal-

l imi f t l . 1919). I ior a sunrmtrrv <,1 tater q,ork, ser: I {ostand's. . t a Concept ion

part iculai . r dc Ia c( . l lo le." in I cr GftrnJr i .ouranr d. i . / 6n /Wtc ( t ' i r isr ( ; j l l ima(t .

l95l) .

17. lhe l ines that lb lLrv were rd<1cd ro an nrr ic le t i rsr wr i r r (n in 19.15.

I hc ar ld i t i<,n sr .emcrl natur:1. t < lo not sav th i i in orrk.r to c la inr . rnr pr<rphtr ic

gi l i but , rathrr . to r . r l l at( .nt ion to rhr i .1cl rhar (cr ta i r r inn<rr t ion: . r r r r r . . r l l r

somewhat older th in adrocatts rnore eagcr to ust thnn to undtrst . rn{ l them are

$ i l l ing to t rdmit .

l l t . t ' ]aul Bu$c Cra$i tz ' ' l ' tpdncntcl lc Gm<l logcn ru t inu noderncn Parho

Ioqi( Von Celluhr r .tlohtulorpathologre (Rdsel: Schsrbc. 19'+6) is thc C;trmin

version ol a rvor l l i rst publ ishcd in Spani \h

19. Char les Naudin, " t Ls Espices al l incs ct la th ior i t < lc I ' i 'volut ion' ' ' Revuc

\( ient i fktue tu 1 '1 Frdnrc et tu l ' l t runt ]cr , st t . 2, vol . 8 ( I r lT 5 )

20. Art ic l t l0 ol "Thc Prssions of thc Soul" i5 cnt i t lcd " l lorv rhc Animal

Spir i ts Are Producfd in thc Brain," but in l ic t Dcscrr les sho\vs hos the sPir i ts

come l iom the heart in the lbrm of"vcrv i ine parts of the bloul ." Thcy- undergtr

"no changc in thc brain" other th in to be sePnri tcd l rom "othcr, lcss f ine Pnrts

ot the blrxxl" (AI Xl . l l5) in Dcscarrcr : Scl tctcd Pht lonphical t t ' r t t i 'gJ ' t r :ns

john Cott inghan, Robert Stoothol l anr l l )ugald l \ ' lur t loch (Cambridgc, LIK:

Cambridgc Llnnersirv Prcss, l98l l ) , vol . I , p i3 l . Thus i1 is not incorrect to

\av thr t the hc.rr t is the "sourq " ( , f the sPir i ts in " l ieat ise on l \ { t rn" (AI Xl l66) '

in ib id. . vol . I , p. l ( ) '+.

21. l )cscarte\ . "TrcJt ise on ] \ tan" (AI Xl . l32), in ib id. , p. l0 l n. l .

22. Descartrs. l ) iscours(. F()ur in "OPtirs" (Al Vl l09-14) ' in 'b id. '

pp. 16.+-66.

21. tb id.

2.1. Dcscartes, "Trrr t isc on,Man" (AT XI l29-31), in ib id. , p 100.

25. Dercartcs, Discoursc Four in "Opt ics" (AI VI. l09-1'1) ' in ib id. '

pp. 16,1-66. Rabclairs l i iend t iu i l laume Rondt l t t (1s07-1566) ( , fMontPel l ier

appears to havc been the l i rst tu hyPothesi ,c that nerves consist o l inde$ndrnt

bundlcs of centr ipetal rnd centr i l i rgal conductors.

26. ln thc 166,t pr | l icc 1o Descarter 's " l ;etr t ise on \4ao." Clcrsel ier points

out that thc nervc's inscrt ion into thc nruscle. and the(: lbre the muscl t s cxpan-

sion bv the animit l spir i ts, ccre poor l l rcpresented b1 l ouis dt l -a Forgr: ' rvho

bel i rvcr l that the nervts conducted the f lov oispir i ts into thc muscles, rvhL:r t 'as

I)cscartes taught that " the nenr f ibcrs and branchcr rarni I in thc muscles thent

selrcr , and .rs those l l t r r srvcl l or col lapsc, their nrrangcmcnt raus(]s thc mu!

cles to srvel l or col lapsc:ccorrJ inglv, producing var ious el lecs" (Al Xl . l l9-2{)2) '

$I

,&

iln

I

fifl;ll

in ib id. , pp.99 108. Clcncl icr is undi ,ubrcdl \ . ight on this p( ' int .

2?. " l t is important to kno* the t rue causc oi thr hcart \ morcment rhat

s i thout such knorvlcdgc i t is impo*iblc to kn<Iv anvthing which relates to thc

rbcorv c l l mrdic ine. for . r l l the othcr lunct ions ol thc animal arc r lcpcndcnt on

this, rs rv i l l bc c lcar lv sccn in * hat l i l lo* r ' ( "1)crr ipt ion o1 the I luman Body"

IAT XI.2a5l , in ib id. , p. l l9) .

28. Poisson took this argumcnl l iom I)cscrr tcs him\( 11 (c1. " lb t ' lenpius,

.l I illarch 1618" iAl ll.6?1. ii Thc Philosophn.,l llrttiryls ol Dcscortes. rc!. ),

p.93), to delend the Cnrtesian ! ie\ i against l :athcr Fabr i 's obicct i ( ,ns: \ rc

Rcnanlucs sur la ni tho<!c dc . l lonsicur Dcrrarrcs, part 5, y:c<,n<1 obscrv;r t ion.

p. 293 o1 the second volume ol the l?24 edi t ion. thr cxamplc ol thr ' l i rxr

whorr ht :ar t is cxcistr l or hca<l scrcrcd clc l lv ernbarmssed Dr:scartes rrhtn

thr qucst ioo $as put to him b1 a corrcspondrnt . l { r .csraper l the di i } iculo bv

arguing that l i l i is dcf incr l not bv muscular nn)vcmcnt but bv cardiac hcat.

Srr " t - r t ters to Boswel l (?) , 1646 (?f ' (AT M686 and 695), in Char les Adanr

.rnd I 'aul Tannery, eds. , Ocuyrcs </e Dcscorrcs ( t 'ar is: Vr in. 1974), vol . . t . pp.

686.695.

