Skip to main content

O Organism, Where Art Thou? Old and New Challenges for Organism-Centered Biology

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 12 August 2019

This article has been updated

Contemporary biology is in a state of crisis.

A general biology, a science of life as such, exists in name only.

– Julius Schaxel 1919

Abstract

This paper addresses theoretical challenges, still relevant today, that arose in the first decades of the twentieth century related to the concept of the organism. During this period, new insights into the plasticity and robustness of organisms as well as their complex interactions fueled calls, especially in the UK and in the German-speaking world, for grounding biological theory on the concept of the organism. This new organism-centered biology (OCB) understood organisms as the most important explanatory and methodological unit in biological investigations. At least three theoretical strands can be distinguished in this movement: Organicism, dialectical materialism, and (German) holistic biology. This paper shows that a major challenge of OCB was to describe the individual organism as a causally autonomous and discrete unit with consistent boundaries and, at the same time, as inextricably interwoven with its environment. In other words, OCB had to conciliate individualistic with anti-individualistic perspectives. This challenge was addressed by developing a concept of life that included functionalist and metabolic elements, as well as biochemical and physical ones. It allowed for specifying organisms as life forms that actively delimit themselves from the environment. Finally, this paper shows that the recent return to the concept of the organism, especially in the so-called “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” is challenged by similar anti-individualistic tendencies. However, in contrast to its early-twentieth-century forerunner, today’s organism-centered approaches have not yet offered a solution to this problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 12 August 2019

    Please note that this article belongs to the Special Issue on “New Styles of Thought and Practices: Biology in the Interwar Period,” guest editors Jan Baedke and Christina Brandt, but was included in volume 52, issue 2, Summer 2019 by mistake. It should be regarded as part of this special issue collection of articles.

  • 12 August 2019

    Please note that this article belongs to the Special Issue on ���New Styles of Thought and Practices: Biology in the Interwar Period,��� guest editors Jan Baedke and Christina Brandt, but was included in volume 52, issue 2, Summer 2019 by mistake. It should be regarded as part of this special issue collection of articles.

References

  1. Abir-Am, P.G. 1987. The Biotheoretical Gathering, Transdisciplinary Authority and the Incipient Legitimation of Molecular Biology in the 1930s: New Perspective on the Historical Sociology of Science. History of Science 25: 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, G.E. 1980. Dialectical Materialism in Modern Biology. Science and Nature 3: 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allen, G.E. 2005. Mechanism, Vitalism and Organicism in Late Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Biology: The Importance of Historical Context. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 261–283.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alverdes, F. 1932. Die Ganzheitsbetrachtung in der Biologie. Berlin: Elsner.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amidon, K.S. 2008. Adolf Meyer-Abich, Holism, and the Negotiation of Theoretical Biology. Biological Theory 3: 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baedke, J. 2017. The New Biology of the Social: Shaping Humans’ Future, Science, and Public Health. In Imagined Futures in Science, Technology and Society, eds. G. Verschraegen, F. Vandermoere, L. Brackmans, and B. Segaert, 45–64. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baedke, J. 2018. Above the Gene, Beyond Biology: Towards a Philosophy of Epigenetics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baedke, J. forthcoming. What is a Biological Individual? In Old Questions and Young Approaches to Animal Evolution, eds. J.M. Martín-Durán and B.C. Vellutini. Dordrecht: Springer.

  9. Bateson, P. 2005. The Return of the Whole Organism. Journal of Biosciences 30: 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bernal, J.D. 1935. Engels and Science (Labour Monthly Pamphlets 6). London: Trinity Trust.

  11. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1928. Kritische Theorie der Formbildung. Berlin: Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1930. Tatsachen und Theorien der Formbildung als Weg zum Lebensproblem. Erkenntnis 1: 361–407.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1932. Theoretische Biologie. Vol. 1. Berlin: Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1933. Modern Theories of Development. Trans. J.H. Woodger. Oxford: OUP.

