, Volume 190, Issue 11, pp 1899–1916 | Cite as

Deviant interdisciplinarity as philosophical practice: prolegomena to deep intellectual history

  • Steve Fuller


Philosophy may relate to interdisciplinarity in two distinct ways On the one hand, philosophy may play an auxiliary role in the process of interdisciplinarity, typically through conceptual analysis, in the understanding that the disciplines themselves are the main epistemic players. This version of the relationship I characterise as ‘normal’ because it captures the more common pattern of the relationship, which in turn reflects an acceptance of the division of organized inquiry into disciplines. On the other hand, philosophy may be itself the site for the production of interdisciplinary knowledge, understood as a kind of second-order understanding of reality that transcends the sort of knowledge that the disciplines provide, left to their own devices. This is my own position, which I dub ‘deviant’ and to which most of this article is devoted. I begin by relating the two types of interdisciplinarity to the organization of inquiry, especially their respective attitudes to the history of science. Underlying the two types are contrasting notions of what constitutes the ‘efficient’ pursuit of knowledge. This difference is further explored in terms of the organization of the university. The normal/deviant distinction was already marked in the institution’s medieval origins in terms of the difference between Doctors and Masters, respectively, an artefact of which remains in the postgraduate/undergraduate degree distinction. In the context of the history of the university, the prospects for deviant interdisciplinarity were greatest from the early sixteenth to the early nineteenth century—the period called ‘early modern’ in the philosophy curriculum. Towards the end of that period, due to Kant and the generation of idealists who followed him, philosophy was briefly the privileged site for deviant interdisciplinarity. After Hegel’s death, the mantle of deviant interdisciplinarity increasingly passed to some version of ‘biology’. I explore the ‘Natur-’ and ‘Geisteswissenschaft’ versions of that post-philosophical vision, which continue to co-exist within today’s biological science. I then briefly examine the chequered reputation of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, someone who exemplified the promise and perils of deviant interdisciplinarity over the past 200 years. I conclude with an Epilogue that considers contemporary efforts to engage philosophy in interdisciplinary work, invoking William James as an exemplar.


Biology Deviant interdisciplinarity Energy Idealism Integration Kant Naturphilosophie Normal interdisciplinarity Positivism Reduction University Lamarck William James 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arthur W. B. (2009) The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson G. (1979) Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Bantam Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz R. (2005) The gift of science: Leibniz and the modern legal tradition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertalanffy L. v. (1950) An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1: 134–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bordogna F. (2008) William James at the boundaries: Philosophy, science, and the geography of knowledge. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler R. (2005) Sentient nature and human economy. History of the Human Sciences 19(1): 23–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkhardt R. (1970) Lamarck, evolution and the politics of science. Journal of the History of Biology 3: 275–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassirer, E. (1923). Substance and function (Orig. 1910). La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen I. B. (1985) Revolution in science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins R. (1998) The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Crease R., Mann C. (1986) The second creation: The makers of the revolution in twentieth-century physics. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Crombie, A. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts (3 vols.). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  13. Darnton R. (1984) The great cat massacre and other episodes in French Cultural History. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickens P. (2000) Social Darwinism: Linking evolutionary thought to social theory. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  15. Drexler E. (1986) Engines of creation: The coming age of nanotechnology. Doubleday, Garden City, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyson F. (2007) Our biotech future. The New York Review of Books 54(12): 4–8Google Scholar
  17. Erikson E. (1968) Identity: Youth and crisis. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller S. (2000) Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller S. (2006a) The philosophy of science and technology studies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller S. (2007a) New frontiers in science and technology studies. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuller S. (2007b) The knowledge book: Key concepts in philosophy, science and culture. Acumen, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuller, S. (2008a). Conatus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (Chap. 10). Stockfield: Acumen.Google Scholar
  23. Fuller S. (2008b) The normative turn: Counterfactuals and a philosophical historiography of science. Isis 99: 576–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuller S. (2009a) The sociology of intellectual life. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller S. (2009b) The genealogy of judgement: Towards a deep history of academic freedom. British Journal of Educational Studies 57: 164–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuller S. (2010a) Science: The art of living. Acumen and McGill-Queens University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuller S. (2010b) Deviant interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R., Klein J. T., Mitcham C. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 50–64Google Scholar
  28. Fuller S. (2011) Humanity 2.0: What it means to be human past, present and future. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuller, S., & Collier, J. (2004). Philosophy, rhetoric and the end of knowledge (2nd ed., Orig. by Fuller, 1993). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Gillispie C. (1958) Lamarck and Darwin in the history of science. American Scientist 46(4): 388–409Google Scholar
  31. Harrington A. (1999) Holism in German culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrison P. (2007) The fall of man and the foundations of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heidelberger M. (2004) Nature from within: Gustav Fechner and his psychophysical worldview. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  34. Holton G. (1993) From the Vienna Circle to Harvard Square: The Americanization of a European World Conception. In: Stadler F., Scientific philosophy: Origins and developments. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitcher P. (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Koehler W. (1938) The place of value in a world of facts. Liveright Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., Orig. 1962). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lamont M. (2009) How professors think. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Laudan L. (1981) Science and hypothesis. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lynch W. (2002) Solomon’s child: Method in the early Royal Society of London. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Mendelsohn E. (1974) Reduction and revolution: The sociology of methodological and philosophical concerns in 19th century biology. In: Elkana Y. (Ed.), Interaction between science and philosophy. Humanities Press, New York, pp 407–427Google Scholar
  42. Menudo J. M. (2010) Perfect’ Competition in A.-R.-J. Turgot: A contractualist theory of just exchange. Economie et Société 44(12): 1885–1916Google Scholar
  43. Merz, J. T. (1965). A History of European thought in the 19th century (4 vols., Orig. 1896–1914). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  44. Morange M. (1998) A history of molecular biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Rourke, M., & Crowley, S.J. (2012). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science. The story of the toolbox project. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-175-y
  46. Packard A. (1901) Lamarck, the founder of evolution. Longmans, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabinbach A. (1990) The human motor: Energy, fatigue, and the origins of modernity. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Richards R. J. (1987) Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruse M. (1999) Mystery of mysteries: Is evolution a social construction?. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  50. Sapp J. (2008) The iconoclastic research program of Carl Woese. In: Harmen O., Dietrich M. (Eds.), Rebels, mavericks, and heretics in biology. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  51. Schnädelbach H. (1984) Philosophy in Germany, 1831–1933. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Schrödinger, E. (1955). What is life? The physical aspects of the living cell (Orig. 1944). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Schroeder-Gudehus B. et al (1989) Nationalism and internationalism. In: Olby R. (Ed.), Companion to the history of modern science. Routledge, London, pp 909–919Google Scholar
  54. Schumpeter, J. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (2nd ed., Orig. 1942). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  55. Sullivan K. (2011) The inner lives of the medieval inquisitors. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teilhardde Chardin P. (1955) The phenomenon of man. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Tuana, N. (2012). Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2.
  58. Tullock G. (1966) The organization of inquiry. Duke University Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  59. Veit-Brause I. (2001) Scientists and the cultural politics of academic disciplines in late 19th century Germany: Emil DuBois-Reymond and the controversy over the role of the cultural sciences. History of the Human Sciences 14(4): 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilmut I, Campbell K., Tudge C. (2000) The second creation: Dolly and the age of biological control. Farrar Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Yates F. (1966) The art of memory. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations