Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Uexküllian Umwelt as science and as ideology: the light and the dark side of a concept

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of Umwelt, in particular the interpretation originally developed by Jakob von Uexküll, played an important role in the development of biological thought of the first half of the twentieth century. The theory of Umwelt (Umweltlehre) was one of the most original ideas that appeared in German biology at that time. It was the first attempt to introduce subjectivity into a science about organisms; it laid down the foundations of behavioural research and inspired the development of ethology. However, the theory of Umwelt has also been used to support more sinister activities and even some dangerous ideologies. The concept of Umwelt is of interest not only to historians: within some intellectual circles, it is still broadly used today. Our aim was to analyse the notion’s historic development within the context of biological thought of the first half of the 20th century. In particular, we focus (1) on how the concept was adopted and adapted for various, often widely diverging purposes; (2) on interactions between the Umweltlehre and other contemporary worldviews. We argue that in order to understand the developments that occurred in twentieth century biology, one needs to properly appreciate the role which Umweltlehre played in these. Even more importantly, the Umweltlehre is a worldview that influenced not only science but also politics and social affairs. In this respect it functioned rather like a number of other scientific and ideological frameworks of that time, such as Synthetic Darwinism.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Notes

  1. Chamberlain, for example, commented in his Natur und Leben on Darwin’s work as follows: “So far, no gradual change of species (variability) has ever been observed; Darwin’s own observations of phenotypically very variable pigeons have shown that even the most enormous differences––which seem to change the whole being of the animal––disappear after a few generations, and what we are faced with is once again the same wild pigeon if artificial selection is abandoned. Darwin does come up with smart arguments to convince us […]––that, in short, a living form is to him a piece of wax, which can be turned by external conditions into anything one could wish. Here and now I do not feel like starting a campaign against Darwin––that Darwin whose arguments I hold to be so wrong––I only wish to show that a real transformation of one living form (Gestalt) into another has never been observed even though many people tried to make it plausible using various arguments” (Chamberlain 1928, p. 41). Note how strongly Chamberlain’s (as well as Uexküll’s) refusal of Darwinism resonates with his negative standpoint towards the idea of a milieu.

  2. His understanding of the term is in fact closer to the Lebensraum of Friedrich Ratzel (1901). After all, even Thienenmann’s use of the term is synonymous with Lebensraum, and the same holds for almost all contemporary ecological writings. Mildenberger (2007) sees Uexküll’s Umweltlehre as closely related to Ratzel’s Darwinist conception. This, as we show, is true of the framework of their ideological implications but not of their intellectual sources or conclusions derived from them.

  3. Friederichs here mentions ‘community’ (Gemeinschaft) as a hint towards Lebensgemeinschaft, that is, biocoenosis. The term Lebensgemeinschaft was frequently used by the contemporary biology of culture (see below).

  4. It should also be noted that Uexküll’s Umweltlehre is based on a typological method. Umwelt itself is seen as a typus, an ideal image based on numerous particular observations.

  5. Weber (1942, p. 65); similarly also Weber (1937, p. 100) and Weber (1939a, p. 636), where he provides perhaps the most precise definition: “By a (minimal) Umwelt one should, within biology, understand a sum of conditions contained in the entire complex of the environment, which enable a particular organism to survive thanks to its specific organisation, that is, which enable an organism in a temporarily limited phase of its development to show signs of life (including propagation) to a degree at least compensating for the mortality of the individual.”.

  6. Within writings on genetics, the terms milieu, Umwelt, and, for example, Peristase were used fairly interchangeably.

  7. It is possible that Verschuer took Uexküll’s notion of Umwelt into account in a way (and probably indirectly). Yet, in his view, what is crucial in interactions between an organism and its environment is not the subject but genes.

  8. Already Sax and Klopfer (2006) described certain connections between the biological/cultural notion and Uexküll’s Umweltlehre. In our view, however, an assumption of connections between these two and E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology is not warranted.

  9. Scheidt puts this notion alongside the Erbgut, i.e. genotype.

  10. Which takes us back to the doctrine of Blut und Boden as a destined relation between a nation and its environment.

  11. This is an odd neologism made of the term for biocoenosis and the then already rather political term Lebensraum, used mainly for territories east of the German border.