29. \Cor) cnim non viscr-rs nobi [ : et pr in( .ps r \ t ut usquc;rd|o rr t i pcr-

hibct t r sLr l mcrus musculus, cnrne tantum et tendinibus more cortrror l rm

connrns. ct s inguini c i rcumprl lcndo insenieni ' (Wi l l is . Piornrdceut;ccs rot iordirs

f l67l l ,pr . l ,scc.6,r :h. l ) .SccAppcndix,p. l74. Str : a lso I )c s. in<luini \ in: ] . , les-

. . f r t . , (1670), in Op.n otr tn id. vol . l . p. 661 ( ' i ' \ . l , r i , l i . luct

'nusculum") and Dc nervorun d.soipt io. t r / l , r (16{, .+). in ib id. , ro l . l . p. 36t}

i "Dicrndum cr i t quod ipsius cordis compagcs, c.rmr: valdc l ibrosr constans.

pol iu\ n lusculu! qu.rn parcnchvmr appr l lar i < le l ,ct") .

10. " ln c:orde, s icut in toto praeterea musculoso genere. spir i tuum insi torunl

pir t icul is spir i tuosal in is copula sulphurca a srnginc suSg.sra r( l jungirur; quac

matcr ies, dum spir i rus ngir inrur, dcnuo cl isa, ac vt lut cxplosa (non secus a

Ph,!er is pyr i i p i r t icul)e a.crn!ae rc r . r re lacrae) mrrsculum, sne cor ip m, pr.)

nixu mot i ro t f f ic icndo int lant ac intumi laciunt" ($ ' ; l l is , De nnrtun .k\ct ipt ia

.r uJt 's) . On rhe conrpar i r ( ,n ol rhc hcrrr r ( , i hvr l raul ic machine: "Circa nr<, t r rm

s:nguinis naturalem, non hi . inguir imus dc c i rculat ionc c jus, s( .1 qual i .of t l is

167

A V TAL RATI

1t yasorum structurr velut in mrchina hvdraul ictr con5tart t i r i tu c i rcumgvrctur"

rDe/&br;bur I l { '59] , in OPcro on,nro, vol l ' p ' ? l )

l l . "Caldcm tamen cor omnino t sanguine et non s 'nguis a corde mutuatui '

,Wi l l is , De songuinrs inca. lesccnr io, in ib id. , vol l . p 66l) '

32. Cf. ib id. , vo). I , P 661.

l l . wi l l i \ , Ccrcht i anatom. (1661).cht 9, l0anr l l - f inOper<t onnio '

,o l . 1, pp. 28o11.. i )0. ln De l ' ] r ,cntat ianc ( ib id.) . p +. Wi l l is descr ibts a st i l l

,nd explains hos i t works. Thc hierarchical arrangemcDt ol thc terms ' l l is t i l l l -

ion," "pur i { icat ion," "subl imat ion" and "spir i tual izat ion" provides remarkably

)recise corroborr t ion ofan idea ofCaston Bachclard\ : " lmaginat ion necess'rr-

lv ascr ibes valuc. . . . Considcr the r lchemirts For them to t ransmute is to

'er tect . . . for . rn alchcmist , ; : r t js t i l lat ion is : pur i f icat ion thr t tnnobles a sub

.tancebyremol ingi ts impuri t ics"Seel '4;rc l lersotq"r(Par is: J Cort i ' l9 '+]) '

,p.296,298.

14. Wi l t is . De r / ,otu l r 'u 'culat i lLondini : Apud Jacobtrm Nlart ,vn' 1670) in

)pcrd omnid, vol . I , PP.680- i3 '+.

35. Dc fcrntntaoorc cont. ] iDs i l l rhe physica) ' rnd chemicai prc l imin ' r r ies

o Wil l is \ pht \ io logical theor iesr \cc csp. ch. 10, "De r)atura ignis et "bi ter

de

:olore et luce: Ex Prenmissis non di f f ic i le cr i t pulver is pvr i i in rormcnl is bel l ic is

rs i tat i naturao exPl ic.rre "

16. On the anatomy ant l phvsiologv of the nerrc ' sce Ccf '6r i dnd'onr ' '

h. 1e.

17. "Quippe spir i tus rninrnlc\ I Cerebro ct Cerebt l lo, cum mcdul lar i

r t r ius( lue appendicc, velut r Scnir)o luminar i a l l luentcs ' Systcma nervosttm

dadiant" (Cc' .br t d"dtomc, rc l . l , p. I36)

j8. "c luapnrpicr longe mcl ius iu\ ta h!pothesim nortrnm' hos spir i tu\ '

,3nguinis l lamml emisios, lucis rrJ i is . s.r l lem i i5 aur ' r t ' ler iqLrc interte\ t i ! s inr-

lcs r l icamur, lDt onima brukrun, in OPcrc onnia. vol 2 ' p 3l) "Spi t i tus

rnimales. velut lucis radios, Pcr totum svstcma nenuurn di l lundi supponinus'

Ccrcbr i onatornc. p. 3 l8) .

19. "Pari li'tc mode rc si quisquinr pulveris PYrii 'rc(n''r' Per lunem ignari'r'n

rd distrncc accenr l r rct" lPhornoccuntcs rat ionoln pt 2 P. 1-19) Sc! also Dc ntz ' ra

46u 469

rnurrutur i . in vol . 2, p.6r l l .

4fJ. "We cal l ' rcf lex movement i movemcnt\ duc to a nimulo-motor ner-

rous tbrce produced by the unconscious l i rnct ional act iv i tv ol the sensor! ncn'es.

I t sould be more corrcd to cal l them movemenls produced bv a ervous rel lcx

trct ion, lbr i t is not (h( nrovement whosc <l i rect ion changes bLrt the nervous

lorce. *hich r le rcgart l . Is har ing been somchos rel lected insidc rhe organism

so rhar n c!ntr ipctal mdt ion becomes,r ccDtr i lugal one. tsut thc l i rst expres-

sion is convenient, and j ts usc is sanct ioned b! custom" (Henr i Nl i lnc 'Eduards,

Ieqons sur la phlsiologi. conpoic dc I'honnt t dcs oninour IParis, ll]7ii-791,

v, l . I l , p. l l2) .

+1. See Wil l i is Dc anna brutorun (16'7)J.

42. J.A. Un/er, l:rstc Crnnde einer PhtFlogic.lcr cigenlichn throrrricn Notur

th rLh?n K6ryt l tJ l l ) . scc.49S.

43. l t is cheat ing r l in le to include thc n:mc i , f Iegal lo is, r 'hosc l i rst paper

on his exper iments $ i (h cut t ing the spinal cord dates lmm l lJ09. i ls lbr Whvtt ,

I mcnt ion him onlv insol . r r . rs his concept ions (oincide at vtrr iou\ points wi th

th, ,se ol , ruthors "ho

mrr le expl ic i t use oIrhc not ion oIrc l ]ect ion.

44. Johannes Nl0l l . r , t /dndbuch der lhvuolol l ic dc, cnscbcn (Coblenz:

J. l lo l"h,r . rd i t - t?) .b| . I . th. l . .et . r .

-15. Franeois Jacob. la Logiqu. du ivant(Par is: Gal l imard, 1970),p. 102.

