Talk:Essentialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biological essentialism[edit]

The paragraph here is grossly simplistic and in my view false. The medieval naturalists were not slavish followers of Aristotle - Frederick II in fact criticises Aristotle on natural history (which had only just been translated by Michael Scot), and none of the literature refers to the causal or generative essences of biological species at any time from the classical period until after Darwin. The myth appears to have arisen some time around the centenary of the Origin, in 1959, based on a passing comment in H. W. Joseph's Introduction to Logic in 1916.

There was, and still is, a taxonomic essentialism, in which the defining characters of a species or higher taxon are listed in describing it, but that is not the sort of essentialism attacked in the essentialism story. Types were always "more or less", and what was held to be essential to a species was the ability of the organisms to generate more like them. Morphology was only ever used for identification. I would go so far as to say that biological essentialism doesn't arise until, at the earliest, the 1890s, and probably, due to the ambiguity of the so-called essentialists' writings, not until the mid-1930s (Agnes Arber and H. R. Thompson). In short, it is based on a historical misreading.

Moreover, Aristotle was not a fixist. He accepted new species through hybridisation. Fixism arose in the mid-17th century with John Ray, and it was always based on pitey and doctrine rather than any philosophical foundation.

Later note:

I now think there never was any kind of constitutive essentialism in biology (it was always a matter of identification or diagnosis). I argue this in my book, coming out this year. Obviously as thi sis my own research I can't put it on this page, but when it is out, someone else might like to address it.

The book is Species: A history of the idea from University of California Press 2009. John Wilkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]


The following sentence is an abomination, and almost impossible to make sense of:

"Mary P. Winsor, Ron Amundson and Staffan Müller-Wille have each argued that in fact the usual suspects (such as Linnaeus and the Ideal Morphologists) were very far from being essentialists, and it appears that the so-called "essentialism story" (or "myth") in biology is a result of conflating the views expressed by philosophers from Aristotle onwards through to John Stuart Mill and William Whewell in the immediately pre-Darwinian period, using biological examples, with the use of terms in biology like species."

Would someone who can make sense of it please edit it into 2 - 3 intelligible sentences. Thank youJustinleif (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4]

google scholar shows only 4 citations of [4] and I have found opposing data in

As such, I intend to revise what is said in reference to taxonomy and essentialism. I provide citations not as a gauge of credibility but so that anyone who wishes may scroll through the articles citing the original, to see all the other articles expressing agreement with the original.

I similarly intent to revise the section 'In biology':

  • Incorrect use of reference [25]
  • To remind about the existence of all the historic proponents of Pangenesis and Orthogenesis

and thus downplay the prevalence of the idea

that before evolution was developed as a scientific theory, there existed an essentialist view of biology that posited all species to be unchanging throughout time.

I welcome anyone who denies what I intend to add is true to present credible refutation.Kuiet (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section "In Mathematics"[edit]

I'm puzzled by this section. As far as I'm aware, the term "essentialism" is not used in mathematics or in the philosophy of math -- at least there's no reference to it in the philosophy of mathematics article. There is only one reference in the section (to an article by Folland), and Folland doesn't use the word. Can anyone clarify whether or not this section really belongs? Thanks.--NightHeron (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any justification for keeping the section, I've removed it. The source does not say anything about essentialism in math or the philosophy of math, so this section doesn't belong, per WP:OR. NightHeron (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section "In Politics"[edit]

