Talk:Essentialism

Biological essentialism

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).

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)

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

• Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy from Springer with 149 citations,
• Taxonomy: myths and misconceptions with 22 citations, whose author is from the International Institute for Species Exploration, Arizona State University,
• Aristotle's biology was not essentialist with 182 citations
• Typology reconsidered: two doctrines on the history of evolutionary biology, 121 citations, Springer
• Linnaeus’s biology was not essentialist, 73 citations, BioOne

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)

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

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: , 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)

Racial essentialism

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

I have merged them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Religion 100 Introduction to Religion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 16 March 2026 and 6 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cx330Eliauk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cx330Eliauk (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Environmental essentialism

@Generalrelative reverted addition of source "A biosocial return to race? A cautionary view for the postgenomic era" on environment essentialism/determinism with comment "Sorry, no. This looks like a pattern across multiple articles to add vague assertions that opposition to genetic determinism amounts to a form of essentialism. This is a rather wild view"

I disagree, no part of my addition or added source did oppose genetic determinism. It's an additional type of essentialism, this time by environmental conditions. Another type - psychological essentialism is already in the article. I could adjust phrasing of my addition to prevent misunderstandings or provide other sources if that helps. HudecEmil (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps your intention would be clearer if your prose were clearer, but this text

Environmental determinism has been criticized for attribution racial disparities only to environmental or socioeconomic differences

coupled with your change of Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist to Social theories were often conceptually essentialist appears to represent a substantial (though vaguely worded) POV shift. Yes these changes could be cleaned up to fix grammatical errors, but I'm concerned with the more fundamental shift in emphasis: i.e. are social theories today generally essentialist in character, or is this rather a characteristic more common in older ones? Wrt the study you wish to cite , there are two questions: 1) is it due for inclusion, and 2) have you accurately summarized it?

Looking at the study, I see that it may be due for inclusion if handled properly –– perhaps not here but in our article Race (human categorization) –– but the summary would need to accord with what the authors actually say. To wit: the authors are actually criticizing the biosocial "return to race" but your prose seems (to my eyes at least) to be vaguely gesturing at the opposite.

On a positive note, I do thank you for bringing this article to my attention. It's a solid read. Generalrelative (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Reorder by type

Propose to reorganize the examples sections because gender is discussed in both gender essentialism and "Racial, cultural and strategic essentialism". Suggest to make new social essentialism section (contrasting with biological essentialism) and reorder into gender essentialism subsection and racial essentialism subsection. HudecEmil (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not object to the possibility of a more logical typology here, but I don't see where gender is discussed in the latter subsection. I just see it figuring in a list of terms (ethnicity, nationality or gender). That kind of cross-referencing of terms is really not a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)