{ t . Ar isror le, Dc <r.Jrnr.r , t rans. J.A. Smirh (O\ lbrd, UK: Claren<lon Press,

r901i-92). l r . r .

4?. Ar istot le, Dc ponbu: onimal iun, r r rD\. Wi l l iam Ogle (London: K. P.aul ,

t i rcnch, l l t8 2 ) , I .5 .

'+8. Ar istode, D. g.ncrut ione.tnindl idnr, r rans. David Balmc (()xtbrd. UK:

Cl.r 'cnd( 'n Press, 1972 ) . IV. l0.

+e. Dcscartcs. "Pr inciptc. ofPhiLosoph\" (AT vl l lA. l26). in l^ Phi lasoph-

i .o l h i i t ings of Des., t r tcr , ro l . l . p. 2 l t l t .

50. Descartes, "Mcr l i tat ions on First Phj l . ,sophy" (Al Vl l .85), in ib id. , vol .

2. ar t .6, p. 58.

5r. Ib id.

s2. rb id.

5L Sec F. Au iur Shusrer, Lc t l , tdecin Llc soi 'ntnrc (Par is: Presses t ln iverr i ta i rc '

dc Fr.rncr: , 1972), ch 1.

5. t . Gcrrg Frnsr Sr,rhl , D(, t r to&:r t io notLr.r \1696) '

55. See, for example, Bui lo ' r 's ar t ic le on "The Ass" in / l i r lo i re 'drur" ' ' / ' !

st'. Scc On thc Ori4n oli.hc jPc.ier, ch. r+.

5?. Salvrdtrr Fd.v:rr<l I ur i . r . l i fe: I tu l tnf in isht t / : rpcrrment (Ncw Yorkr

Scr ibner, I97l) .

53. Xavir. r Bichat. lnatontic g[nirolc oppliqu& i lo phvsiolollic ct la nidctinc

(18() l ) , vol . I . pp.20- l l .

i9. Scc m) prcface t<, tbc modcrn cdi t ion oi Claudc Bemard s l -efons rur

lcspf i . rnomincsJclo ' i r . l rnrmunr{ru\dnrmou\. ' tdu\ f4 l i tdu\(Pnr is:Vr in '1966)

t0. See nry I tu Nornal ont rhe Pothological (Nov Y<rrk: Zone Bools ' 1989) '

pp.2?5- iJ9.

61. [ rar ior ic Crct ' rc, . lppro. tdtes to t t Pht losophnal Biolo1| iNew )ork: Ihsi(

Books. 1965 ) .

PART l totrR: INTI RI ' I { l IAl loNs

L Rcni t )e l t r r t t \ , 'T" [Tht l \ l , t rqrr tsr ' ; {

Ne\\c.}s( l t l . Ocrober 16+5" (AI

lV.t9), in Ihr Philos.Phtcol liitttnlls of Dcstarter' traos John C()ttingham' Robrrt

St,x, thol lan<l Dtrqald l \ lur loch lCambri( lg( . LIK: Cambridge t ln iveni tv Prerr '

l9U. l -91), vol . i , p. 275

2. "Ruler lbr the Direct ioo ol the Nl ind" (Al- X l80). in ib id. , ro l l '

pp. . l {F21.

l . Dcscartcs wrotc, "For thcrc is { i th in us brr t oot sorr l . and thi ' soul has

r i th in i t no r l iv t rs i t r ofparts: i t is r t ont t r tn l i t i rc,rni l rat ional , an( l ' r l l i ts rppt '

t i te ' are vol i t ions" ("The Passions o1 the Soul" lAf Xl l64l ' in ib id ' 'o l

l '

ar t .4?, p. 1.16).

+. Part 5 .Jt " l ) isc.ursc.rn thc Meth(xl" (AT VI 40-t '0) ' in ib i r l . !o l l '

pp. 1 1 l - '11 ; "To tht Mrrquis t i l Nervcast lc ) S Noveober l6 ' {6" (AT lV 570-76)

in ib id. , vol . l , pP l0 l -10' t

5. "To Morc, 5 Februar;- l6as" (AT Vl6?-70) in i t r id. , PP 160-67 On thc

470 471

rel : t ion blrrvecn srnsibi l i t r , rnr l the r l isposir ion o1 thc rrrgans, sec l )escalrr s 's

theory ol the "dcgrets ol the scnses" in 'Aurhorr Rcpl ies to rhc Sir th Scr o1

( )bjccr ion! (41 \ :11. ,136- )v) . in ib i t l . , ro l . 2. n.( . 9. pp. 294-96.

6. " l .ct ter of l9 , \ {arch l67l l , to C<inr ing," in Got4i ie. l l l ' i lhc lnt LciL,nr:

s, in lnh. S.ht i f ten un, l Br i+ ( u inn\ t i rd( : Rci<le l . 1916 ) . 2 nr l scr. . vol . l , pp. )91-

.101. ( i ,mpare Lcibniz s cr i ter ia for d ist inguishing animals l rom aur()mata $ i rh

I)c\crr tc\ ' \ nrgum(ors as wcl l ;s wi th F<lgar Al lan Poc r prof i runt l rc l lccr ions

, ,n thc srD, ' quest ion in " l \1aelzr l 's Chcxsplayer." On Lcibnir s disr inct ion l ! -

r { rcn ma(hine an( l organirm, scc "A Nerv Systrm ol Naturc and thr: Com-

nrunictr l iof) , ' l subsrrncts," io l .c ibnr Phi losophrol Icr tLrs onLl Po2crs. t r lns.

. rnd ed. I .cr , l Loemkcr (Chi .ago: Uni l t rs i tv ol Chir igo Prcss, 1956). scc. l ( ) ,

. rnr l "Nl<'nr<lologv." in thnor lo/ , rgr onJ Othcr lht losaphr,r l Es,orr , r r rn. . Prrr l

s, bncker and Annc Nla. t in Schreckfr (Ne\ YorL: Macrni l lan, l9 l i5) . s( fs.

6l-66.

