Birth of the Allostatic Model: From Cannon’s Biocracy to Critical Physiology

Journal of the History of Biology 49 (2):397-423 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Physiologists and historians are still debating what conceptually differentiates each of the three major modern theories of regulation: the constancy of the milieu inte´rieur, homeostasis and allostasis. Here I propose that these models incarnate two distinct regimes of politization of the life sciences.This perspective leads me to suggest that the historicization of physiological norms is intrinsic to the allostatic model, which thus divides it fundamentally from the two others. I analyze the allostatic model in the light of the Canguilhemian theory, showing how the former contributed to the development of a critical epistemology immune to both naturalist essentialism and social constructivism. With a unique clarity in the history of physiology, allostasis gives us a model of the convergence of historical epistemology and scientific practice. As such it played a key role in codifying the epistemological basis of certain current research programs that, in the fields of social epidemiology and feminist neuroscience, promote what we name here a critical physiology.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-01

Downloads
24 (#644,535)

6 months
7 (#592,566)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

The dialectical biologist.Richard Levins - 1985 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Edited by Richard C. Lewontin.
The Dialectical Biologist.Philip Kitcher, Richard Levins & Richard Lewontin - 1989 - Philosophical Review 98 (2):262.
Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear, and Rage.Walter B. Cannon - 1917 - Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 14 (3):79-80.

View all 9 references / Add more references