Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:22:21.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resurrecting the Body: Has Postmodernism Had Any Effect on Biology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Scott F. Gilbert
Scott F. Gilbert
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Swarthmore College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While postmodernism has had very little influence in biology (for reasons discussed in the paper), it can provide a framework for discussing the context in which biology is done. Here, four biological views of the body/self are contrasted: the neural, immunological, genetic, and Phenotypic bodies. Each physical view of the body extrapolates into a different model of the body politic, and each posits a different relationship between bodies of knowledge. The neural view of the body models a body politic wherein society is defined by its culture and laws. The genetic view privileges views of polities based on ethnicity and race. The immune body extrapolates into polities that can defend themselves against other such polities. The phenotypic view of the body politic stands in opposition to these three major perspectives and integrates them without given any predominance. The view of science as a “neural” body of knowledge contends that science is aperspectival and objective. The perspective of the “immune” body is that science exists to defend the interests of its creators. The genetic view of science is that science is the basis of all culture. The extrapolation of the phenotypic body to science insists upon the utilitarian rationale for scientific enterprises. In all instances, the genetic view of the body/body politic/body of science is presently in ascendance.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Winter 1995 , pp. 563 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baltimore, D. 1984. “The Brain of a Cell.” Science 84 (November): 149–51.Google Scholar
Berrill, N. J. 1939. “Forward.” Growth 1 (supplement): i.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K. W. 1966. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. 1979. “The Metaphorical Structuring of Social Perceptions.” Soundings 62: 166–86.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. In press. “Bodies of Knowledge: Biology and the Intercultural University.“. In Changing Life: Genomes, Globes, Bodies and Commodities, edited by Taylor, P., Edwards, P., and Halfon, S.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. and Borish, S.. In press. “How Cells Learn: Induction, Competence and Education within the Body.” In Change and Development: Issues of Theory, Method, and Application, edited by Reninger, and Amsel, . Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gilman, S. 1988. “AIDS and Syphilis: The Iconography of Disease.” In AIDS: Cultural Analysis, Cultural Activism, edited by Crimp, D., 87–107. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, R. G. 1933. “Some Difficulties of the Determination Problem.” Amer. Nat. 67: 306–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, R., and Wald., E. 1993. Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
Huxley, T. H. 1897. Science and Education. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Klein, J. 1982. Immunology: The Science of Self-Nonself Discrimination. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Koshland, D. E. 1990. “The Rational Approach to the Irrational.” Science 264 (14 April): 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindee, S. 1992. “The Gene as Sacred Object in Popular Culture.” Paper delivered at History and Philosophy of Science Workshop, 7 December.Google Scholar
Margulis, L. 1981. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Martin, E. 1992. “The End of the Body?” American Ethnolog. 19: 121–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, J. 1989. “The End of the Body.” In Fragments of a History of the Human Body Part 2, Zone 4. Edited by Feher, M., 491–517. New York: Zone Press.Google Scholar
Sapp, J. 1987. Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sapp, J. 1991. “Concepts of Organization: The Leverage of Ciliate Protozoa.” In A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology, edited by Gilbert, S., 229–58. New York: Plenum press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spengler, O. [1927] 1955. “The Meaning of Numbers.” In The World of Mathematics, edited by Newman, J. R., 2315–47. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Stratagene, . 1994. “A Bold Leap in Cloning” (advertisement). Nature 368 (31 March), inside front cover Science 264 (15 April), inside front cover.Google Scholar
Tauber, A. I. and Sarkar, S. 1992. “The Human Genome Project: Has Blind Reductionism Gone Too Far?.” Persp. Biol. Med. 35: 220–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, L. 1974. The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Tobach, E., and Rosoff, B., eds. 1994. Challenging Racism and Sexism: Alternatives to Genetic Explanations. New York: Feminist Press.Google Scholar
Treichler, P. A. 1987. “AIDS, Homophobia, and Biomedical Discourse: An Epidemic of Signification.” Cultural Studies 1: 263–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, C. 1864. Lectures on Man. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, pp. 172–183.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. 1911. “The Ant Colony as Organism.” J. Morphol. 22: 307–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, C. O. 1887. “The Kinetic Phenomenon of the Egg during Maturation and Fecundation (oökinesis). J. Morphol. 1: 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar