Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ‘Division of Physiological Labour’: The Birth, Life and Death of a Concept

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The notion of the ‘division of physiological labour’ is today an outdated relic in the history of science. This contrasts with the fate of another notion, which was so frequently paired with the division of physiological labour, which is the concept of ‘morphological differentiation.’ This is one of the elementary modal concepts of ontogenesis. In this paper, we intend to target the problems and causes that gradually led biologists to combine these two notions during the 19th century, and to progressively dissociate them, retaining only the concept of differentiation by the early 20th century. We shall adhere to the following: 1. The primitive economic concept of the division of labour is not a descriptive notion denoting a type of organisation of labour, but an etiological one: the idea of a causal relationship between this type of organization and the improvement of the whole. 2. This concept rapidly interested naturalists such as Henri Milne-Edwards, who were keen to find a rational ground for hierarchizing living forms based on anatomical complexity. 3. The validation of this notion in the realms of biology was subject to at least two conditions which were far from being fully satisfied. This did not prevent, however, the initial success of the concept of the division of physiological labour during the second half of the 19th century. 4. Finally, the gradual disqualification, within the Darwinian theoretical context, of the conception of an intrinsic hierarchical rank of organisms, led to a lack of interest in the concept of the physiological division of labour, at least in its non-Darwinian and non-ecological variant (the link between the division of labour within an organism and organic perfection).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, Carl, Franks, Nigel R, and McShea, Daniel W. 2001. ``The Complexity and Hierarchical Structure of Tasks in Insect Societies.'' Animal Behaviour 62: 643–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard, Gaston. 1951. L’activité rationaliste de la physique contemporaine. Paris: Puf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John.1992. “Speaking of Species: Darwin’s Strategy.” Marc Ereshefsky (ed.), The Units of Evolution. Essays on the Nature of Species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 227–245.

  • Bell, Graham. 2001. Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, Claude. 1878–1879. Leçons sur les phénomènes de la vie communs aux animaux et aux végétaux, 2 vols. Paris: Baillière.

  • Beshers, Samuel N, and Fewell, J.H. 2001. ``Models of Division of Labor in Social Insects.'' Annual Review of Entomology 46: 413–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blainville, Henri-Marie Ducrotay. 1847. Sur les principes de la zooclassie, ou de la Classification des animaux. Paris: Fain et Thunot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blois, Keith J. 1985. `‘Productivity and Effectiveness in Service Firms.'’ Service Industries Journal 4: 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolutionary Theories in the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter J. 1988. The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter J. 1989. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronn, Heinrich Georg. 1858. Morphologische Studien über die Gestaltungsgesetze der Naturkörper überhaupt, und der organischen insbesondere. Leipzig: Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, Janet. 2002. Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, 2 vols. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canguilhem, Georges, et al. 1962. Du développement à l’évolution aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Paris: Puf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuvier, Georges. 1831. The Animal Kingdom Arranged in Conformity with its Organization, [1817]. Translated by H.M. Murtrie, vo1. 1. New York: Carvill.

  • Darwin, Charles. 1872. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, [1859], 6th edn. London: J. Murray.

  • Darwin, Charles. 1882. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation with Sex, [1871], 2nd ed. London: J. Murray.

  • Dastre, Albert. 1903. La Vie et la Mort. Paris: Flammarion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubenton, Louis J.M. 1782. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux. Premier Volume. Paris: Panckoucke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daudin, Henri. 1926. Les classes zoologiques et l’idée de série animale en France à l’époque de Lamarck et de Cuvier, 2 vols. Paris: Alcan.

  • Dechesne, Laurent. 1901. « La spécialisation et ses conséquences. » Revue d’économie politique 15: 118–162, 730–751, 1087–1122.

  • Delage, Yves. 1896. « La conception polyzoïque des Êtres. » Revue Scientifique 21: 641–653.

  • Diderot, Denis, and d'Alembert, Jean Le Rond. 1755. Encyclopédie, Ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 5. Paris: Briasson et al.