  12. The entire editorial board joined in with the congratulations on the whole first page of the issue, which included Uexküll’s photograph, etc. Surprisingly enough, it was the only congratulation of such a kind printed in the journal during its existence.

  13. We find an analogical relation to the notion of Umwelt also in the works of other racial psychologists (Petermann 1943; Clauss 1933). Tirala is mentioned here (except for his personal relation to Uexküll) rather as an example of someone who held this view.

  14. The most telling evidence for at least Tirala’s relating Uexküll with racial psychology is the fact that Uexküll is depicted together with Chamberlain on the jacket of Tirala’s book Rasse, Geist und Seele.

  15. An entire book (Fischer and Gottschaldt 1942) is dedicated to this subject. Gottschaldt writes in the introduction that the whole department of hereditary psychology was founded at the instigation of Eugen Fischer, and he was responsible for much of the research. The book also contains an extensive passage on the issue of Umwelt in genetics and psychology (pp. 74–93).

References

  • Albertsen LL (1965) Umwelt. Z dtsch Sprache 21:115–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri M (ed) (2007) Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur E, Fischer E, Lenz F (1921) Grundriss der menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene. Lehmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur E, Fischer E, Lenz F (1936) Menschliche Erblehre und Rassenhygiene. Lehmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock F (1934) Jakob Johann von Uexküll zum 70. Geburtstag. Sudhoffs Arch 27:193–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock F (1939) Typenlehre und Umweltforschung: Grundlegung einer idealistischen Biologie. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain HS (1911) Foundations of the nineteenth century. J. Lane, London, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain HS (1928) Natur und Leben. F. Brockmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauss LF (1933) Rasse und Seele : eine Einführung in den Sinn der leiblichen Gestalt. Lehmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann U (1992) Biologen Unter Hitler. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer E, Gottschaldt K (eds) (1942) Die Methodik der Persönlichkeitsforschung in der Erbpsychologie. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederichs K (1934) Vom Wesen der Ökologie. Sudhoffs Arch 27:277–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederichs K (1937) Ökologie als Wissenschaft von der Natur oder biologische Raumforschung. J. A. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschaldt K (1937) Umwelterscheinungen im erbpsychologischen Bild. Naturwissenschaften 25:431–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington A (1999) Reenchanted science. Holism in German culture form Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Herder J G (1966)[1772] Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache. Reclam, Stuttgart

  • Hossfeld U (2000) Staatsbiologie, Rassenkunde und Moderne Syntese in Deutschland während der NS-Zeit. In: Brömer R, Hossfeld, U, Rupke N (eds) Evolutionsbiologie von Darwin bis heute. Wissenschaft und Bildung, Berlin, pp 249–305

  • Hossfeld U (2004) Rassenphilosophie und Kulturbiologie im eugenischen Diskurs. Der Jenaer Rassenphilosoph Lothar Stengel von Rutkowski. In: Kodalle KM (ed) Homo perfectus? Behinderung und menschliche Existenz, Kritisches Jahrbuch für Philosophie suppl. 5, pp 77–92

  • Hossfeld U, Šimůnek M (2008) Die Kooperation der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena und Deutschen Karls-Universität Prag im Bereich der ‘Rassenlehre’ 1933–1945. Ladeszentrale für politische Bildung Thüringen, Erfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossfeld U, John J, Lemuth O, Stutz R (eds) (2005) ‘Im Dienst am Volk und Vaterland’: Die Jenaer Universität in der NS-Zeit. Böhlau, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Just G (1940) Die Mendelischen Grundlagen der Erbbiologie des Menschen. In: Bonnevie K, Hanhart E (eds) Die Grundlagen der Erbbiologie des Menschen. Springer, Berlin, pp 371–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Just G (1943) Die Vererbung. Ferdinand Hirt, Breslau

