78
Subtle Agroecologies
things in process rather than as static results perhaps contributed to her ability to see
genetic processes as dynamic, as life in the process of living, rather than as mechanism.
Fox Keller provides an account of her watching the meiotic cycle of the Neurospora.
Her description of what she had seen 35 years earlier still today holds a vivid narrative quality. It is easy to
forget that she had to reconstruct the process from separate slides, that she did not see it unfolding in ‘live
action’ (1983: 115).
These fve interlocking points demonstrate the extent to which McClintock’s approach to science
and the way she explores phenomena share something of the Goethean approach without, as far as
is known, any direct lineage. She was simply trying to understand the organism and not following
trends in science that, to her, seemed to be getting in the way.
CONCLUSION
We have seen from the preceding sections that Goethe was able to bring together careful observation of the sense-perceptible aspects of a phenomenon with the supersensible aspects as revealed
by a schooled use of the imaginative and intuitive faculties that are themselves informed by the
sense-perceptible phenomenon. Historically speaking, this is important as it avoided the errors of
two conficting approaches that were informing the science of his time: vitalism and the mechanistic approach. For Goethe, vitalism gives away the self-generative power of organisms and of nature
herself to a vague mystical idea of some free-foating force and is thus a kind of obfuscating mystery
mongering, whereas the mechanistic approach ignores the complexity of the intertwined relationships in nature and denies the generative power of organisms in their full majesty. Science, as it
developed from the eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries, rejected vitalism and embraced
mechanism with gusto. This ignored the possibility that other options were available.
To address the problems we face in the twenty-frst century, we need a way of working with
nature, one that does not destroy it or replace it with some limited imaginings. The approach of
Goethe and of those who continued developing his insights and carrying out his suggested method
of working could have much to offer. In a later chapter, I set out what that method is and how
one might examine a phenomenon to develop ‘new organs of perception’ such that we could have
‘delicate empiricism’ as a practical approach to researching a more holistic variant of agroecology.
REFERENCES
Amrine, F., Zucker, F., and Wheeler, H. (eds) (1987) Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel Publishing Co.
Arber, A. (1950) The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arber, A. (1954) The Eye and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bockemühl, J. (ed) (1985) Towards a Phenomenology of the Etheric World. New York: Anthroposophic Press
Inc.
Fink, K. (1991) Goethe’s History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox Keller, E. (1983) A Feeling for the Organism. New York: Freeman and Company.
Gray, R. (1952) Goethe the Alchemist: A Study of Alchemical Symbolism in Goethe’s Literary and Scientifc
Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, F. (1934). Goethe’s phenomenological method. Philosophy, 9(33): 67–81.
Holdrege, C. (2013) Thinking Like a Plant: A Living Science for Life. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne
Books.
Jensen, A. (2019) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.
edu/goethe/#H4 (accessed August 19th 2019).
Nisbet, H.B. (1972) Goethe and the Scientifc Tradition. London: Institute of Germanic Studies.
Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A. (1998) Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. New York: SUNY
Press.
Subtle Agroecologies
things in process rather than as static results perhaps contributed to her ability to see
genetic processes as dynamic, as life in the process of living, rather than as mechanism.
Fox Keller provides an account of her watching the meiotic cycle of the Neurospora.
Her description of what she had seen 35 years earlier still today holds a vivid narrative quality. It is easy to
forget that she had to reconstruct the process from separate slides, that she did not see it unfolding in ‘live
action’ (1983: 115).
These fve interlocking points demonstrate the extent to which McClintock’s approach to science
and the way she explores phenomena share something of the Goethean approach without, as far as
is known, any direct lineage. She was simply trying to understand the organism and not following
trends in science that, to her, seemed to be getting in the way.
CONCLUSION
We have seen from the preceding sections that Goethe was able to bring together careful observation of the sense-perceptible aspects of a phenomenon with the supersensible aspects as revealed
by a schooled use of the imaginative and intuitive faculties that are themselves informed by the
sense-perceptible phenomenon. Historically speaking, this is important as it avoided the errors of
two conficting approaches that were informing the science of his time: vitalism and the mechanistic approach. For Goethe, vitalism gives away the self-generative power of organisms and of nature
herself to a vague mystical idea of some free-foating force and is thus a kind of obfuscating mystery
mongering, whereas the mechanistic approach ignores the complexity of the intertwined relationships in nature and denies the generative power of organisms in their full majesty. Science, as it
developed from the eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries, rejected vitalism and embraced
mechanism with gusto. This ignored the possibility that other options were available.
To address the problems we face in the twenty-frst century, we need a way of working with
nature, one that does not destroy it or replace it with some limited imaginings. The approach of
Goethe and of those who continued developing his insights and carrying out his suggested method
of working could have much to offer. In a later chapter, I set out what that method is and how
one might examine a phenomenon to develop ‘new organs of perception’ such that we could have
‘delicate empiricism’ as a practical approach to researching a more holistic variant of agroecology.
REFERENCES
Amrine, F., Zucker, F., and Wheeler, H. (eds) (1987) Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel Publishing Co.
Arber, A. (1950) The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arber, A. (1954) The Eye and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bockemühl, J. (ed) (1985) Towards a Phenomenology of the Etheric World. New York: Anthroposophic Press
Inc.
Fink, K. (1991) Goethe’s History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox Keller, E. (1983) A Feeling for the Organism. New York: Freeman and Company.
Gray, R. (1952) Goethe the Alchemist: A Study of Alchemical Symbolism in Goethe’s Literary and Scientifc
Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann, F. (1934). Goethe’s phenomenological method. Philosophy, 9(33): 67–81.
Holdrege, C. (2013) Thinking Like a Plant: A Living Science for Life. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne
Books.
Jensen, A. (2019) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.
edu/goethe/#H4 (accessed August 19th 2019).
Nisbet, H.B. (1972) Goethe and the Scientifc Tradition. London: Institute of Germanic Studies.
Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A. (1998) Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. New York: SUNY
Press.