7. Lr ibniT too $as intc isted in lhr l rbr ic i l t ion ol mathincs and.rutom

at.r .Scc, lorcxamplc.hiscorrcspondcneerr i ththrI)uk( i ) f I lanov.r(1676 7q)

in \ . tmrlrchr \chr i l t .n un. l Br la l . \ l )armsrrr l t : Rcir lc l . l9 l?) , lsr \ | r . . t ( ,1. l . In

Ptdenkcn von .4ulrrhrun11eint llolenit otfo So.irttit nt D.ut'.hldn.l /u .ltlnehnltn

r /cr ( r ' inr tc unr l l { , 's .n( f idI tcr , l t ibniz pr.r is l rhc wPerjor i r r - r , l ( i fmrn art ,

x hich had ,r lwavs bccn intcrestcd in thr hbr ic.r t ion ol mo! ing michin.s (mon,

str : ts, c lockr. hrdraul ic marhincrr in( l w) on), (ncr l r i t l i in i r r , $hi .h conccn-

trr ted almost exclusjr 'c ly on l r r . rk ing star ic, l i le l r :ss objecrs to be conremplarc( l

f rom with. ,ut . Scc i t id. , p. 5. t .1. Ih js prrsrgc q.r c i t rd br Jacqu(5 \ { i r i r r in in

. l ' r . r r .o/d ,JU. { l , . r i \ : l_ ihairre r le l , r r r ( ' i rhol iquc, 1920). p. t2 l .

8. " l reat ise ()n Nlan" ( , {T XLl lg-2{)) , h lh. fh i to 'o i f t | l l r i r ings ol DLr

.(r ! . { , v{ ,1. l . t t . 9e.

9. Wh,r t is morc, Dercartes cannor rxplain ( ; rx l 's c( ' r \ t rucion ol ln imnl-

m.r( h incs t ! i rhout in!oking r t rur tx)se: ' ' ( onsi<ler in! i rh( I l r . r ( h ine ( ,1 thc hum.] ' l

hr lv rs h.rv;ng becn l i r rncd hr ( ; rx l in orr ler to h.rvc in i rsel t a l l rhe Dnlvfnlcnrs

utual l l m. ln i l isrrd rhcrr" ( , .Si \ rh Nt( . l i t i l i i )n, in Iht th iL\ophrct t n lor t : : I

Drsrorter, tarnr. F.S. l la l<hnc.rnd ( i . r i . L Ross ICimb,,( l8t , l rK: C.rrnbr i r t {c

Llni !crs i tv [ , rc\s, l9 l t l , vot . t . p. 195).

10. "Descr ipt ion ol the Human Body and Al l o1 I ts Funct ions" 1 (AT I I 225) '

in The Philosophical l'ltt.irgr o/ Der.drfer, vol. I'p ll5.

Il See Ra1mond Ruver, E/lrncnrs dc pr1.ltl-6id/orir (Paris: Pressts tlnivcr'

s i ta i res de France, 194?), pp. {6-47.

12. " l t is so jn)portant to know the truc cause ol the heart 's movenent that

wi thout such kno*ledge i t is impossible to know anything shich relates to the

theory ofmedicine. For al l the other funct ions ol the animal are dePenl lcnt on

thi i ' ( "Dcscr ipt ion of thc Human Body and Al l o l I ts Funct ions" 2 IAT XI 245] '

in The Philosophircl llhtings of Descartes, rcI. l. p. I 19 ).

ll. "Treatisc on l\14n" (AT Xl.l65), in lhe Phlo\oPhicdl Wntingr ol D$&n's'

vol . I , p. 104.

14. "Trai te de I 'hommc" (AT XI. l7. ] -90), in Char les Adam and l 'aul Tan-

nery, eds. , Oeuvrer de Descorres (Par is: Vr in, 1974), vol . l l , PP 17l-90ralsoin

Andr6 Br idoux, d. , Oeuwes et let t res (Par is: Gal l imard, 19s3). [ . Ih is passage is

omit ted f rom the Engl ish t ranslat ion ol "Tf t . t t isc on N4an" in the Pht lost 'phical

Witings ol Dcscartcs.l

15. "Trai t l dr l 'homme" {AT XI lg l ) . iD ib id. , vol . l l , p. 193: Br i r i rur '

p.867.

r6. rb id.

l?. "Trai t6 dc I 'homme" (AT XI. l92), in ib id. , vol . l l ' p 192; Br idoux'

p.866.

IU. "Pr imae cogir i t ioncs c i rca gen!r r t ionenl animrl ium" (AT XLSI9). in

ib id. , vol . l l , p. 519.

19. ,\lartial Cuerc,ult, Descotes rclon Iordrc lts rorsons, vol l: I 1n'' d Ie

corps(Par is: Anbicr , 1953), p 24l l .

20. See sect ion U5 of th is volume, abore.

21. Dcscanes, "To Merjennc, 28 October 1640" {AT I l l .2 l3) ' in Ihc Phi lo '

sophical Wit inTs ol D.srarres, vol . l , p. 155: t l r idoux,p. 1088.

22. "Bruta nul lam h.rhent not i t iam commodi \ ,e l incommodi ' sed qtrat<lam

ipl i \ in utcro e\ istenr ibus obvia lutrunt. quorum oPe crcv!tunt et a quibus ad

certos motus i rnpulsa sunt: unde, quot i ts i l l is posrea simi lc quid occur i r , scmPer

eosdem motus edunC' ("Pr imae c.rgi tat ioDe\ c i rca gcnernt ionem animal ium"

tl

:

[ (Al-x1.520], in Oeurrer & DlrJ.drter, vol . l l , p. 520).

21. 'Accret io duplex est : . r l i . r mortuorum ct quac non nutr iuntur, l i t r ;ue

pcr s i rnpl iccm part ium opp<rsi t i r - rnem, s ine ul la earunr imnrut.r t ione, vt l sal lem

sine n,rgna. . . Al l ia accret io c|r \ ivcnt ium, s i lc ( 'orum quae nurr iuntut . r t l i t

n 'Drpcr cum al iqua part ium immutal ione. . . Per lecta nutr j l io s ive accret io s imul

gencr. t ionem sive seminis product ionem cont inet" ("L\c.rPttr . rnatomicr: de

accret ion! et nutr i t ione" IAT XI.596], in ib id. , vol . !1, p. 596). Descanes here

contr$ts the growth ofan aggregate whose parts remain Lrnchanged ni th that

, , f an indiv idual through transform,rt ion of i ts parts.

24. " ' lb l {ore, 5 Fcbruarv l6- | )" (AT V277-7u). in Ihc lht lasophical t t i i r

inq' o l Descorrcs, !o l . 1. p. \66.

25. "Pr inciples o1 Phi losophr" (Af Vl l lA.326), in ib i t l . , vol . l . p. 21l l t .

26. "Meditat ions on First Phi losophy" (At Vl l .8 '+), in ib id , v. ,1. 2, r r t .6.

p. 5tt.

27. Cucroul t , Des.at t?s f tk,n l .drc . ler rdtronr, p. l8 l .

28. lb id, p. 193.

le. Ib id.

)0. lh id. , p. 194.

l l . Auguste Comte, Cours lc phi losophic por ' r ivd ( l ' . r r is : Schleicher, 1908),

vol .6. pp. 150-51.