  15. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1942. Theoretische Biologie, 2 vols. Berlin: Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1952. Problems of Life. New York: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brentari, C. (ed.). 2015. Jakob von Uexküll. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bukharin, N.I. (ed.). 1931. Science at the Cross Roads. London: Kniga.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cheung, T. 2006. From the Organism of a Body to the Body of an Organism: Occurrence and Meaning of the Word ‘Organism’ from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries. British Journal for the History of Science 39: 319–339.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Child, C.M. 1915. Individuality in Organisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession. Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Driesch, H. 1892. Entwicklungsmechanische Studien. III. Die Verminderung des Furchungsmaterials und ihre Folgen (Weiteres über Theilbildungen). IV. Experimentelle Veränderungen des Typus der Furchung und ihre Folgen (Wirkungen von Wärmezufuhr und von Druck). V. Von der Furchung doppeltbefruchteter Eier. VI. Ueber einige allgemeine Fragen der theoretischen Morphologie. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 55: 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Driesch, H. 1899. Die Lokalisierung morphogenetischer Vorgänge: Ein Beweis vitalistischen Geschehens. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Driesch, H. 1908. The Science and Philosophy of the Organism. London: Black.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Driesch, H. 1914. The Problem of Individuality. London: Macmillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dürken, B. 1936. Entwicklungsbiologie und Ganzheit. Leipzig: Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ebeling, A.H. 1913. The Permanent Life of Connective Tissue Outside of the Organism. Journal of Experimental Medicine 17: 273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Emerson, A.E. 1939. Social Coordination and the Superorganism. American Midland Naturalist 21: 182–209.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Freyhofer, H.H. 1982. The Vitalism of Hans Driesch. Frankfurt: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gibson, A.H., C.L. Kwapich, and M. Lang. 2013. The Roots of Multilevel Selection: Concepts of Biological Individuality in the Early Twentieth Century. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 35: 505–532.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gilbert, S.F. 2014. A Holobiont Birth Narrative: The Epigenetic Transmission of the Human Microbiome. Frontiers in Genetics 5: 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00282.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gilbert, S.F., J. Sapp, and A.I. Tauber. 2012. A Symbiotic View of Life: We Have Never Been Individuals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 87: 325–341.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Goldstein, K. 1934. Der Aufbau des Organismus. The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Goodwin, B. 1999. Reclaiming a Life of Quality. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 229–235.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Graham, L.R. 1987. Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Griffiths, P.E., and R.D. Gray. 2001. Darwinism and Developmental Systems. In Cycles of Contingency, eds. S. Oyama, P.E. Griffiths, and R.D. Gray, 195–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer.

  38. Haldane, J.B.S. 1947. What is Life?. New York: Boni and Gaer.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Haldane, J.S. 1884. Life and Mechanism. Mind 9: 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Haldane, J.S. 1917. Organism and Environment as Illustrated by the Physiology of Breathing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Haldane, J.S. 1931. The Philosophical Basis of Biology. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Haldane, J.S. 1935. The Philosophy of a Biologist. Oxford: Claredon.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hein, H. 1972. The Endurance of the Mechanism—Vitalism Controversy. Journal of the History of Biology 5: 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Henderson, L.J. 1913. The Fitness of the Environment. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Henderson, L.J. 1917. The Order of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hertwig, O. 1906. Allgemeine Biologie. Jena: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hertwig, O. 1922. Der Staat als Organismus. Jena: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hopkins, F.G. 1913. An Address on the Dynamic Side of Biochemistry. British Medical Journal 2: 713–717.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hopwood, N. 1997. Biology Between University and Proletariat: The Making of a Red Professor. History of Science 35: 367–424.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Huneman, P. 2010. Assessing the Prospects for a Return of Organisms in Evolutionary Biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32: 341–371.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Huxley, J.S. 1912. The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Huxley, J.S. 1926. The Biological Basis of Individuality. Journal of Philosophical Studies 1: 305–319.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jablonka, E., and M.J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Joravsky, D. 1963. Soviet Marxism and Biology. American Journal of Jurisprudence 8: 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kammerer, P. 1907. Die Nachkommen der spaetgeborenen Salamandra maculosa und der fruehgeborenen Salamandra atra. Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 25: 7–51.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kant, I. 1902. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Kants gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5, Academy Edition, ed. Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer. [Original: 1790/1793].

