The Superorganism Metaphor: Then and Now

Abstract

As John Maynard Smith} has said: Our choice of models, and to some extent our choice of words to describe them is important because it affects how we think about the world . . . our choice of model decides what phenomena we regard as readily explicable, and which need further investigation. (p. 120.) My paper is concerned with one such choice, namely the use of superorganism metaphor in biological theory. In particular I am inter-ested in the recent arguments for the "revival" of the superorganism metaphor for the study of social insects. Briefly, superorganism metaphors and theories take the individual organism as a model of functional inte-gration or cooperation of parts and extend that model to describe and explore social groups of individuals. Just as individual cells in the body cooperate in the development, maintenance, and reproduction of the organism, so too (it is suggested by the metaphor) do individuals cooperate in the development, maintenance, and reproduction of a colony or a society. Metaphorical transfers between organisms, social insects, and human societies has had a long history. Yet each historical and scientific context has stamped its own character on the use of such language. After decades when mention of superorganism was anathema in social insect studies, 2 in the last ten years, there have been multiple pleas to "revive" the su:perorganism. This revival "movement" includes the following scholars: E. o. Wilson,3 who has claimed that, although no one used super-organism language through the reductionistic and empirical trends in entomology from the 1950s until now, even then it had a signifi-cant, albeit "semi-conscious" role. Furthermore, "the time may be at hand for a revival of the superorganism concept.,,4