Internalism and Laws of Form 289
But Goethe also attacked adaptationist primacy in the more focused realm of
explaining morphology: "It is not a question of whether the concept of final causes
is convenient, or even indispensable, to some people, or whether it may not have
good and useful results when applied to the moral realm; rather, it is a question of
whether it is an aid or a deterrent to physiologists in their study of organized
bodies. I make bold to assert that it does deter them, therefore avoided it myself
and considered it my duty to warn others against it" (2nd essay on plant
metamorphosis, written in 1790, in Mueller and Engard, 1952, p. 80).
Citing a perennial complaint, then and now, against adaptationist
explanations—that such efforts tell good stories in the speculationist mode, but do
not explain morphology—Goethe compares final causes with Linnaeus' fanciful
descriptions of sexual anatomy in plants: "For example, Linne calls flower petals
'curtains of the nuptial bed,' a parable that would do honor to a poet. But after all!
the discovery of the true physiological nature of such parts is completely blocked
in this way, just as it is by the convenient and false espousal of the theory of final
causes" (2nd essay on plant metamorphosis, written in 1790, in Mueller and
Engard, 1952, pp. 79-80).
Proper morphological explanations, Goethe asserts, must be sought on
internal and formalist principles; external fit, though of great importance, can only
be regarded as secondary: "In my opinion, the chief concept underlying all
observation of life—one from which we must not deviate—is that a creature is
self-sufficient, that its parts are inevitably interrelated, and that nothing
mechanical, as it were, is built up or produced from without, although it is true that
the parts affect their environment and are in turn affected by it" (2nd essay on plant
metamorphosis, written in 1790, in Mueller and Engard, 1952, p. 80).
In a remarkable passage, that could serve as a credo for modern formalism as
well, Goethe asserts his central claim for internalist primacy, while also specifying
the vital, but secondary, role of adaptation. Internal formation acts as a primary
source that "must find external conditions." Adaptation may then shape a range of
diversity from an underlying form, but the archetypal pattern cannot be explained
by these secondary modifications, and the adaptations themselves can only express
a superficial restructuring of inherent order:
Man, in considering all things with reference to himself, is obliged to
assume that external forms are determined from within, and this assumption
is all the easier for him in that no single living thing is conceivable without
complete organization. Internally, this complete organization is clearly
defined; thus it must find external conditions that are just as clear and
definite, for its external existence is possible only under certain conditions
and in certain situations.... An animal possesses external usefulness
precisely because it has been shaped from without as well as from within,
and—more important and quite natural—because the external element can
more readily adapt the external form to its own purposes