Chapter 11 Competing Terms第十一章 术语之争
Kurt Jax and Astrid Schwarz
库尔特·贾克斯和阿斯特丽德施瓦茨
Up until the early twentieth century, competing terms for “ecology” were “natural history”, “biology”, “bionomics”, and “ethology”.
直到二十世纪初，对“生态学”的定义仍极具争议，有将其定义为“自然史”、“ 生物学”、“环境生态学”，亦或者是“动物行为学”。
Natural history is one of the roots of ecology and played an important role in
the emergence of ecology. Haeckel noted in 1870 (p. 365): “Ecology (often also inappropriately called biology in the narrower sense) has, up to now, constituted the main component of so-called ‘natural history’ in the usual sense of this word.”1
自然史是生态学的来源之一，它对生态学的形成起了重要的作用。海克尔在1870年指出（第365页）：“生态学（狭义上，也常不恰当地被称为生物学），到现在为止，已经是通常意义上所谓的“自然史”的主要组成部分。
Although he places ecology (as “external physiology”) in the context of a modern system of biology,2 he nevertheless acknowledges the importance of
“Oecologie (oft unpassend auch als Biologie im engeren Sinne bezeichnet) bildete bisher den Hauptbestandtheil der sogenannten ‚Naturgeschichte’ in dem gewöhnlichen Sinne des Wortes.”
2 In his writings Haeckel always refers specifically to zoology.
1
natural history as a fundamental root of ecology. The traces of a natural history in the sense of “structuring visible nature”3never disappeared entirely in ecology. This is despite the fact that, by the turn of the twentieth century, natural history was largely identified with a rather indiscriminate and “unscientific” way of collecting data about natural phenomena. However, this diagnosis was already a result of the steady boundary work going on in the emerging laboratory-based biological sciences. In fact, the natural history of the nineteenth century never was merely a matter of haphazard sampling and describing; rather, it had a very specific methodology and a very specific set of theoretical questions.4Such questions included the issue of【156】explaining the distribution and origin of natural variety and the mechanisms of nature’s perceived order.5
虽然，他把生态学（称“外部生理学”）放在现代生物体系的大环境中，不过他还是承认自然史的重要性，因为自然史是生态学的一个基本来源。从“构造有形的自然”的意义上说，自然史的痕迹从未完全在生态学中消失。尽管事实是，二十世纪初，自然史很大程度上被认为是一种相当任意的、不科学的收集自然现象数据的方式。但是，这种方式已经是稳定的边界工作的结果，稳定的边界工作在新兴的以实验室为基础的生物科学情况下进行的。事实上，十九世纪的自然史决不仅是偶然的采样和描述；相反，它有一个非常具体的方法，有一组特定的的理论问题。这些问题包括解释自然种类的分布与起源，以及对自然认知顺序机制问题的解释。
Translated from Foucault 1974, p. 177
A detailed discussion of the changing rationality of natural history through the centuries is given in Cultures of Natural History (1996), edited by Jardine, N., E.C. Spary and J.A. Secord; R. Kohler (2006) presented a detailed study on specific scientific practices in natural history in the nineteenth century through to the 1950s, while D. Takacs shows in The Idea of Biodiversity. Philosophies of Paradise (1996) that natural history is very present in the modern biosciences.
5 The questions posed here were also “why” and not only “how”. The methodology of natural history, as the term denotes, was a heavily historical one, explaining the specific patterns and processes found in nature in a nevertheless systematic way (Trepl 1987, p. 46). Farber (1982, p. 150 f.) sees natural history and “scientific” physiology as parallel traditions in the nineteenth century, with natural history guided by theoretical questions (e.g. the relations between classification, morphol ogy and history) and culminating, by the middle of the century, in evolutionary theory.
4 3
The identification of ecology with “classical” natural history was strongly rejected by most early ecologists as being too broad (e.g. Wheeler 1902). In response, however, to what he perceived as an overemphasis of laboratory biology at the cost of observing animals in the field, Charles Elton wrote of ecology in 1927 in terms of it being “scientific natural history” (Elton 1927, p. 1). Shelford (1937 p. 32, FN 1) also noted that “[t]he term is applied to those phases of natural history and physiology which are organized into a science, but does not include all the unorganizable data of natural history”.
具有传统自然史观点的生态学论断，遭到了很多早期生物学家的强烈反对，因为它们过于宽泛（例如惠勒1902）。但是，查尔斯.埃尔顿在1927年从“科学的自然史”（埃尔顿1927年，第一页）的角度编写了生态学，来回应这个观点，他认为在实际运用中，生物实验过分强调在观察动物方面的投入。谢尔福德（1937年，第三十二页，脚注一）还指出,“生态学这一术语被运用于自然史和生理学的阶段,它们组成了科学,但这一术语不包括所有的无机的自然史数据。
In the second half of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, “biology” was used (especially in Germany) both in the broad sense common today and in a narrower sense, designating a concept that was close to, if not identical with, Haeckel’s definition of ecology.6 This dual use of the word and its application to “ecology” (or sometimes also “ethology”) was criticized for several reasons, not least because it was seen as leading to confusion (Haeckel 1866, 1870; Wasmann 1901;7 Dahl 18988). Wasmann, who on the one hand
Haeckel saw ecology as a substitute for what he perceived as the meaning of “biology in the narrow sense”. .
In spite of the criticism that he himself also raised with regard to this issue, Wasmann argued in favour of retaining the term “biology” in the narrower sense – rejecting both “ethology” and “ecology”
8 Dahl (1898, p. 121 f.) argued: “Hat man doch bisher nicht einmal einen Namen fur dieses Gebiet gefunden, der allgemein anerkannt wurde. Man nannte es fruher Biologie. Nachdem aber diese Bezeichnung im weitesten Sinne auf die Erforschung aller Lebewesen in Anwendung
7 6
criticized this dual use, tried on the other to save and refine the notion of “biology” in its narrower sense. For him, it included “the external activities of life which pertain to organisms as individuals and at the same time regulate their relations to other organisms and to the inorganic conditions of existence”.9 It thus comprised the external habits of organisms (such as feeding and reproduction), their interactions, and their conditions of existence. In his view, this concept was broader than that of “ethology” and even more so than that of Haeckel’s “ecology”.【157】The use of “biology” rather than “ecology” persisted in the writings of the community, a fact that was noted and criticized by, among others, Sinai Tschulok in 1910 (p. 211 f.): “Es ist sehr zu bedauern, daß selbst in wissenschaftlichen Werken die Ökologie noch sehr häufig als Biologie bezeichnet wird. Denn einmal ist Biologie die Gesamtwissenschaft von den Lebewesen, ein anderes Mal ein Teil davon, d.h. eine bestimmte Betrachtungsweise […]. Noch schlimmer ist es, wenn unter Biologie etwas mehr als Ökologie verstanden werden will und damit doch nicht die gesamte Lehre von den Organismen gemeint ist”.10
十九世纪下半叶，进入二十世纪初，“生物学”（尤其是在德国）一词在广义和狭义的意义都被运用，它指定一个概念，（如果说不是完全相同）这个概念与海克尔对生态学的定义很接近。这个词的双重用途以及它在生态学中的运用遭到批判的原因有很多，不仅因为它导致混乱(海克尔1866、1870;沃斯曼1902;达尔1898)。沃斯曼一方面批评这种词的双
gekommen ist und die Zellforschung im Speziellen sich Biologie nennt, müssen wir als die minder Bekannten und Geachteten das Feld räumen”. (“Thus far, a name that might meet with general agreement has not even been found for the field. It used to be called biology. But since this name has now been applied in the broadest sense to the investigation of all living beings and since cytological research in particular calls itself biology, we, as those who are less well-known and respected, are compelled to beat a retreat”).
9 “…[die] äußeren Lebensthätigkeiten, die den Organismen als Individuen zukommen, und die zugleich auch ihr Verhältnis zu den übrigen Organismen und zu den anorganischen Existenzbedingungen regeln” (Wasmann 1901, p. 397).
“It is highly regrettable that even in scientific works ecology is still very frequently referred to as biology. For biology is at once the
overall science of living being as well as a part of it, i.e. a particular perspective... The matter becomes even worse when biology is intended to denote some- thing more than ecology and thus not the general study of organisms”.
10
重用途，另一方面，他试图保存和细化“生物学”一词狭义上的概念。对他来说，生物学的概念不仅涉及生物个体的外部活动，同时还包括对生物个体与其他生物体及其无机生存条件之间关系的调节。因此，它包括生物体的外部习惯（比如摄食和繁殖）、它们的相互作用，以及生存条件。他认为，这个概念要比“动物行为学”更为宽泛，它甚至比海克尔的“生态学”也更广泛。在社会著作中，运用的多是生物学，而非生态学。这一事实被指出，并遭到了很多生物学家的批判，其中包括西奈，他在1910年（第211页脚注）：、、、、、？
In the second half of the nineteenth century another, narrower meaning of biology in the sense of “cytology” (later relating also to “microscopic knowledge of organisms”) had been established, especially in France and Belgium (Dahl 1898;
Wasmann 1901; Wheeler 1926). This in turn led to the necessity to coin a new term for the “science of the ways of living of animals and plants” (Wasmann 1901, p. 394), namely, “ethology”.
11
Wheeler also opted for the term
“ethology” to describe the whole complexity of animal life, including (in contrast to plant life) social and psychological phenomena of the organisms’ relations, while this emphasis was not a major interest of Dahl’s. Like Dahl, Wheeler too saw ecology as a part of ethology. Attempts to substitute “ecology” for “ethology”, however, were not a great success. By the 1920s, if not earlier, the word “ecology” had already become the dominant term within zoology as well, while ethology had soon become restricted to the behavior of animals in terms of their individual social interactions. Carpenter’s “Ecological Glossary” from 1938 doesn’t even mention “ethology”. However, in the same period the German
The first author to use “ethology” in this sense was Isidore de Geoffrey St. Hilaire (1854) (Wheeler 1926; van der Klauuw 1936a; Jahn and Sucker 2000). See van der Klaauw 1936a, p. 140 for the precise wording of this first description of “ethology”.
11
biologist Jakob von Uexküll propagated a “theory of environment” (Umweltlehre), managing to ignore both the labels “ecology” and “ethology” in the process.12 十九世纪下叶，从 “细胞学”（后来也叫“微观生物知识”）意义上，，形成了一个更为狭义的生物学概念，它在法国和比利时更为盛行（达尔1898；沃斯曼 1901;惠勒1926）。
这反过来让生物学家需要为“动植物生命科学” 创造一个新的术语，（沃斯曼1901年，第394页），即“动物行为学”。动物行为学是动物学家首选的一个术语（如达尔1898，惠勒1902年）。达尔将生态学，和他称作的“营养学”（关于动物的食物）看成动物行为学的一部分。达尔和惠勒都认为 “生态学”的概念太狭窄，他们认为它（至少通过 “OIKOS”这一词的直接含义）的主要指代意义是“住处”（“Aufenthalt”，达尔1898，第122页）或“栖息地“（惠勒1902年，第973页）。 惠勒同样也选择了“动物行为学”这一术语来描述整个动物界的复杂性，（与植物界相比）它包括生物体之间的社会和心理现象，然而，达尔对此却并没有和大兴趣。和达尔一样，惠勒也认为生态学是动物行为学的一部分。试图用“生态学”来替代“动物行为学”的做法并未获得巨大成功。
“Die Umweltlehre besteht (…) aus zwei Hauptpunkten. Neben der Anerkennung der planer- zeugten Umwelten fordert sie die Anerkennung des Zusammenhanges aller Umwelten in einer allumfassenden Planmäßigkeit.” (“The theory of the environment consists of (...) two main points. In addition to acknowledging plan-based environments it demands acknowledgement of the inter- relatedness of all environments in an all-encompassing orderliness”. Uexküll 1929, p. 45). Uexküll’s specific concept of Umwelt (not really captured in today’s colloquial term “environ- ment”) was at once nomothetic and idiographic, in the sense of depending on the specific individual (biological subject).
12
直到二十世纪二十年代，“生态学”已经成为动物学的主要术语，而动物行为学则被限定为指动物个人社会交往方面的行为。在1938年，Carpenter发表的“生态术语表“甚至没有提到“动物行为学”。但是同一时期的德国生物学家 Jakob von Uexküll倡导的”理论环境”(Umweltlehre),试图在发展进程中忽略“生态学”和“动物行为学”这两个概念。
注释：
1.“Oecologie (oft unpassend auch als Biologie im engeren Sinne bezeichnet) bildete bisher den Hauptbestandtheil der sogenannten ‚Naturgeschichte’ in dem gewöhnlichen Sinne des Wortes.”
2.In his writings Haeckel always refers specifically to zoology.
在海克尔的著作中，他总是特指动物学
3.Translated from Foucault 1974, p. 177 译自1974年福柯第177页
4. A detailed discussion of the changing rationality of natural history through the centuries is given in Cultures of Natural History (1996), edited by Jardine, N., E.C. Spary and J.A. Secord; R. Kohler (2006) presented a detailed study on specific scientific practices in natural history in the nineteenth century through to the 1950s, while D. Takacs shows in The Idea of Biodiversity. Philosophies of Paradise (1996) that natural history is very present in the modern biosciences.
