The Liminal Nature of the “Eclipse of Darwinism” as a Critical Phase in the History of Evolutionary Biology

The term “eclipse of Darwinism” was popularized by Julian Huxley, who used it to describe the period before the emergence of the evolutionary synthesis. The idea of the “eclipse” was later criticized, because it was used to show the superiority of the synthesis over earlier evolutionary theories. This historiography was opposed by Peter Bowler and Mark Largent. According to Bowler, Darwin was not a central figure in nineteenth-century biology. Rather, most naturalists worked within a different evolutionary paradigm. Largent suggested replacing the term “eclipse” with “interphase of Darwinism”, which would better reflect its nature as a preparatory phase for the creation of the synthesis. However, the philosophical presuppositions on which these interpretations were built, while helping them to avoid the errors of their predecessors, also led to new problems. The problems with the interpretations of the “eclipse” can be explained by its “liminal” character. Liminality is an intermediate period between the old and the new. Because of its transgressivity, a liminal period is hard to integrate within a given structure and is mostly excluded from the latter. When analyzing works of historians dealing with the “eclipse” we encounter a common tendency towards excluding this period from historical narratives.