Medicine Studies

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 29–39

On the Normativity of the Immune System

Article

Abstract

In the 1940s, Georges Canguilhem has established the concept of biological normativity on the level of the organism in his key work on “The Normal and the Pathological”. We would like to present a contemporary analysis of Canguilhem’s work, set it in context with more recent results from the field of complexity and immunology, and evaluate the problematic whether normativity is a genuine capacity of the organism. Based on Canguilhem’s conditions of the definition of biological normativity, we show that the immune system as one of the complex systems of the living equally shares the capacity to be normative. We will then conclude that normativity can also be conceptually independently displayed on the level of complex systems of the living.

Keywords

Immunological Theory Concepts in medicine Georges Canguilhem Epistemology Immunology Normal and pathological 

References

  1. Ashby, W.R. 1948. The homeostat. Electron 20: 380.Google Scholar
  2. Bernard, C. 1984. Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  3. Borck, C. 2005. Erkenntnis des Lebenden. Eine Skizze zu Georges Canguilhem. In Maß und Eigensinn: Studien im Anschluß an Georges Canguilhem, eds. C. Borck, V. Hess, and H. Schmidgen. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  4. Canguilhem, G. 1943. Essai sur quelques problèmes concernant le normal et le pathologique. Clermont-Ferrand: Publications de la faculté des lettres de l’université de Strasbourg, fascicule 100.Google Scholar
  5. Canguilhem, G. 1965. La connaissance de la vie, 159. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  6. Canguilhem, G. 1966. Le Normal et le Pathologique, 138. Presses Universitaires de France. Translation: Canguilhem, G. 1978. On the normal and the pathological. In Studies in the history of modern science, Vol. 3, eds. by Cohen, Robert S., Hiebert, Erwin N., and I. Everett. Mendelsohn (trans: Carolyn, R., Fawcett D.), 121. Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Canguilhem, G. 1994. L’idée de la médecine expérimentale selon Claude Bernard, Etudes d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences concernant le vivant et la vie. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  8. Debru, C. 1993. Georges Canguilhem et la normativité du pathologique: dimensions épistémologiques et éthiques. In Georges Canguilhem, philosophe et historien des sciences. Actes du colloque (6.8. Décembre 1990), 113–114. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  9. Debru, C. 2004. Georges Canguilhem, science et non-science. Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm.Google Scholar
  10. Goldstein, K. 1933. L’analyse de l’aphasie et l’étude de l’essence du langage. Journal de Psychologie 30: 430.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, K. 1951. La Structure de l’Organisme, 178. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  12. Hardcastle, V.G. 2002. On the normativity of functions. In Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology, ed. A. Ariew, R. Cummins, and M. Perlman, 149f. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hucklenbroich, P. 2007. Krankheit—Begriffsklärung und Grundlagen einer Krankheitstheorie. Erwägen Wissen Ethik 18(1): 77–90.Google Scholar
  14. Jerne, N.K. 1974. Towards a network theory of the immune system. Annales d’Immunologie (Paris) 125C(1–2): 373–389.Google Scholar
  15. Kauffman, S. 1993. The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keir, M.E., M.J. Butte, G.J. Freeman, and Sharpe. 2008. PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity. Annual Review of Immunology 26: 677–704.Google Scholar
  17. Korsgaard, C.M. 1996. The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leriche, R. 1936. De la santé à la maladie. La douleur dans les maladies; Où va la médecine? In Encyclopédie française Tome VI. L'être humain, eds. A. de Monzie, L. Febvre, G. Berger, and R. Leriche. Paris: Société de l’Encyclopédie française.Google Scholar
  19. Pradeu, T., and E. Carosella. 2006. L’identité en immunologie: soi ou continuité? In L’Identité. Soi et non-soi, individu et personne, eds. E. Carosella, T. Pradeu, B. Saint-Sernin, and C. Debru. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  20. Pradeu, T., and E. Carosella. 2006. The self model and the conception of biological identity in immunology. Biology and Philosophy 21(2): 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sakaguchi, S., T. Yamaguchi, T. Nomura, and M. Ono. 2008. Regulatory T cells and immune tolerance. Cell 30(133): 775–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. St. Clair, E.W. 2007. New reagents on the horizon for immune tolerance. Annual Review of Medicine 58: 329–346.Google Scholar
  23. Trnka, P. 2003. Subjectivity and values in medicine: The case of Canguilhem. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28(4): 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Von Bertalanffy, L. 1973. General system theory. Harmondsworth: Penguin University Books.Google Scholar
  25. Walliser, B. 1977. Systèmes et modèles. Introduction critique à l’analyse de systèmes. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRPHLES USR 3308, Department of PhilosophyEcole Normale SupérieureParisFrance
  2. 2.Tumor and Transplantation Immunology Laboratory, Clinic I for Internal MedicineUniversity Hospital of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations