The notion of the ‘division of physiological labour’ is today an outdated relic in the history of science. This contrasts with the fate of another notion, which was so frequently paired with the division of physiological labour, which is the concept of ‘morphological differentiation.’ This is one of the elementary modal concepts of ontogenesis. In this paper, we intend to target the problems and causes that gradually led biologists to combine these two notions during the 19th century, and to progressively (...) dissociate them, retaining only the concept of differentiation by the early 20th century. We shall adhere to the following: 1. The primitive economic concept of the division of labour is not a descriptive notion denoting a type of organisation of labour, but an etiological one: the idea of a causal relationship between this type of organization and the improvement of the whole. 2. This concept rapidly interested naturalists such as Henri Milne-Edwards, who were keen to find a rational ground for hierarchizing living forms based on anatomical complexity. 3. The validation of this notion in the realms of biology was subject to at least two conditions which were far from being fully satisfied. This did not prevent, however, the initial success of the concept of the division of physiological labour during the second half of the 19th century. 4. Finally, the gradual disqualification, within the Darwinian theoretical context, of the conception of an intrinsic hierarchical rank of organisms, led to a lack of interest in the concept of the physiological division of labour, at least in its non-Darwinian and non-ecological variant. (shrink)

It is of philosophical and epistemological interest to examine how Darwin conceived the process of division of labour within Natural History. Darwin observed the advantages brought by division of labour to the human economy, and considered that the principle of divergence within nature, which is, according to him, one of the two ‘keystones’ of his theory, gave comparable advantages. This led him to re-examine Milne-Edwards’ view on the notion of division of physiological labour, and to introduce this with modifications into (...) his naturalist writings. After a short review of the Darwinian historiography dealing with this issue, I first show the conceptual confusion into which Darwin plunges, when using a so-called economic argument to defend his thesis of the maximization of beings in a given territory due to division of labour. Following this I propose several hypotheses to explain these shifts, recurring in Darwin’s texts, from one conception and from one application to another, of the division of labour. (shrink)

The doctrines of therapeutic nihilism and administrative nihilism are both based on the belief that the norms of activity are intrinsically linked to the structure of the body. Just as there is a vis medicatrix naturae in the individual organism, which renders any intervention of the therapist vain, there would be a vis medicatrix rei publicae in the social body, which makes the intervention of the legislator in economic life pointless and even dangerous. However, such a symmetry is not quite (...) as clear as it appears at first. It has also been upheld that the real parallel is not between therapeutic and administrative nihilism, but between therapeutic nihilism and statism. In this view, government is less comparable to a therapist than to the nervous system, and just as a well regulated organism is a one with an extensive nervous system, a well regulated society is one with a strong State.We intend to retrace the historical origin of these two schemas of correspondence, which has his roots in the celebrated controversy in the 1870’s between Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley. We examine the causes of this apparent paradox, which sometimes views the doctrine of administrative nihilism, and sometimes the opposing doctrine of statism, as being the equivalent in politics of therapeutic nihilism in medicine. In our opinion, an important part of the explanation must be sought in the variations of the field of extension, which is implicitly given to the concept of vis medicatrix, or –as we now usually call this notion– that of Self-regulation. (shrink)

La division du travail physiologique est un concept tombé en désuétude en biologie. Quand l’expression est employée, c’est sans égard pour sa fonction nomologique importante dans la biologie du second xixe. Nous analyserons l’importation de la division du travail de l’économie à la biologie, malgré les difficultés de validation que posait son transfert d’une science à l’autre. La notion a ainsi continué sa carrière dans une biologie gagnée à la théorie cellulaire, cependant que ses déterminations économiques perdaient leur pertinence. Nous (...) terminerons en interrogeant sa disparition au début du xxe. La division du travail physiologique, une fois purifiée de son économicité primitive, ne pouvait sans doute que retourner à un stade métaphorique. (shrink)

The notion of the ‘division of physiological labour’ is today an outdated relic in the history of science. This contrasts with the fate of another notion, which was so frequently paired with the division of physiological labour, which is the concept of ‘morphological differentiation.’ This is one of the elementary modal concepts of ontogenesis. In this paper, we intend to target the problems and causes that gradually led biologists to combine these two notions during the 19th century, and to progressively (...) dissociate them, retaining only the concept of differentiation by the early 20th century. We shall adhere to the following: 1. The primitive economic concept of the division of labour is not a descriptive notion denoting a type of organisation of labour, but an etiological one: the idea of a causal relationship between this type of organization and the improvement of the whole. 2. This concept rapidly interested naturalists such as Henri Milne-Edwards, who were keen to find a rational ground for hierarchizing living forms based on anatomical complexity. 3. The validation of this notion in the realms of biology was subject to at least two conditions which were far from being fully satisfied. This did not prevent, however, the initial success of the concept of the division of physiological labour during the second half of the 19th century. 4. Finally, the gradual disqualification, within the Darwinian theoretical context, of the conception of an intrinsic hierarchical rank of organisms, led to a lack of interest in the concept of the physiological division of labour, at least in its non-Darwinian and non-ecological variant (the link between the division of labour within an organism and organic perfection). (shrink)

La division du travail physiologique est un concept tombé en désuétude en biologie. Quand l’expression est employée, c’est sans égard pour sa fonction nomologique importante dans la biologie du second xixe. Nous analyserons l’importation de la division du travail de l’économie à la biologie, malgré les difficultés de validation que posait son transfert d’une science à l’autre. La notion a ainsi continué sa carrière dans une biologie gagnée à la théorie cellulaire, cependant que ses déterminations économiques perdaient leur pertinence. Nous (...) terminerons en interrogeant sa disparition au début du xxe. La division du travail physiologique, une fois purifiée de son économicité primitive, ne pouvait sans doute que retourner à un stade métaphorique. (shrink)

In 1877, the young Alfred Espinas defended a philosophical study, ‘doctorat ès lettres’, at the Sorbonne University, entitled Des Sociétés animales. This was to become one of the principal sources of French organicist sociology. The paradox, however, is that this work seems to be fundamentally a study of natural science. Espinas tried to justify his position theoretically through two types of reciprocally exclusive and uncomplementary arguments. The first one consists in showing that only certain kinds of animal groupings belong legitimately, (...) if not academically, to sociology. The second one has a greater audacious and uncontrollable dimension. It consists in asserting that all pluricellular organisms are true societies. In this article we first focus on the role played by cellular theory in such a ‘sociologization’ of biology, concerning the extension of sociology. Second, we examine the importance of such confusion within the fields of extension, in aiming to explain the conceptual transfers between social sciences and life sciences, in the second half of the 19th century. (shrink)