12. Albrecht von Hal l t r . Bthl t ' th iqut onatoniguc. vol . 2. p. 58 3.

I l. Au8lstc Comte, S'5tinrc Jt: plitiquc positire (t'aris: I'rtsses tlniversitaircs

dc France. lq?5). vol . I . p. 584.

]4. Comtc, Cours, vol .6. Prel , ]ce. p. xvu.

15. Comte, Cours, lbr t i!rh lc\ \on, lo l . I , p. I5 l .

15. Comte, 5rr t , .a?? . / . pol i t iquc posi t ive,vol . I , pp. 57.1, 592. 650.

17. Comte, Cours, lor ty l i r ; t lesson, vol . 3, p. 280.

18. Comtc, Sfr f imc d. poht iqf t p. \ i t iv t , vol . | , p.410.

19. Ib id. , vol . I , pp. 518-80.

a0. lb id. , vol . I , p.602.

41. lb id.

-1.2. Comte, Cour, l i , r t ieth lesson. !o l . ] , p.2. l ln.

172 171

+1. Ci)mtc.5,rnam. z/r Pol t r&uc Pos,rrv. ' vol . l , p.661'

. {1 Comte, (oun. i i r r ic th lesv- 'n. *r l . } . p. l7 l .

45. Ib id. , lbr t l ' l i rst l rxon, vol . 3,2 iz l t l

46. Conrte, Svst inre de Pol i t i t lue Pot int( ' \o l . I 'P.611'

'17. Comte, Cour, f t ,n ieth lesson, rrr l . 3 ' p 163.

-18. Ib id.

{9. Set thr Compt|s r , :n, lur dc lo Sncrdr"rr lc Biologrc4{}( l8s9) Thereponi :

r ,pr inred in Emilc t i l .1, Exats dc ph;htsoph;c er d 'h istoir . J. i r ) bto/orre (Par is:

I l , rsson. l9{X)) .

50. t lcorgcs Pouchet Publ ishcd an inrerest ing biographical notc and bib-

l iogr.rphr ol Robin: u ' t ' rk in the/ournol t I 'an' l tont ic et c le lo phvsialogie in

ls l {6.

51. Lmi le I i t t r ' , l . . t l i rJe.nrc r t nr1dr. , ' t (2nd ed., Par i r : Dir i icr . 1872). p '+31:

rnd Lo Sci .nc. .1u point tc vuc phi losophiqut l f 'ar is: Didicr ' l87l) ' P i i i .

5). Littrt.,llidrnt et miJccrrx, p '1l3tr.

s l . lb id. , p. 4117.

54. Jo tb i f t ,s,p,rr ;c poi i r i rc, . lnt l scr ' . r t , l 2 i .Jul . l )cc. lE31'

55. Li t t r i , l . r s.k 'n. . , ru Po'nt . I vK l ,h i losoPhiqot ' P. \ i i

54, . John Stuart Nl i1 l . . ' lugurrc Cont. in. l Posi iv i 'nt ' in J Nl Robson' ed '

L, , l l | . ted Wrksl lohn Sru.r / . r t i i l (T( 'n)nt . ' : Universi tY of To(, l )1o Press' 1969) '

vol . 10, pp.2t t '1-92.

5?. Li t t re, i u -Si , rnre, P. 230.

5l l . Ib id. , p. 231.

59. lb id. , p. 260.

t '0. tb id. , p.261.

t l . L i t t r i , , 'UA/c(] t . . I nr l r lcrrni , p. 170.

t i2. Char lcs Rol ' jn, ' l )c h biologic, ' )n

i , l ) ic t et soD bur. se\ r t l i t ions '1\cr

I ts arr t rcs scicnccs, / . r t Phi losophic posi t t ,c a ( , \4ay Junt l869),P l l l .

51. I i t t ra, 1d Si icnrc, p. 3 '10; th is ter t or ig inal lv apperrcd as an art ic lc in

rhL,frnuary l l l70 isruc rr f la Phi l r , rophtu Po' tL i tc.

6-1. L i t l r i , . l / ( i lc( in. . r rn id. . ,n ' . p. l+x.

6i . lL id. , p. J- l t .

i171 17t

i

66. " l ransrat ion. t l i \nr t , " l o Ph toso ph rc S'ot i fut 1 ( l l l i l0) , p. l 5 l l .

6?. L i t t re,4f idctnrc. t rn( i l . . i r ' , t )p. 269 l (1.

68. lb id. , pp. 27{,-77.

69. In German in 1866, in Frt nc.h in l87a I l -he Orl . , r r l lnql tsh DLtnnar.v

givcs l89f , . rs the datc otrhe { i rst t rsc ol "cc,r l<,gv" in Fngl ish - TR^\s l

7(1. lb id. , p. 284.

7l . ( l , r* on sac hr Lrrr l . I / rL Nr* 5r ,cnolrr Sprrr . r rarrs Arthrrr C otdhammer

(BDsr.r) : Beacon, 198.1). p. l l6.

72. lhe i i rst t rvo tbrmulat ions are to br: loun( l in Bernard's /d Sr icnr. . r l i r i -

m.nk, /c (Par is: L 'brair ie l . l l . l la i l l i i re. 1878). P '+5, inr l thc th i r r l in his Perr lcr :

nrrrcs r / . radr les, ed. L. Lrelhorme ( l 'ar is: L ibr . r i r ic ' i .B. B: i l l i i rc. l ' l l7) . p. J6.

r '1. Brrn;rrd, / 11r:nr rur )cs phinont incs dc 1a t r t ' r , ' r r r r / r r . , r / r dn,mr,r / \ . r . , r / r

r la. j rour (Par is: I ibrair i t J.B. Br i l l iare, 1879). vol l , p. '10

7a. Bcrnard, Rdpporl nr lcs pngrit et la narthc Lle lo ph.rsiologic gtnintlc cn

/ran<r(Par is: Imprimeri( Imperi : lc , 1867). r r . 2 l l .

75. tlernrrd, /ntrodurrion i I'ltu<le <lc lo n<l<lttt f c\PlrtD.nrd/i (Prrii: t-ibrairie

J. t t . Bi i l l i , r rc, 1865). p. l l2.

76. lb id. , p. I4 l .

77. Bernard, lcqonssur bs phinont incs h h vr i ' . ro l l , p i '11

7s. lb id. , vol . 2, p. 5) . { .

? '1. B.rn:rr( I , Prn( ip. ' , f .71.

t tO. lb id. , p.5: .

Sl . Bcrnard. Intralucr i"n, p. '70.

E2. Bcrnard, l ' j r inr ipcs. p. 26.