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner K (2008a) Homosemiosis, mimicry, and superficial similarity: notes on the conceptualization of independent emergence of similarity in biology. Theor Biosci 127:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner K (2008b) The semantic morphology of adolf portmann: a starting point for the biosemiotics of organic form? Biosemiotics 1:207–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (1998) On semiosis, Umwelt, and semiosphere. Semiotica 120:299–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull K, Emmeche C, Favareau D (2008) Biosemiotic questions. Biosemiotics 1:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langthaler R (1992) Organismus und Umwelt. Georg Olms, Zürich, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus R (2008) Biosemiotics within and without biological holism: a semio-historical analysis. Biosemiotics 1:379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran T (2007) Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica 167:223–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mildenberger F (2007) Umwelt als Vision: Leben und Werk Jakob von Uexkülls (1864–1944). Franz Steiner, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieden zur S (2005) Erbbiologische Forschungen zur Homosexualität an der Deutschen Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie während der Jahre des Nationalsozialismus. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Petermann B (1943) Das Problem der Rassenseele: Vorlesungen zur Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Rassenpsychologie. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast T (2001) Gefährliche Ganzheitsbetrachtung oder geeinte Wissenschaft von Leben und Umwelt? Epistemisch-moralische Hybride in der deutschen Ekologie 1925–1955. In: Höxtermann E, Kaasch J, Kaasch M (eds) Berichte zur Geschichte und Theorie der Ekologie. VWB, Berlin, pp 91–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzel F (1901) Der Lebensraum. Eine biogeographische Studie. Laupp, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax B, Klopfer P (2006) Jakob von Uexküll and the anticipation of sociobiology. Semiotica 134:767–778

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidt W (1939) Die europäischen Rassen, ihre Zuchträume und ihre Kulturleistungen. Z f Rassenkd 10:198–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiedt W (1930) Kulturbiologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Spengler O (1998)[1923] Untergang des Abendlandes.Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte. C.H.Beck, München

  • Stengel-Rukowski L (1943) Was ist ein Volk? Der biologische Volksbegriff. Kurt Stenger, Erfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel-Rutkowski L (1943) Das naturgesetzliche Weltbild und Weltanschauung. Nordland Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutrop U (2001) Umwelt––word and concept: two hundred years of semantic change. Semiotica 134:447–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thienemann A (1941) Leben und Umwelt. J.A. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirala LG (1930) Kultur und Biologie. Volk u Rasse 5:164–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirala LG (1934) Dialog über die biologische Weltanschauung. Der Biologe 3:273–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirala LG (1935) Rasse, Geist und Seele. J.F. Lehmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Uekoetter F (2006) The green and the brown. a history of conservation in Nazi Germany. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J (1913) Bausteine zu einer biologischen Weltanschauung. F. Bruckmann, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J (1920) Staatsbiologie (Anatomie-Physiologie-Pathologie des Staates). Gebrüder Paetel, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J (1928) Theoretische Biologie. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J (1933) Staatsbiologie: Anatomie-Physiologie-Pathologie des Staates. Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J (1936) Biologie in der Mausefalle. Z f gesamte Naturwissenschaft 2:213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll J, Tirala LG (1914) Über den Tonus bei den Krustazeen. Z f Biol 65:25–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschuer O (1941) Leitfaden der Rassenhygiene. Georg Thieme, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H (1937) Zur neueren Entwickung der Umweltlehre Jakob v. Uexkülls. Naturwissenschaften 25:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber H (1939a) Zur Fassung und Gleiderung eines allgemeinen biologischen Umweltbegriffes. Naturwissenschaften 27:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber H (1939b) Der Umweltbegriff der Biologie und seine Anwendung. Der Biologe 8:245–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber H (1942) Organismus und Umwelt. Der Biologe 11:57–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P, Kroll J, Bayertz K (2006) Rasse, Blut und Gene. Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Woltereck R (1909) Weitere experimentelle Untersuchungen über Artveränderung, speziel über das Wesen quantitativer Artunterschiede bei Daphnien. Ver deut zool Ges 19:110–173

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

MS would like to thank the Grant Foundation of the Charles University in Prague project GAUK 113607/2007. KK was supported by the Research Program CTS MSM 0021620845 and the GPSS Major Awards Program, a joint program of the Interdisciplinary University of Paris and Elon University. Both authors would also like to thank Michal Šimůnek for advice and valuable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Husníkova 2075, 150 00, Prague 5, Czech Republic

    Marco Stella

  2. Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, 128 44, Prague 2, Czech Republic

    Karel Kleisner

Authors
  1. Marco Stella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karel Kleisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Stella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stella, M., Kleisner, K. Uexküllian Umwelt as science and as ideology: the light and the dark side of a concept. Theory Biosci. 129, 39–51 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-010-0081-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-010-0081-0

Keywords