  57. Koestler, A. 1971. The Case of the Midwife Toad. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Laland, K., and G. Brown. 2018. The Social Construction of Human Nature. In Why We Disagree About Human Nature, eds. T. Lewens and E. Hannon, 127–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Laland, K., B. Matthews, and M.F. Feldman. 2016. An Introduction to Niche Construction Theory. Evolutionary Ecology 30: 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Laland, K., T. Uller, M. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G.B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, and J.Odling-Smee. 2014. Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? Yes, Urgently. Nature News 514: 161–164.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Laland, K., T. Uller, M. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G.B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, and J.Odling-Smee. 2015. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: 20151019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Laubichler, M. 2001. Mit oder ohne Darwin? Die Bedeutung der darwinschen Selektionstheorie in der Konzeption der Theoretischen Biologie in Deutschland von 1900 bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. In Darwinismus und/als Ideologie, eds. U. Hoßfeld and R. Brömer, 229–262. Berlin: VWB.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Levins, R., and R.C. Lewontin. 1985. The Dialectical Biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lewens, Tim. 2017. Human Nature, Human Culture: The Case of Cultural Evolution. Interface Focus 7: 20170018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0018.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lidgard, S., and L.K. Nyhart. 2017. The Work of Biological Individuality: Concepts and Contexts. In Biological Individuality, eds. S. Lidgard and L.K. Nyhart, 17–62. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lillie, R.S. 1945. General Biology and Philosophy of Organism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Linsbauer, K. 1934. Individuum—System—Organismus: Ein Beitrag zum Mechanismus-Vitalismus-Problem. Mitteilungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Steiermark 71: 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lloyd Morgan, C. 1926. The Concept of the Organism, Emergent and Resultant. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 27: 141–176.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Meyer, A. 1935. Krisenepochen und Wendepunkte des biologischen Denkens. Jena:Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Meyer-Abich, A. 1940. Hauptgedanken des Holismus. Acta Biotheoretica 5: 85–116.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Meyer-Abich, A. 1942. Kant und das biologische Denken. Acta Biotheoretica 6: 185–211.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Meyer-Abich, A. 1948. Naturphilosophie auf neuen Wegen. Stuttgart: Hippokrates.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Meyer-Abich, A. 1956. Organismen als Holismen. Acta Biotheoretica 11: 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Minelli, A., and G. Fusco (eds.). 2008. Evolving Pathways. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Needham, J. 1928. Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology 3: 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Needham, J. 1929. The Skeptical Biologist. London: Chatto and Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Needham, J. 1936. Order and Life. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Needham, J. 1937. Integrative Levels. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nicholson, D.J. 2014. The Return of the Organism as a Fundamental Explanatory Concept in Biology. Philosophy Compass 9: 347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Nicholson, D.J. 2018. Reconceptualizing the Organism: From Complex Machine to Flowing Stream. In Everything Flows, eds. D.J. Nicholson and J. Dupré, 139–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Nicholson, D.J., and R. Gawne. 2014. Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 47: 243–292.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Nicholson, D.J., and R. Gawne. 2015. Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37: 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Niewöhner, J. 2011. Epigenetics: Embedded Bodies and the Molecularisation of Biography and Milieu. BioSocieties 6: 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Pepper, J.W., and M.D. Herron. 2008. Does Biology Need an Organism Concept?’ Biological Reviews 84: 627–628.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Peterson, E.L. 2011. The Excluded Philosophy of Evo-Devo? Revisiting C. H. Waddington’s Failed Attempt to Embed Alfred North Whitehead’s ‘Organicism’ in Evolutionary Biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33: 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Peterson, E.L. 2016. The Life Organic. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Pigliucci, M., and G.B. Müller (eds.). 2010. Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Pouvreau, D. 2009. The Dialectical Tragedy of the Concept of Wholeness: Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Biography Revisited. Marblehead, MA: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Prenant, M. 1938. Biology and Marxism. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Reiß, C. 2007. No Evolution, No Heredity, Just Development—Julius Schaxel and the End of the Evo-Devo Agenda in Jena, 1906–1933: A Case Study. Theory in Biosciences 126: 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Reydon, T.A.C., Dullemeijer, P., and Hemerik, L. 2005. The History of Acta Biotheoretica and the Nature of Theoretical Biology. In Current Themes in Theoretical Biology, eds. T.A.C. Reydon and L. Hemerik, 1–8. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ritter, W.E. 1919. The Unity of the Organism, or the Organismal Conception of Life. 2 vols. Boston: Gorham Press.

  94. Roux, W. 1881. Der Kampf der Teile im Organismus. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Russell, E.S. 1924. The Study of Living Things. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Russell, E.S. 1930. The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Russell, E.S. 1950. The ‘Drive’ Element in Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1: 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sarkar, S. 1992. Science, Philosophy, and Politics in the Work of J. B. S. Haldane, 1922–1937. Biology and Philosophy 7: 385–409.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Schaxel, J. 1917. Mechanismus, Vitalismus und kritische Biologie. Biologisches Centralblatt 37: 188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Schaxel, J. 1919. Grundzüge der Theoriebildung in der Biologie. Jena: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Schaxel, J. 1931. Das biologische Individuum. Erkenntnis 1: 467–492.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Schrödinger, E. 1944. What is Life?. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sershantow, W.F. 1978. Einführung in die Methodologie der modernen Biologie. Jena:Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Sheehan, H.M. 2007. J. D. Bernal: Philosophy, Politics and the Science of Science. Journal of Physics 57: 29–39.

