77
Goethe as Holistic Scientist
Once connected to the new organism in this way, she could recognise and follow the development of chromosomes through the meiotic cycle.
However, McClintock’s credentials as a scientist, whilst eventually vindicated by her results
being corroborated by others, were sometimes doubted. She was working against the flow of developments in genetics and was seen as personally eccentric. If we examine her outlook on science
in general, it is possible to find other resonances with Goethe’s approach. I shall briefly outline
five points that demonstrate a concurrence in their approaches to science which could explain why
McClintock’s ‘ feeling for the organism’ sounds ‘ Goethean’. These are as follows:
1. The Recognition of Models as Models: McClintock was resistant to what she saw as the
dogmas in genetics. Examples of these would be the following: the integrity of genes; the
usefulness of bacteriophage because it is simple and one can apply the laws revealed to
complex organisms; and the inability of the environment to affect the genome. She had a
deep mistrust of theoretical models when they are used as more than, as Goethe would say,
the temporary scaffolding. As Fox Keller explains:
For McClintock it was what she calls “ tacit assumptions”—an explicit adherence to models
that prevents people from looking at data with a fresh mind. These tacit assumptions impose
unconscious boundaries between what is thinkable and what is not. Even glaring lapses in
logic become invisible: “ They didn’t know they were bound to a model and you couldn’t show
them”.
Fox Keller ( 1983: 178)
2. An Openness of Approach: Not only was McClintock open to the organism as a part of
her practice, but she also advocated a more open approach to other ideas as necessary for
science. This is particularly clear from her criticism of her colleagues’ dismissal of a presentation on extrasensory perception. She said, ‘ If they were as ignorant of the subject as
I was, they had no reason to complain’ ( 1983: 202).
3. Dealing with Whole Organisms: The holism of her approach can be seen in the way she
professed to a strong sense of the oneness of all nature. On a practical level in her work
with the whole cycle of the plant, the sense of engagement with a continuous process comes
through. She felt that it was an important aspect of science that one had the wider picture.
‘ Basically everything is one. There is no way in which you draw a line between things.
What we [normally] do is to make these subdivisions, but they’re not real’ ( 1983: 204).
4. Using an Emotional Engagement with Phenomena: Part of the openness to the organism
which she cultivated was dependent on an emotional engagement with the object of study,
but also a distancing of self. The exacting rigour of her work seems to come from a respect
for the organism studied rather than an idealised distancing of the ‘ less objective’ aspects
of the scientist. Of the creative points in her life, the intuitive flashes, she says that they
come about with an emotional intensity and a losing of one’s self. It is as if, as she says,
‘ I am not there’. An account of the experience which Fox Keller cites is as follows:
Beneath these trees she found a bench where she could sit and think. She sat for half an hour.
“ Suddenly I jumped up, I couldn’t wait to get back to the laboratory. I knew I was going to solve it”…
She doesn’t quite know what she did as she sat under those trees. She remembers she “ let the tears
roll a little”, but mainly, “ I must have done this very intense subconscious thinking. And suddenly
I knew everything was going to be just fine”.
Fox Keller ( 1983: 115)
5. Putting Process into Observations of a Static System: Her understanding of the maize
plant was aided by her approach to it as a whole, developing, growing organism. Seeing
Goethe as Holistic Scientist
Once connected to the new organism in this way, she could recognise and follow the development of chromosomes through the meiotic cycle.
However, McClintock’s credentials as a scientist, whilst eventually vindicated by her results
being corroborated by others, were sometimes doubted. She was working against the flow of developments in genetics and was seen as personally eccentric. If we examine her outlook on science
in general, it is possible to find other resonances with Goethe’s approach. I shall briefly outline
five points that demonstrate a concurrence in their approaches to science which could explain why
McClintock’s ‘ feeling for the organism’ sounds ‘ Goethean’. These are as follows:
1. The Recognition of Models as Models: McClintock was resistant to what she saw as the
dogmas in genetics. Examples of these would be the following: the integrity of genes; the
usefulness of bacteriophage because it is simple and one can apply the laws revealed to
complex organisms; and the inability of the environment to affect the genome. She had a
deep mistrust of theoretical models when they are used as more than, as Goethe would say,
the temporary scaffolding. As Fox Keller explains:
For McClintock it was what she calls “ tacit assumptions”—an explicit adherence to models
that prevents people from looking at data with a fresh mind. These tacit assumptions impose
unconscious boundaries between what is thinkable and what is not. Even glaring lapses in
logic become invisible: “ They didn’t know they were bound to a model and you couldn’t show
them”.
Fox Keller ( 1983: 178)
2. An Openness of Approach: Not only was McClintock open to the organism as a part of
her practice, but she also advocated a more open approach to other ideas as necessary for
science. This is particularly clear from her criticism of her colleagues’ dismissal of a presentation on extrasensory perception. She said, ‘ If they were as ignorant of the subject as
I was, they had no reason to complain’ ( 1983: 202).
3. Dealing with Whole Organisms: The holism of her approach can be seen in the way she
professed to a strong sense of the oneness of all nature. On a practical level in her work
with the whole cycle of the plant, the sense of engagement with a continuous process comes
through. She felt that it was an important aspect of science that one had the wider picture.
‘ Basically everything is one. There is no way in which you draw a line between things.
What we [normally] do is to make these subdivisions, but they’re not real’ ( 1983: 204).
4. Using an Emotional Engagement with Phenomena: Part of the openness to the organism
which she cultivated was dependent on an emotional engagement with the object of study,
but also a distancing of self. The exacting rigour of her work seems to come from a respect
for the organism studied rather than an idealised distancing of the ‘ less objective’ aspects
of the scientist. Of the creative points in her life, the intuitive flashes, she says that they
come about with an emotional intensity and a losing of one’s self. It is as if, as she says,
‘ I am not there’. An account of the experience which Fox Keller cites is as follows:
Beneath these trees she found a bench where she could sit and think. She sat for half an hour.
“ Suddenly I jumped up, I couldn’t wait to get back to the laboratory. I knew I was going to solve it”…
She doesn’t quite know what she did as she sat under those trees. She remembers she “ let the tears
roll a little”, but mainly, “ I must have done this very intense subconscious thinking. And suddenly
I knew everything was going to be just fine”.
Fox Keller ( 1983: 115)
5. Putting Process into Observations of a Static System: Her understanding of the maize
plant was aided by her approach to it as a whole, developing, growing organism. Seeing