Chapters read:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
And so it goes on as I march through chapter 4 of The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, more of the same. Chapter 3 was a history of 19th century evolutionary thought viewed through the lens of the concept of hierarchies of selection. Though Stephen Jay Gould stayed on topic much of the time, it seems that on many an occasion the link of the exposition to the notional theme would become extremely tenuous as he followed a particularly fascinating tangent and the prose just snapped off the chain. In Chapter 4 Gould exhibits many of the same tendencies though the focus now shifts toward the dichotomy between functionalism and formalism; adaptation and structural constraint. But because of the relative clarity of the subject he manages to keep the eyes on the prize with greater discipline; and yet though the prose maintains greater focus it also lacks any clarity of deep insight. Like a middle volume in a epic trilogy the argument here seems to be setting the stage for later sallies and flanking maneuvers; the reader is treated to tentative exploration of the waters of banality. I have no great objections to the thrust of the tale told, but I am left scratching my head as to why 90 pages are necessary to say what Gould says. Having read Peter J. Bowler’s Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons and Evolution: The History of an Idea the pith of the argument in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is almost entirely known to me (e.g., Gould’s explanation of the complex attitude toward evolution evinced by the eminent anatomist Richard Owen was no revelation). I know that a la carte these chapters entail no need for the literary excess which riddles them, but I suspect that defenders of this reputedly brilliant work will claim the long build up cashes out in a stupendous climax which will leave me aghast at its audacity. We shall see, but after 341 pages, 1/4 of the narration, I’ve been treated to a nearly useless prologue and passable if self-indulgent history of science.
1) Long standing tension between functionalism & adaptation and formalism & structural constraint has always existed within biology.
2) The debate has also manifested regional and social dimensions; the English were far more predisposed toward functionalism and adaptation than Continental thinkers.
3) Darwin subordinated form, Unity of Type, to adaptation, Conditions of Existence. The former was simply derived from the latter; historical coincidences or byproducts.
3) Theories of Creation and Nature before evolution also exhibited this dichotomy. While some thinkers, such as Paley, emphasized how adaptation illustrated the hand of the Designer, others such as Agassiz, claimed that the variation of form and the taxonomy that one might derive from it was a window into the mind of God.
4) There were debates on the Continent around these issues prior to Darwin. In France Cuvier and Geoffrey faced off on this issue, with the former adhering to a functionalism that had no truck with evolutionary thinking, and the latter toward the party of form which nevertheless was transmutable. Here Gould illustrates the complexity of the alliances and the cross-linkages which might occur.
5) Lots of plant, vertebrate and arthropod anatomy.
6) Richard Owen, the great anatomist, was a formalist (he was known as one of Darwin’s most vehement critics).
7) Darwin was interested in constraint and form, but in the end he always marginalized it so that his favorite child, adaptation and functionalism, took center stage.
Comments are closed.