8l . lb id. , p. ls2 n.2.

81. lh id. , p. 156.

i i5. Bcrn.rrd, /ntror lu i t ior) . p. 165.

i i6. l lcrni t rd, P r .4 ' ( r , p. l7 l .

87. Uernard, /nrroductr 'on. p. , t0 l .

8N. &:rn.rrd, Pr inr ipt t . p. 119.

I t9. lb i t l . , p. 16 5.

9t l . Thc ful l r i t l i r o l rhc sor l is " l , r Nrtrn oppr incL p.rr l l midccinc

m(,dcrnf . ou la nicessi t6 de recour i r i la merhode ancjenne ct h ippocrat iquc

dans lL. t r . r i tcment des maladiei ' (Par is: Dtbure, 1768).

91. Bcrnard, lrincipes <le nidccine ctpirimcntolc (G!ne\a: Alliance Colturcllc

dLr l i r re, )96.)) , p. l3 ln.

92. Bernard, Introducr ion, p. )51.

93. Bernard, Pr incrpes, pp. 51f l .

94. Ib id. , p.53.

95. Ib id. , p. 392.

96. See the paper bl Marc Klcin and Mmc Sificrlen in the Conptcs rcndus

ol the Congrds Nat ional dcs Soci i t6s Savantes, Strasbourg and Colmar, 196?,

Sc*ion des Scienccs, vol . I , pp. l l l -21.

97. Bernard, Pr inr ipes, pp.95 and 125.

98. N' l i rko Drazen Crmek, "R6l lexions inedi tes de Claude Bernard sur la

mi( lccinf prar iquc," , tddecine dc l iance 150 (1964 ) , p. 7.

e9. Bcrnard. Cahier dc notes. ed. Mir lLo Drven Crnrel (P;rr is: Gal l imard,

I t )65). p. 126.

100. Publ ishcd in Par is l )y \ r . l \ {as, ion and Son. Thc nork l int rppcarcd as

an arciclc in thc Gazcrtc hibdonadoirt ,lt .lllJ,ntu .t l. Chiruryi(.

l0 l . lb id. , p. I17.

102. Bcrnard, Pr inr ipcs, p. 117.

l0l. Bernard, Pcnsic's; nores <litachics, p.16.

P,rnr I t rvr : PRoaLIr !s

L Emanuel Radl, Gesci;chte der b;oloyllschen Thcorten in der Neurcir {2nd ed.,

Lr ipr ig: W. Engclmann, 19l l ) , vol . ' ,

chap.4, \cc. L

2. \\hlther Riese, I'ldic <lc I'honne <lans Io neurobiologi. contenpot.lhte (Patis:

Alcan, 1938), p. 8; sec also p. 9.

L Ar j r tot lc. Pol i t iLs, in Tht Ba ( WotI \ o l Anstatk, \ .d. Rjchard McKcon

1\, .s Y,,r l : Ran. l , 'm H, ' , , \ ' . le+7). L . l l .

. { . Theophi le de Bordeu, ncdtr . l . r an. ' rdniqu. ' su lcs po' i t ions des glandu

lPrr is, ( ; .E Quj l lau, I75l) , scc.6.+, quo(d in Chnr lc! Vi l ior DaremberS, Hr ' ro,r!

Jcr rc icnrcs midiralcs (Par is: L ibrair ie J. l l . E.r ; l l ie r . , 1870 ) , vol . 2, p. l l57 n.2.

476

5. .Jul ien Pacorre, ld P.ni ic rcr in lguc (Par is: Alcan, l9 l l ) .

6. Franz Reuleaur, Thtorct isrhc Kiner l ,dt ih: Grunbt j . l t : c incr theor)c dt

. t losc, l inrvcsen ( Braunschu'eig, \ ' icu rg. I l l75 ) .

7. According to t r lar i , tools arc nrovcd br human strcngth, r rhercar m,r-

chines are noved bv n.r t r r ra l l i r rct : ; see his C.rprtol , t r rnr- Samrrel , \ l t r>rc anr l

Edsard Avel ing (Nerv l i r rk: Int t rnr t ional Publ i rhers, 1967), vol . I , pp. l?.1-?.) .

8. For cxamplc. t rochlcr ( f rom thc Creek for a block ofpul lc l r ) , thrmi( l

( f ;om thc Greek lbr sh;el( l ) , \caphoi( l ( lx ,atshapcr l ) , hammcr ( in thr c i r ) . $c,

duct, t ronrpc ( the f rench for l ) l lopian tube, so cal led because ol i ts resembl,rrrcc

to r horn), thorax ( f rom the Cfcek fbr chcst) , t ib ia (or ig inal l r , a k ind ol l lutc) .

9. See mv "Modi les et analogies dans l . r decouverte en biologie." in I - rudcr

l 'h istotrc et dc phi losoph,. dcrr t . ' . f i (Par i \ : Vr in, l96t t ) , p. 306.

10. Ar i i tot le ( \p la inc, l rhc l )cr ing an<l er tension ol the l imbs bv,rnalogv

rr i th : c: tapul t : see De nr, , r r r onrrn.r / i r r r r . t r . rns. N{arrha Cra'en Nussbaum (Pnrcc

ton, Nj : Pr inccton Llniveni t r Prcss, 1978),701 b9.

l i . Dc\ca(r \ . " Io l lersrnnc. lo Ffbn,r f r I6]9" in( t l l ) .525), i r . Pbrd-

\ophical lh i t ings of Dcstort ts, t rans. John Cott ingham, I {oberr Sr.rr thot l anr l

l lugald i \ lurdoch (C.rmhridge. UK: Cambridge Llni ! r rs i rv Press. l . l8-+-el) ,

vol . 1, p. I34.

12. CIaude l lernard, /nr . . , . lu( . r ( ,n (186s). pt . 2, ch. 2. sec. l .

l l . Kant, C' t tguc ol JuUmnt, r rans. J.11. Bcrnrr( l (Nc\ York: l la lncr,

l95l) , scc. 65.

1.1. Eernard, /ntroducaon, pp. 356-57.

15. lb id. , pp. 159-60.

16. Aoguste Comrr. Caurs Jc phr lot ,ph| . post t iv . ( l lar is: Schlr ich.r , 1907-24),

to l . I , l i r r tv- l i rst I tsson.

l?. See mr Ia Connotssoncc dc / r i r ic (P.rr is: Vr in. l t ) ( ,5) . on cel l rhcory.

. \ppcodir l l t r l th.r t r ror l , r f t r ' \ rh( , , lnr i { )n! bo"ten cel l rhenrr ' . rnd rhr phi

losophv ol Lc ' ihni ; .

