This article analyzes the power of ambiguous metaphors to present scientific novelty. Its focus is a series of papers by the prominent population biologist W. D. Hamilton in which he redefined the meaning of biological altruism. In particular, the article draws on Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad to examine why suggestions of motive are so pervasive in Hamilton’s representation of genetic evolution and what epistemological consequences result from this rhetorical choice. Specifically, the metaphorical language of motive allows Hamilton to represent genes ambiguously and simultaneously as both the agents of evolutionary action and as the agency or mechanism by which organism agents act. The textual ambiguity generated by the agent-agency metaphors both reflects and constructs a conceptual ambiguity in the way evolutionary processes are theorized. Analysis of Hamilton’s rhetoric thus suggests the productive function of ambiguous metaphors in highly technical scientific texts.
Abbott, H. P. (2003). Unnarratable knowledge: The difficulty of understanding evolution by natural selection. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences(pp. 143-162). Stanford, CT: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
2.
Ahouse, J. C. (1998). The tragedy of a priori selectionism: Dennett and Gould on adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy, 13, 359-391.
3.
Amundsen, R. (1996). Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In M. R. Rose & G. V. Lauder (Eds.), Adaptation(pp. 11-53). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Baake, K. (2003). Metaphor and knowledge: The challenge of writing science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
5.
Beer, G. (1983). Darwin’s plots: Evolutionary narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and nighteenth century narrative. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
6.
Beer, G. (1987). Problems of description in the language of discovery. In G. Levine (Ed.), One culture: Essays in science and literature(pp. 35-58). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1980). Effect of phenotypic variation on kin selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 77, 7506-7509.
9.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1945)
11.
Ceccarelli, L. (1995). A rhetoric of interdisciplinary scientific discourse: Textual criticism of Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Genetics and the origin of species. Social Epistemology, 9, 91-111.
12.
Ceccarelli, L. (2004). Neither confusing cacophony or culinary complements: A case study of mixed metaphors for genomic science. Written Communication, 21, 92-105.
13.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1987). Rhetoric and mathematics. In J. S. Nelson et al. (Eds.), The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs(pp. 53-68). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
14.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford Cambridge University Press.
15.
Dawkins, R. (1981). In defense of selfish genes. Philosophy, 56, 556-573.
16.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Doyle, R. (1997). On beyond living: Rhetorical transformations of the life sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
Doyle, R. (2003). Wetwares: Experiments in postvital living. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
19.
Eldredge, N. (1995). Reinventing Darwin: The great debate at the high table of evolutionary theory. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Ellis, B. J., & Ketelaar, T. (2002). Clarifying the foundations of evolutionary psychology: A reply to Lloyd and Feldman. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 157-164.
21.
Ewens, W. (1999). The mathematical foundations of population genetics. In R. S. Singh & C. B. Krimbas (Eds.), Evolutionary genetics: From molecules to morphology(pp. 24-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3, 275-296.
23.
Fahnestock, J. (2004). Preserving the figure: Consistency in the presentation of scientific arguments. Written Communication, 21, 6-31.
24.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: Norton.
25.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behaviour. The American Naturalist,97, 354-356.
27.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviours, I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16.
28.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviours, II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52.
29.
Hamilton, W. D. (1970). Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model. Nature, 228, 1218-1220.
30.
Hamilton, W. D. (1975). Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics. In R. Fox (Ed.), ASA Studies 4: Biosocial anthropology(pp. 135-153). London: Malaby Press.
31.
Hamilton, W. D. (1988). This week’s citation classic. Current Contents, 40, 16-16.
32.
Hamilton, W. D. (1996). Narrow roads of gene land: The collected papers of W. D. Hamilton (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: W.H. Freeman.
33.
Hayles, N. K. (2001). Desiring agency: Limiting metaphors and enabling constraints in Dawkins and Deleuze/Gattari. SubStance, 30, 144-159.
34.
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
35.
Hesse, M. (1980). The explanatory function of metaphor. In M. Hesse (Ed.), Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science(pp. 111-124). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
36.
Hull, D. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 311-332.
37.
Journet, D. (1995). Synthesizing disciplinary narratives: George Gaylord Simpson’sTempo and mode in evolution. Social Epistemology, 9, 113-150.
38.
Journet, D. (1999a). The limits of narrative in the construction of scientific knowledge: George Gaylord Simpson’s The dechronization of Sam Magruder. In J. N. Perkins & N. Blyler (Eds.). Narrative and Professional Communication (pp. 93-104). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
39.
Journet, D. (1999b). Writing within (and between) disciplinary genres: The “adaptive landscape” as a case study in interdisciplinary rhetoric. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
40.
Keller, E. F. (1995). Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Keller, E. F. (2002). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Keller, E. F., & Lloyd, E. A. (Eds.). (1992). Keywords in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 1-21.
45.
Lewontin, R. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1,1-18.
46.
Lewontin, R. (1994). A rejoinder to William Winsatt. In J. Chandler et al. (Eds.), Questions of evidence: Proof, practice, and persuasion across the disciplines(pp. 504-509). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Lewontin, R. (1999). The problems of population genetics. In R. S. Singh & C. B. Krimbas (Eds.), Evolutionary genetics: From molecules to morphology(pp. 5-23). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Genes, organisms and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. J. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon.
50.
Lloyd, E. A. (1992). Units of selection. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology(pp. 334-340). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
Lloyd, E. A., & Feldman, M. W. (2002). Evolutionary psychology: A view from evolutionary biology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 150-156.
52.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Midgley, M. (1979). Gene juggling. Philosophy, 54, 439-458.
54.
Midgley, M. (1983). Selfish genes and social Darwinism. Philosophy, 58, 365-377.
55.
Miller, C., & Halloran, S. M. (1993). Reading Darwin, reading nature: Or, on the ethos of historical science. In J. Selzer (Ed), Understanding scientific prose(pp. 106-126). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
56.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
57.
Nitecki, M. H., & Nitecki, D. V. (Eds.). (1992). History and evolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.
58.
O’Hara, R. J. (1988). Homage to Clio: Or toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology, 37, 142-155.
59.
O’Hara, R. J. (1992). Telling the tree: Narrative representation and the study of evolutionary history. Philosophy and Biology, 7, 135-160.
60.
Ortony, A. (1993). (Ed). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Provine, W. B. (1978). The role of mathematical population geneticists in the evolutionary synthesis. Studies in the History of Biology, 2, 167-192.
62.
Rosenberg, A. (1992). Altruism: Theoretical contexts. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology(pp. 19-28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Ruse, M. (1988). Philosophy of biology today. Albany: State University of New York Press.
64.
Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The sociobiology debate. New York: Oxford University Press.
65.
Selzer, J. (Ed.). (1993) Understanding scientific prose. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
66.
Simpson, G. G. (1944). Tempo and mode in evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.
67.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research articles: Where to put the bottom line. Written Communication, 4, 175-191.
69.
Wilson, D. S. (1975). A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 72, 143-146.
70.
Wilson, D. S. (1980). The natural selection of populations and communities. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
71.
Wilson, D. S. (1983). The group selection controversy: History and current status. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14, 159-187.
72.
Wilson, D. S., & Dugatkin, L. (1992). Altruism: Contemporary debates. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology(pp. 29-33). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin’s metaphor: Nature’s place in Victorian culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