由贾丁N，E.C斯帕里和J.A西科德合编的《自然史文化》(1996年)一书详细讨论几
个世纪来自然史的合理性变化；R.科勒（2006）做了一个详细的研究，是19世纪到20世纪50年代以来，在自然史过程中关于具体的科学实践的研究，而D.塔卡克斯的《生物多样性的理念》也表明了这一点。《天堂的哲学》（1996）一书也指出自然史存在于现代生物学中。
5.The questions posed here were also “why” and not only “how”. The methodology of natural history, as the term denotes, was a heavily historical one, explaining the specific patterns and processes found in nature in a nevertheless systematic way (Trepl 1987, p. 46). Farber (1982, p. 150 f.) sees natural history and “scientific” physiology as parallel traditions in the nineteenth century, with natural history guided by theoretical questions (e.g. the relations between classification, morphol ogy and history) and culminating, by the middle of the century, in evolutionary theory.
这里提出的问题，不仅仅是“怎么做”，也是“为什么”。自然史的方法论，正如这个词所表示的意义，是一个主要的历史学概念，它用存在于自然界中但仍具系统的方式解释特定的模式和过程（特瑞普 1987年，第46页）。法伯（1982年，第150页脚注。）认为十九世纪的自然史和“科学”生理学是两个很相似的概念，自然史被假定性的问题（如分类，与历史之间的关系）控制，在本世纪中叶的进化论中，这一现象最为严重。
6.Haeckel saw ecology as a substitute for what he perceived as the meaning of “biology in the narrow sense”.
海克尔把“生态学”来替代他所感知到的“狭义上的生物学”的含义。
7.In spite of the criticism that he himself also raised with regard to this issue, Wasmann argued in favour of retaining the term “biology” in the narrower sense – rejecting both “ethology” and “ecology”
尽管沃斯曼自己对于这个问题的提出是持批判态度的，但他赞成保留“生物学”一词的狭义上的概念- 反对“动物行为学”和“生态”这两个术语。.
8.Dahl (1898, p. 121 f.) argued: “Hat man doch bisher nicht einmal einen Namen fur dieses Gebiet gefunden, der allgemein anerkannt wurde. Man nannte es fruher Biologie. Nachdem aber diese Bezeichnung im weitesten Sinne auf die Erforschung aller Lebewesen in Anwendung gekommen ist und die Zellforschung im Speziellen sich Biologie nennt, müssen wir als die minder Bekannten und Geachteten das Feld räumen”. (“Thus far, a name that might meet with general agreement has not even been found for the field. It used to be called biology. But since this name has now been applied in the broadest sense to the investigation of all living beings and since cytological research in particular calls itself biology, we, as those who are less well-known and respected, are compelled to beat a retreat”).
（目前为止，有一个术语可能适用于一些未知领域上的协议上，它经常被称为生物学。但自从这一术语被应用于所有生物的调查的广义意义上，对细胞学进行研究是从生物学这一术语的出发的之后，我们是不知名的和不受尊重的，被迫撤离的）
9.“…[die] äußeren Lebensthätigkeiten, die den Organismen als Individuen zukommen, und die zugleich auch ihr Verhältnis zu den übrigen Organismen und
zu den anorganischen Existenzbedingungen regeln” (Wasmann 1901, p. 397).
10.“It is highly regrettable that even in scientific works ecology is still very frequently referred to as biology. For biology is at once the overall science of living being as well as a part of it, i.e. a particular perspective... The matter becomes even worse when biology is intended to denote some- thing more than ecology and thus not the general study of organisms”.
“令人非常遗憾的是,即使在科学作品中，生态学仍常常被称为生物学。因为生物学是生物的整体科学，从一个特定的角度来说，抑或是它的一部分……此事变得更糟的是，当生物学倾向表示一些“物”超过生态学时,生物学因此缺少了普遍的研究”。
11.The first author to use “ethology” in this sense was Isidore de Geoffrey St. Hilaire (1854) (Wheeler 1926; van der Klauuw 1936a; Jahn and Sucker 2000). See van der Klaauw 1936a, p. 140 for the precise wording of this first description of “ethology”.在这个意义上第一个使用“行为学”的作者是伊西多尔·德·杰弗里·圣西莱尔(1854)(惠勒1926;van der Klauuw 1936a; Jahn and Sucker 2000）。见van der Klaauw 1936a, 第140页描述“行为学”的第一个准确措辞。
12.“Die Umweltlehre besteht (…) aus zwei Hauptpunkten. Neben der Anerkennung der planer- zeugten Umwelten fordert sie die Anerkennung des Zusammenhanges aller Umwelten in einer allumfassenden Planmäßigkeit.” (“The theory of the environment consists of (...) two main points. In addition to acknowledging plan-based environments it demands acknowledgement of the inter- relatedness of all environments in an all-encompassing orderliness”.
Uexküll 1929, p. 45). Uexküll’s specific concept of Umwelt (not really captured in today’s colloquial term “environ- ment”) was at once nomothetic and idiographic, in the sense of depending on the specific individual (biological subject).
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容