Once again a new section is being added without any reference that uses the term "essentialism". An editor might believe that it's reasonable to use the word in this connection, but wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:VER clearly say that this is not an adequate basis for including the section. Otherwise we'd see new sections on "In Religion" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a Christian if you're in favor of..."), on "In Sports" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a Yankees fan if you're not excited about..."), on "In Scholarship" (because an editor finds a quote saying "You can't say you're a true scholar if you use the methodology of..."), and so on forever. That's why this section should be removed. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally called, In Politics, I renamed a new, potential section for this article Karl Popper, Historicism and Methodological Essentialism. It's in my Sandbox, and I'd hoped you might check it out, NightHeron. Worth adding? Speck22 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Speck22: Your sandbox summary of Popper is interesting to read, but I have several concerns: (1) it might be "original research" on your part (see WP:OR), in the sense that you're interpreting as well as summarizing Popper; (2) it gives undue emphasis to a single philosopher whose views should not be privileged over the views of others (see WP:UNDUE); and (3) there must be many who strongly disagree with Popper (after all, blaming social scientists for totalitarianism is a bit extreme), so if you give Popper's views you should balance it with the views of those who disagree with him. NightHeron (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: Got it and thank you. As I have time, I'll do the following: To point 1, I'll find at least one secondary source to summarize/interpret. To point 2, I'll find valid criticism. To point 3, I disagree with Popper! I'm reading him so I can critique him. But if I can satisfy point 2, that should also satisfy point 3. If not, then I'll find a stronger criticism.
My goal was simply to establish that there is a genuine use of genuine essentialism in serious political theory. I think I'm pretty close there, but until I deal with your concerns, it's not up to snuff. Will let you know when I've got something worth your time. Thanks again! Speck22 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Speck22: Sure, I'll be happy to give feedback. Just let me know when you're ready. NightHeron (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I cut the hatnote on the book Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less[edit]

Just FYI I cut the hatnote on book Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less because it's a redirect to the author page Greg_McKeown_(author). In this 2015 AfD it was decided that the book is not notable in and of itself: [1], and WP:HAT states that Linking to redirects is typically not preferred in hatnotes. If anyone disagrees with this edit, I'll be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racial essentialism[edit]

@NightHeron: please explain your objection. There are hundreds of sources on racial essentialism – if you think the words can be nuanced differently, please fix it. But removing scholarly sources like that seems disruptive. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biological racial essentialism is only one form of racial essentialism. It is not the same thing as racial essentialism, which is what your edit said. Your sources [7] and [8] make this clear. For example, [7] says: "Whereas, endorsement of biological essentialism may have similarly negative implications for social justice policies across racial categories, we investigated the hypothesis that endorsement of cultural essentialism would have different implications across racial categories. In Studies 1a and 1b, we assessed the properties of a cultural essentialism measure we developed..." And [8] says: "Essentialist conceptions of race hold that the characteristics of physical appearance referred to by racial terms are indicative of more profound characteristics (whether positively or negatively construed) of personality, inclinations, `culture,' heritage, cognitive abilities, or `natural talents' that are taken to be shared by all members of a racially defined group." So essentialism is not simply the belief that races are biologically determined.
By analogy, you might want to read the first paragraph of the section on gender essentialism. There's no disputing that there's a biological basis for different genders and that the division of a population into men and women is not just a social construct. But gender essentialism claims much more than that, and gender essentialism is widely disputed by many feminists and women's studies scholars. NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: All very good points. But you did not need to revert me to make those points. You could build the article too. I see from here you added some text to the article five years ago, and ever since then have been reverting and removing text. No additions in five years.
Having read the article in full I believe it needs some structural improvements – the flow does not work well. What do you think?
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Okay, I should have just removed the first sentence rather than reverting the whole edit. I think that the second paragraph of your edit is a good addition, except that it belongs right before the section on gender essentialism. I think it needs a few copy-edits, such as replacing high-brow academic words like reify and reductive with more everyday words. I agree that there are style problems with the article. One thing that reduces readability is that sections with academic mumbo jumbo come before the better-written sections about forms of essentialism that impact everyday life. So I'd also suggest that, instead of moving racial essentialism to where gender essentialism is, you move the gender essentialism section to come right after where you put the racial essentialism section, so that both follow right after the lead. NightHeron (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NightHeron, really appreciated. I agree with your suggestion. I have also been doing some more thinking about the structure: this Ngrams chart is quite interesting. It says the most commonly discussed examples are:
  • strategic essentialism
  • gender essentialism
  • biological essentialism
  • cultural essentialism
  • racial essentialism
...so perhaps we put all five as examples in that order. It also shows that these terms mostly began to be used in this way from the 1980s onwards.
I will have a go now at the restructure. Please amend as you see fit.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done this. In doing the restructure, it made me realize that "strategic essentialism" is just a subdivision of racial / cultural essentialism. Do you think we should combine those sections? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essentialism&oldid=1201810924"