18. [ t iennc \ \ i r l l i , " t ts Cul turcs r l i ' rg,rnes embnonnaires' in r i t r r ' . " Rrrar

r . ,c,r l ,qu. ( luav-June l . )511, f . t8e.

19. Bernrrd, Cdhict Jc notes. cd. Nt i rko Dr.ven Grmck (par is: Gal t imart l ,

1e65). p. l7 l .

.20. Ar istot lc, , t /crdp,4r.ecs, in Lhc Bor ic l tbr [ \ o l An\tot le, an.966a, p.718.

J1. Sce Kant\ Apprn, l i r to the l iansccnr lcnr i l Djalect ic in the Crn,ru. o l

rD. / t .d 'or (Ne$ Y(,r [ , Di)ubl(di) . t966), p. a25f l .

22. l lenr l - E. Sigtr ist , t tan and,t tc, l ic inc: . tn tnoo. lu i jon to, l tct l i rst Kno\ l

cd17c, t rans. Margaret Galt uois( . (Nes York: Norron, 19t2), p. 102.

23. Ib id. , pp. l l7 . t2.

l . { . Comtc, 'Considir , r r ions phi losophiqucs srrr l ,cnscmbtc de la sciencc

bi , , lo8ique" (1818). lLrr ieth lccture of the Coun r tc yhi losophi t po, , r r ,c ( t i r is ;

- rchlc i rher, I908), r , , ) . ] . p. I { , t ) .

2s. Ib id. , p. 175.

26. rb i ( t . , P. I79.

27. Sigcr ist , . l lon drrd V&l idne, p. t09.

18. Comte, Cour j , pp. 175, l?6.

29. Ib id. , P. 169.

I t l . Chudr Btrnard. lcqon|u. tc dntht l . t to r lcorcn. i r f dninr i r lc ( f , . l r i \ :

L i l ) ra i r i ( J.B. I la i l l i t : r ' . l3?7). p. 56.

l l . rb id.

12. lb id. , pp.65-66.

33. Ib i r l . , p. l l i l .

1.1. Ib id. , p. l l2.

15. lb i ( i . . p. 160.

16. Bcrnard, Lcqant nr lo.h.r / ( ,ur d, ,nrdi . . 1p.rr is, I jbrair ie J.B. Bi i l t ierc,

l8 l ( , ) , p. l9 l .

17. f.M. (iuardia, Hisrorc dc l<t nidtLinc tl,Hjppottot. d Brcusl,dir.t sc, srrc

.c jn urJ (Pi t r is : Doin, lU84), p. l l l .

Iti. \'jctor Prus, Dc l'|nit,1t,,n dc ld phL,gnallc. ou nouvc c tloctritu nittiLot.

(Prr is: Panckouclc. l l l l5 ) , L.

i9. ( ;corges I i : is \ i ( , . " lnrrrvcnt ion." IJne Ctntovcrsc sLtr l ' lvalurr . , r . f io( .

rn ntstr i cl le d t l' f nt.vc l ol'e.:I rc l.d n e i sc ).2 lt9 18).

+0. Flni le Gu\an,) t , Lo lor iot ton et f ivolut ioD, I rc l ! . (par is: I )o in, l9 l0) .

47R 479

l l . jcan Rosrand, l lont r \ . le i r i t i : pat teur. B[nonL tonttnettc, I .o Rt.hc

1,, t l .du/d (P.,r i r : Stock. le '+2), p.96.

42. Ilr:rnard, lnrrorludbn Li I'ttu<tc dc ltt nirtccir. fr/,i|rnrrr.,/. (t,aris: Librrj_

r i , f .B. B,r i l l i i r t . I865),rran\. l . \ l t r .nrv Copl :v (J rcenr , r s tntro. lur tbn ta th \ ruJ l

n l I \Ft incntol . t l&lrnclNcr) ,>rt : r r l , rcni l t rn, I . !7;Col l j r r . l96l) .p.96.

+1. Al f ;ed North whirr l ,ca(t . \ t , !u. . . rnd t , / . ( ( .amt,r idgc, UK: Lrnir( ,a i r !

Prc! \ . 193'+), p.5. { luoted hr alexandre Koyr i in.r rcport in Rcrhcrchcs phto

roph,9 ucr .+ ( l9 l4- I s ) , p. 198.

44. Xavicr Bichat, l".rtonit gininjl. dppligu'c ri to phrsiotogit a t) Lt nilcttnc

( l )ar i ! tsrosson and Chl l r r la, t60t) : nes rd. bv Beclarr t . tSJl . I i i ln! . b\ ( ; . i , ,Bf

lLrr r.rrd as Gcncral lnatontt tpphcLt n f\nrtnqt ,t tt ,u*ti.in(, ) rols. (tj,l\rl,n:

Ri t hrr l r rn and I ord, I812). <rt . l , pp. 20-21.

+! Bcsides, l lcgel undcntrxxl rh is rr lecr lv K. , sce w, is,cnschr/ t . tu I r , tA,

chs. I and l .

46. I f i !s i ( ' r , " lntcr lenr ion. '

a?. I h ior lorede Saus:trc. h,vroctc gret l t 'ar is: t ) f n() . ,1, lg le) .

18. l l latu. f ,4r S. f i rJr . I j9b. i thc S,tphrv dn,/ . ic sr . , .c,n. , r . l r rn\ . in( l

tntr , . A. t Tar lor , c<1. R. Kl i l ,anrIr and F. Ansconrtr , ondon: Nelson, t ,16t) .

fOrrh, , logv: the an of using , ,orr ls corr tct lv ( t r ,c l lwa! NL,rr Intcmot iont t l Dr.-

t funorr , 2nd r :d. , 1958) TR^Ns.]

4 ' ) . See Pierrc Cuirrur i , i r r Cranrrnrr i r r (Par isr pn,s!c\ L ln i !crs i r . l i rc l t ( .

f r iD. f , l9-58), p. I09.

i ( r . Cl . ru( l ( l rvrc <le \ i rgr tar . Rcnorguts;ur tn ktnauc l 'onc. t i \ t ( t6+i t .

51. I :strbl ishmenr ol .oojcr ipt ion.n( l the mcl l i . r t errnr inr t ion ol con_

s.r ipt \ i cst t rb l i rhrncnr ol nat ional stLrdlarnrs ana rrox)unt depot\ .

52. ( lu i raud, ta Grcnnoi . ,p. 109.

