What are the prospects for a monistic view of biological individuality given the multiple epistemic roles the concept must satisfy? In this paper, I examine the epistemic adequacy of two recent accounts based on the capacity to undergo natural selection. One is from Ellen Clarke, and the other is by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Clarke’s position reflects a strong monism, in that she aims to characterize individuality in purely functional terms and refrains from privileging any specific material properties as important in their own right. I argue that Clarke’s functionalism impairs the epistemic adequacy of her account compared to a middle-ground position taken by Godfrey-Smith. In comparing Clarke and Godfrey-Smith’s account, two pathways emerge to pluralism about biological individuality. The first develops from the contrast between functionalist and materialist approaches, and the second from an underlying temporal structure involved in using evolutionary processes to define individuality.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Additionally, Clarke equates organisms and biological individuals in her account, but Godfrey-Smith treats the two as intersecting but not identical. He therefore allows a global pluralism about the units of biology in a way that Clarke does not.
The universality of functionalist approaches partly derives from introducing ambiguities in the meaning of evolution by natural selection (ENS) that can only be removed by adding back in material details, e.g. about life cycle structure. Godfrey-Smith has argued that our most general definitions of ENS, such as Lewontin’s criteria above, fall short of giving necessary and sufficient conditions (Godfrey-Smith 2007, 2009). Instead, we should understand the different formulations of ENS as providing models whose explanatory and predictive value depends on various idealizations and approximations. For example, some popular formulations of ENS depend on the idealization of synchronized generations, but this rules out a case where differences in generation time drive population change even when every parent has the same number of offspring (Godfrey-Smith 2007, 495–496). As a result, the material details of reproduction lead us to apply different formulations of ENS across contexts and thereby exert influence on its overall meaning rather than simply factoring into the capacity for selection once a formulation has already been selected. Failing to be precise about these material aspects of a case may lead us to mischaracterize the effects of individuating mechanisms, e.g. by focusing solely on the number of offspring per generation and overlooking generation time.
I should note that Godfrey-Smith has developed other resources for guiding modeling practice in collaboration with Benjamin Kerr that do not rely on the concept of individuality (Godfrey-Smith and Kerr 2013).
Note that Clarke simply equates organisms and individuals in her account (Clarke 2013).
Abreu F, Martins JL, Silveira TS, Keim CN, de Barros HGPL, Filho FJG, Lins U (2007) ‘Candidatus Magnetoglobus multicellularis’, a multicellular, magnetotactic prokaryote from a hypersaline environment. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 57(6):1318–1322. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.64857-0
Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose. Biol Philos 9:443–469
Arnellos A, Moreno A (2015) Multicellular agency: an organizational view. Biol Philos 30(3):333–357. doi:10.1007/s10539-015-9484-0
Arnellos A, Moreno A, Ruiz-Mirazo K (2013) Organizational requirements for multicellular autonomy: insights from a comparative case study. Biol Philos 29(6):851–884. doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9387-x
Birch J (2015) Natural selection and the maximization of fitness. Biol Rev. doi:10.1111/brv.12190
Booth A (2014) Populations and individuals in heterokaryotic fungi: a multilevel perspective. Philos Sci 81(4):612–632. doi:10.1086/677953
Brigandt I (2011) Natural kinds and concepts: a pragmatist and methodologically naturalistic account. In: Knowles J, Rydenfelt H (eds) Pragmatism, science, and naturalism. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, New York, pp 171–196
Clarke E (2011a) The problem of biological individuality. Biol Theory 5(4):312–325
Clarke E (2011b) Plant individuality and multilevel selection theory. In: Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) Major transitions in evolution revisited. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 227–250
Clarke E (2012) Plant individuality: a solution to the demographer’s dilemma. Biol Philos 27(3):321–361. doi:10.1007/s10539-012-9309-3
Clarke E (2013) The multiple realizability of biological individuals. J Philos C 10(8):413–435
Clarke E (2014) Origins of evolutionary transitions. J Biosci 39(1):1–14. doi:10.1007/s12038-013-9375-y
Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72(20):741–765
Ereshefsky M, Pedroso M (2012) Biological individuality: the case of biofilms. Biol Philos 28(2):331–349. doi:10.1007/s10539-012-9340-4
Folse HJ III, Roughgarden J (2010) What is an individual organism? A multilevel selection perspective. Q Rev Biol 85(4):447–472. doi:10.1086/656905
Gardner A (2009) Adaptation as organism design. Biol Lett 5(6):861–864. doi:10.1086/522809
Gardner A, Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation. J Evol Biol 22(4):659–671. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01681.x
Godfrey-Smith P (2007) Conditions for evolution by natural selection. J Philos 104(10):489–516.
Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Godfrey-Smith P (2011) Agents and acacias: replies to dennett, sterelny, and queller. Biol Philos 26(4):501–515. doi:10.1007/s10539-011-9246-6
Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Darwinian individuals. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: perspectives on biological associations and emerging individuality. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 17–36
Godfrey-Smith P, Kerr B (2013) Gestalt-switching and the evolutionary transitions. Br J Philos Sci 64(1):205–222. doi:10.1093/bjps/axr051
Leigh EG Jr (2010) The group selection controversy. J Evol Biol 23(1):6–19. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01876.x
Lewontin RC (1970) The units of selection. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 1:1–18
Love AC (2008) Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties: criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philos Sci 75(5):874–886. doi:10.1086/594531
Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York
Michod RE (1999) Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in fitness and individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Michod RE (2006) On the transfer of fitness from the cell to the multicellular organism. Biol Philos 20(5):967–987. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-9018-2
Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, New York
Pepper JW, Herron MD (2008) Does biology need an organism concept? Biol Rev 83(4):621–627. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00057.x
Pradeu T (2012) The limits of the self: immunology and biological identity. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2009) Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1533):3143–3155. doi:10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00215-X
Shelton DE, Michod RE (2009) Philosophical foundations for the hierarchy of life. Biol Philos 25(3):391–403. doi:10.1007/s10539-009-9160-3
Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sober E, Wilson DS (2011) Adaptation and natural selection revisited. J Evol Biol 24(2):462–468. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02162.x
Sterelny K (2011) Darwinian spaces: Peter Godfrey-Smith on selection and evolution. Biol Philos 26(4):489–500. doi:10.1007/s10539-010-9244-0
Sterner B. Individuality and the control of life cycles. In: S Lidgard, Nyhart L (eds) E Pluribus Unum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (forthcoming)c
Wilson RA (2005) Genes and the agents of life: the individual in the fragile sciences: biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wilson RA, Barker MJ (2014) The biological notion of individual. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/biology-individual/
Wilson DS, Sober E (1989) Reviving the superorganism. J Theor Biol 136(3):337–356
Many thanks to Scott Lidgard, Joyce Havstad, and Jim Griesemer for their helpful comments. My thanks also to Erin Barringer-Sterner for her support in polishing this paper and a healthy perspective on all things academic. This research was funded in part by National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship SES-1153114.
About this article
Cite this article
Sterner, B. Pathways to pluralism about biological individuality. Biol Philos 30, 609–628 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9494-y
- Multi-level selection
- Natural selection
- Evolutionary transitions
- Group selection