  • Duval, Mathias. 1897. Précis d’histologie. Paris: Masson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwick, James. 2001. « The Question of Compound Individuality in Ninetieth Century Natural History » Jean-François Auger (ed.), Une image kaléidoscopique des sciences et techniques. Montréal: CIRST, pp. 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • François, Joseph F. 1990. ``Producer Services, Scale, and the Division of Labor.'' Oxford Economic Papers 42: 715–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, Carl. 1874. Grundriss der vergleichenden Anatomie. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, Michael T. 1974. The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, Michael T. 1978. ``The Economy of the Body.'' The American Economic Review 68: 233–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giglio-Tos, Ermanno. 1900. Les problèmes de la vie. Essai d’une interprétation scientifique des phénomènes vitaux, 2 vols. Turin.

  • Gilbert, Scott F. 1994. Developmental Biology, [1985], 4th ed. Massachusetts: Sinauern Sunderland.

  • Gould, Stephen J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Grassé, Pierre P. (ed.). 1950–1979. Traité de zoologie, 52 vols. Paris: Masson.

  • Haeckel, Ernst. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer.

  • Hamowy, Ronald. 1968. ‘`Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and the Division of Labour.'’ Economica 35: 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, Jean. 1987. ‘`Measuring Productivity in Professional Services.'’ Public Productivity Review 11: 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, Oscar. 1888. Lehrbuch der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen und der Wirbelthiere. Jena: Ficher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Houssay, Frédéric. 1900. La forme et la vie. Essai de la méthode mécanique en zoologie. Paris: Reinwald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, Terence W. 1988. Before Adam Smith: The Emergence of Political Economy, 1662–1776. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian S. 1942. Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Thomas H. 1877. Manual of the Anatomy of Invertebrated Animals. London: Churchill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, François. 1979. “L’évolution sans projet.” in Le Darwinisme aujourd’hui. Paris: Le Seuil, pp. 145–147.

  • Le Guyader, Hervé. 2003. Classification et évolution. Paris: Editions Le Pommier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1960. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, [1936]. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Kohn, David. 1985. ‘`Darwin’s Principle of Divergence as Internal Dialogue.'’ David Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste (de). 1801. Système des Animaux sans vertèbres. Paris: Déterville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste (de). 1809. Philosophie Zoologique. Paris: Dentu.

  • Laurent, Jean-Louis. 1842. Recherches sur l’Hydre et l’Eponge d’eau douce. Paris: Arthus Bertrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuckart, Rudolph. 1851. Über den Polymorphismus der Individuen oder die Erscheinung der Arbeitstheilung in der Natur. Giessen: Ricker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lherminier, Philippe, and Solignac, Michel. 2005. De l’espèce. Paris: Sillepse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limoges, Camille. 1968. “Darwin, Milne-Edwards et le principe de divergence.” Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences. Paris: Blanchard, pp. 111–115.

  • Limoges, Camille. 1994. “Milne-Edwards, Darwin, Durkheim and the Division of Labour: A Case Study in Reciprocal Conceptual Exchanges between the Social and Natural Sciences.” I. Bernard Cohen (ed.), The Natural Sciences and the Social Sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 317–343.

  • Mark, Jerome A. 1982. “Measuring Productivity in Service Industries.” Monthly Labor Review June: 3–8.

  • Marx, Karl. 1910. The Poverty of Philosophy, [1847]. Translated by Harry Quelch. London: Kerr & Company.

  • Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital. [1867–1894] 3 vols. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Peguin.

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1942. Systematics and the Origins of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1976. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, Curtis P., and Coffey, S. 1990. “Measuring Productivity in Services.'’ International Journal of Services 1: 46–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, Ronald L., and Skinner, A.S. 1973. ``The Development of Adam Smith’s Ideas on the Division of Labour.'' The Economic Journal 83: 1094–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1965. The Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, [1848]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri. 1826. “Nerfs.” Bory de Saint-Vincent (ed.), Dictionnaire classique d’Histoire Naturelle, vol. 11. Paris: Rey et Gravier, pp. 522–534.

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1827. “Organisation.” Bory de Saint-Vincent (ed.), Dictionnaire classique d’Histoire Naturelle, vol. 12. Paris: Rey et Gravier, pp. 322–344.

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1834. Eléments de zoologie. Paris: Crochard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1847. Cours élémentaire de zoologie, [1844], 2nd ed. Paris: Masson.

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1851. Introduction à la zoologie générale. Paris: Masson.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1857–1881. Leçons sur la physiologie et l’anatomie comparée de l’homme et des animaux, 14 vols. Paris: Masson.

