Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Between Social and Biological Heredity: Cope and Baldwin on Evolution, Inheritance, and Mind

Authors
  • Ceccarelli, David1,
  • 1 University of Rome Tor Vergata, Department of History, Humanities and Society, Via Columbia 1, Rome, 00133, Italy , Rome (Italy)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of the History of Biology
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Publication Date
Jun 05, 2018
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
161–194
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s10739-018-9522-2
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
License
Yellow

Abstract

In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called “American School,” defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope’s late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin’s own “A New Factor in Evolution” (1896d). I argue that Cope’s criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin’s theory of social heredity threatened Cope’s biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin’s arguments for the theory of organic selection.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times