51. Scr J icques MJi l \ , l No,,d/ , . !d.ron (par is: t )un,x l . t9.16), pp. ls7t , .

1r hr ic l rcc<,unt ol n<)nrrr l i / , r ( i , ,n (r \es much to rhis rvork, l r h ich is uselul l i , ri ts chr i tv ol an.r lvsis rrx l h istorrrr l int i ) rmrlron.rs s1 . l \ br i ts re l i , rcni : r . . t r , . rstudv ol Dr. I lc l lmich, Lbrrr f icr r tu No' : r l tun. t Oa2j ) .

s1. Jc.1n ( lc la Fontaine. rot ler , 6. , r , . .Jupi tcr

f t le juar.r \cr , ,0upircr rn, j

thc Sharc Crr-rpper).

55. l lan; Kelsr :n, ,Rcinen Accirs/ . , f r re ( le ipzigr [ . Dcut ickc, 19]4;2n<l ed..

)950), t ranr. as Purc Tha,rv ol low (Berkclcy: Univerr i t r o l Cal i lbrnia Prcss.

r967).

50. Jul icnFreund, I tssentc du polt iquclParis: Sirey, 1965), p. 332.

57. lb;d, , p. 293.

58. See I lenri Bergson, fhc Two Sourc* of llorollT and Acligion: "Whether

human or animal, .r socic(y is aD organization; i t implies a coordination an(lgen-

eral ly also a nrbordination of elcmcnts; i t thercfore cxhibits, whether merelv

embodicd in l i fe or, in addit ion, specif ical ly formulated, a col lcct ion of rules

and laws" (trans. R. Aslr lev Adura and Cloudeslev Breton lc.rrdcn Cil . NY:

Doubledar. 19541, p. )1 ).

59. Claude t-6vi-Srrauss, lrtstes Trcpiques, trans. John and Doreen Weigh.

man tNe" ) i ' rk: Arh' r r .um, lq8l t .p 18i

60. Fr iedr ich Nietzsche. I et ter of february l8?0 to Paul Deusscn. in

Nictzsche Bricfwcchscl(Bcrl in: Walter de Gruyter, 1977), p. 100.

61. Nie(,sche, fht Brth of f qcdv, trnnr. \ !hl tcr Kauihan (Ne$ lbrk:

Vintagt, 1967).

Sources

The l i r l lorv ing publ i rhers have granted pennission to usc exccrpts f rom copy

r ighted works:

Etucles <l h istoi tc et de phi l rsophtu des rr ,ences (5th (d. , Par is: Vr in, 1989),

pp. i1-2 1, 5 5, 6 l -7 3, 7 5 - '79, I l l , I l5-41. i4.{-46, I47-51. 153-60, 226-27,

2 I l - l l i , 260-71, 29 6-104. tz l -27, t29- l t . 316-.15.

I<lxlao.r and Rat'dt)dlit.v in the Htstotr Df thc Iik S.icnccr (c)mbridge. MA:

Nl lT Pr.ss, Ie88). pp. l0- 17, 5 2-5 9, 56-6 1, 6 5-70, 12 5-4,1.

I a Fornat ion du oncpt dc r t lb\c ou\ XVl l" et Xyl l l , s i i (h.s \2nd ed., Par is:

vr in, 1977), pp. 3-6, j0-32, ]4,15,4r, 52-s6,60 61,65-66,68-69, l l0 L

I t6-- t2. t55-56.

460 4al

"L ' t l is to i rc dcs science5 de I 'organisat ion de Blainvi l le ct I ,Abb6 MaupieiJ, , .

Revue d'hrtot . des \ . icnccs | (1979), pp.7 S_82 and 90_91.

"Vie," Encrclapo.dia unive6rlis t6 lts.jt), pp.762r,6(,b, J6h_(,9c.

"Physiologie animale: Histoire," fn4,r /opoe.t i . t univ. tsdtk t2 l l9t2), pp.t01S- '77 d.

" ta Phvr io logie animale aLr XV I . s icclc, ' , in RcDe Taton, &., Hnoin

ginirc le des scienR', vol . 2 (par is, presses Universiraires dc France. l95l i ) .

pp. 591-98, 601-601, 618-t9.

"La Physiologic cn Al lcmaSne, ' , jn TanrD, ed., Hi \ to i rc l i j t inb Jc,c)cnccs.

rome I I I : lo Sr iencc ro ntchporcine, \o l . l , te I i X. s j i r /e ( par is: prcsscs Univerr i_

taires de France, l96l) , pt . 482-84.

"L '1dac . lc narure dans la th6or ie et l , r prat i . lue mcr l icalcs, , , J let lecjnt dcl'l'"mmc .+3 (,March 1912J, pp. 6-1.

"Lcs Mala( l ies," in An<l16 Jacob, d. , Enc.vt lopidie phtorophtque universcl lc:

L t - tn ivcn phi losophique, vol . I {prr is: presse5 Universirr i res . le Francc. l9 l r9) ,

p. l2I5.r .

"Lc Sr) tur apisramoiogique de la medecine," Hntotr dnd phtosoftr oJ the/ i / i J , rcr ,c, l0tsuptt . , lqxxr,pp tS- la.

La Gnnatssance <lc la vr . (par i r : Vr in, 1989), pp.47_50,52 s6,s8_61,69-71,j i 76, 79, t )6-u7,83_89, 9 i_92. I02 lo+, l r ( ,_r5.

" l lcrc;rr tes et la technique," I ra lout du ! . \ " Conorcs intendt iondl<tc phi i ,so_phrc Congis Dcsc. i t tc ' , tome t l (par is: Hermann, l9 l?) , pp. 79_1j5.

"Hnroire de I 'hor lnrc ct nature der choses selon;\uguste Comtc drns l tPlan des trcvaut sctenifiqu.J' nicessdnes pout tiorqanncr k) n(iiti. t,q,!2,.,i cr frUJ.J

ph i losophryucs (197 4J, pp. 291-9't.

"Emi le Li t . r i , phi losoph! d! la bnr logic et de la medecine,, , Cenrre inrcrnat ional i ie lynihisc, , i tes r lu Co oque Eni tc I nrr l / f0 i _ i JJ/ . por is. j ,q o.bbrt/e6i (Par is: Albin Michct, 1982), pp.27t-7? anr l 279_ttO.

"LIn Phyr io logisre ptr i lG<,phe: Chude uclnar<t. , . Didto|ut 5.4 ( te(J?). pp.i56-57, s60_62, 566_6tt .

"Prel ice," in Claude Bernarr l . ter :ons sur tes phinonin.s. tc Io v ic :ontnrunsou\ t i \ 'nou| . t ou! v i { l . ru\ (p.rr i \ : Vr in, I96tr) . p. v.

i=:

=,..

!ao

x

-. ,a

-

3

'a

^.

i>--!

*r -6

=.

+!<

n=

-

ic1

2;

.==

t-cF

'=.2

+

.4.=

=ra

:2