  • Milne-Edwards, Henri 1868. « Observations sur la circulation. » [1845]. H. Milne-Edwards, Recherches pour servir à l’histoire naturelle des mammifères. Paris: Masson.

  • Myers, Milton L. 1967. ‘`Division of Labour as a Principle of Social Cohesion.'’ The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 33: 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ospovat, Dov. 1981. The Development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, Robert E, and Erber, J. 2002. ‘`Levels of Behavioral Organization and the Evolution of Division of Labor.'’ Naturwissenschaften 9: 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panchen, Alec L. 1992. Classification Evolution, and the Nature of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perrier, Edmond. 1881. Les colonies animales et la formation des organismes. Paris: Masson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrier, Edmond. (with Perrier, Rémy). (with Perrier Rémy). 1893–1932. Traité de zoologie. Paris: Masson.

  • Queiroz, Kevin de. 1988. `‘Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution.'’ Philosophy of Science 55: 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashid, Salim. 1986. `‘Adam Smith and the Division of Labour: A Historical View.'’ Scottish Journal of Political Economy 33: 292–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensch, Bernhard. 1947. Neuere Probleme der Abstammungslehre Die transspezifische Evolution. Stuttgart: Enke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1986. `‘Aspekte des Bedeutungswandels im Begriff organismischer Ähnlichkeit vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert.'’ History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 8: 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Robert J. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, Charles. 1873. Anatomie et physiologie cellulaires. Paris: Baillière.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosslenbroich, Bernd. 2006. `‘The Notion of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. The Unresolved Problem and an Empirical Suggestion.'’ Biology and Philosophy 21: 41–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roule, Louis. 1893. L’embryologie générale. Paris: Schleicher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roule, Louis 1894. L’embryologie comparée. Paris: Reinwald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roule, Louis 1898. L’anatomie comparée des Animaux basée sur l’embryologie, 2 vols. Paris: Masson.

  • Roule, Louis 1926–1937. Les poissons et le monde vivant des eaux, 10 vols. Paris: Delagrave.

  • Ruse, Michael. 2003. Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose? Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, Julius. 1887. Lectures on the Physiology of Plants. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saporta, Gaston (de) and Marion, A.F. 1881. L’évolution du règne végétal. Paris: Baillière.

  • Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1987. History of Economic Analysis, [1955]. London: Routledge.

  • Schweber, Silvan S. 1980. `‘Darwin and the Political Economists: Divergence of Character.'’ Journal of the History of Biology 13: 195–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Séris, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Qu’est-ce que la division du travail? Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Timothy. 2004. The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection Adaptation and Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Adam. 1778. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, [1776], 2 vols, 2nd ed. London: Srahan and Cadell.

  • Stamos, David N. 2004. The Species Problem: Biological Species Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Biology. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— Darwin and the Nature of Species. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammone, William. 1995. `‘Competititon, the Division of Labour, and Darwin’s Principle of Divergence.'’ Journal of the History of Biology 28: 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassy, Pascal. 1991. L’arbre à remonter le temps. Paris: C. Bourgeois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trembley, Abraham. 1744. Mémoire pour servir à l’histoire d’un genre de Polypes d’eau douce, à bras en forme de cornes, 2 vols. Paris: Durand.

  • Verworn, Max. 1894. Allgemeine Physiologie ein Grundriss der Lehre vom Leben. Jena: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicq d’Azyr, Félix. 1792. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Systême anatomique. Quadrupèdes. Tome second. Paris: Panckoucke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virey, Julien-Joseph. 1816. « Animal » Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire naturelle, vol. 2. Paris: Déterville, pp. 1–81.

  • Westhoff, Peter (ed.). 1998. Molecular Plant Development: From Gene to Plant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Robert M. 1972. ‘Darwinism and the Division of Labour.’ The Listener 88: 202–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard, Mary J. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de Philosophie and UMR Sphere 7219, Université catholique de Lyon, 25 rue du Plat, 69002, Lyon, France

    Emmanuel D’Hombres

Authors
  1. Emmanuel D’Hombres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel D’Hombres.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Hombres, E. The ‘Division of Physiological Labour’: The Birth, Life and Death of a Concept. J Hist Biol 45, 3–31 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9256-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9256-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation