Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Only those whose work and interests have led them to notice it, will have realised, in all probability, the remarkable extent to which the term organization has gained currency, or acquired new and special emphasis, throughout the entire range of scientific and sociological literature during the last ten or twenty years.
In biology and bio-chemistry organization has been discussed or used as a technical term, mostly since 1930 by at least thirty well-known authors; amongst the more prominent are Huxley, Wilson, Woodger, Cannon, Waddington, McDougall, Needham, Block, Hopkins and Sherrington. Under this magic term some authors refer to the physico-chemical nature of the cell or cytoplasm, and usually with special reference to selective or directive catalysis; others to the general constitution or structure of the organism and almost indistinguishable from general morphology and physiology; others to embryological development as such (i.e. progressive differentiation under specific chemical stimuli); others more especially to “relations” between cells, organs and structural parts, often in an abstract sense; others refer more particularly to a hypothetical integrating and/or co-ordinating factor (“entelechy', ”field“, ”formative force“, ”telepathic hierarchial monads“, ”diffused Maxwell's Demon“, and so forth): a few refer to re-constitution from dissociated cells (so-called ”re-organization“) as observed in experiments with Sponges and Hydroids.
1 Woodger was the first author in this country to draw attention to and criticise the word organization as used in biology (1932).
2 Actually the association or negative dispersal of cells themselves is not understood fundamentally.
3 Considered mere analogical names in recent psychological investigation of psychoanalysis in America.