  105. Smuts, J. 1926. Holism and Evolution. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Sölch, D. 2016. Wheeler and Whitehead: Process Biology and Process Philosophy in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of the History of Ideas 77: 489–507.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Spemann, H., and Schotté, O.E. 1932. Über xenoplastische Transplantation als Mittel zur Analyse der embryonalen Induktion. Naturwissenschaften 20: 463–467.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Stahl, G.E. 1684. Dissertatio Medica Inauguralis De Intestinis…. Jena.

  109. Stockard, C.R. 1921. Developmental Rate and Structural Expression: An Experimental Study of Twins, ‘Double Monsters’ and Single Deformities, and the Interaction among Embryonic Organs during Their Origin and Development. American Journal of Anatomy 28: 115–277.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Sultan, S.E. 2015. Organism and Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Svensson, E.I. 2018. On Reciprocal Causation in the Evolutionary Process. Evolutionary Biology 45: 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-017-9431-x.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Toepfer, G. 2011. Organismus. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Biologie, vol. 2, ed. G. Toepfer, 777–842. Stuttgart: Metzler.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Turner, J.S. 2000. The Extended Organism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Uexküll, J.v. 1909. Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Uexküll, J.v. 1928. Theoretische Biologie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Ungerer, E. 1926. Die Regulationen der Pflanzen. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Ungerer, E. 1965. Die Erkenntnisgrundlagen der Biologie. Ihre Geschichte und ihr gegenwärtiger Stand. In Handbuch der Biologie, vol. 1, ed. F. Gessner, 1–94. Konstanz: Athenaion.

  118. Vargas, A.O., Q. Krabichler, and C. Guerrero-Bosagna. 2016. An Epigenetic Perspective on the Midwife Toad Experiments of Paul Kammerer (1880–1926). Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B 328: 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Waddington, C.H. 1940. Organisers & Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Waddington, C.H. 1942. The Epigenotype. Endeavour 1: 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Waddington, C.H. 1957. The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Waggoner, M.R., and T. Uller. 2015. Epigenetic Determinism in Science and Society. New Genetics and Society 34: 177–195.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Walsh, D.M. 2015. Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Weiss, P.A. 1940. The Problem of Cell Individuality in Development. American Naturalist 74: 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Wheeler, W.M. 1911. The Ant Colony as an Organism. Journal of Morphology 22: 307–325.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Wheeler, W.M. 1920. The Termitodoxa, or Biology and Society. The Scientific Monthly 10: 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Wheeler, W.M. 1928. The Social Insects. New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Whitehead, A.N. 1925. Science and the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Willmer, E.N. 1965. Cells and Tissues in Culture. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Woltereck, R. 1909. Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen über Artveränderung, speziel über das Wesen quantitativer Artunterschiede bei Daphniden. Verhandlungen der deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft 19: 110–173.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Woodger, J.H. 1929. Biological Principles. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Woodger, J.H. 1930–1931. The ‘Concept of Organism’ and the Relation between Embryology and Genetics. Part I-III. The Quarterly Review of Biology 5: 1–22, 438–463; 6: 178–207.

  133. Zavadovsky, B. 1931. The ‘Physical’ and ‘Biological’ in the Process of Organic Evolution. In Science at the Cross Roads, ed. N.I. Bukharin, 69–80. London: Kniga.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Daniel Brooks, Abigail Nieves Delgado, Richard Gawne, Nick Hopwood, Alessandro Minelli, Erik L. Peterson, Helmut Pulte, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank the session audiences at the meeting of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science in São Paulo (Brazil, 2017) and at the workshop ‘New Styles of Thought and Practices in Early 20th century Biology: Epistemologies and Politics’ in Bochum (Germany, 2016) for feedback on presentations on this topic. In addition, I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the German Research Foundation (DFG; Project No. BA 5808/1-1) and the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (KLI), Vienna.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Baedke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baedke, J. O Organism, Where Art Thou? Old and New Challenges for Organism-Centered Biology. J Hist Biol 52, 293–324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-018-9549-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Organism
  • Organicism
  • Dialectical materialism
  • Holistic biology
  • Biological individual
  • Life
  • Extended Evolutionary Synthesis