Two kinds of evolutionary individuals: the concept of common interest as an evolutionary foundation of dualism on biological individuality

What is a biological individual? This is a question that has been of interest to biologists and philosophers for a long time. The usual response is an attempt either to find a single, unifying concept (a monistic stance) or to justify the existence of multiple concepts, for instance, by referring to scientific practice (a pluralistic stance). In this paper, I adopt a pluralistic stance and focus on evolutionary studies. I argue that in the context of evolutionary biology we need to distinguish between two kinds of evolutionary individuals, based on the concept of common interest. I decouple this into common interest by necessity (CIN) and common interest by contingency (CIC), and argue that this division corresponds to two kinds of evolutionary individuals. To situate the framework I thus develop within the context of ongoing discussions, I then compare it with frameworks corresponding to other concepts commonly found in the relevant literature, such as those concerning units of selection and agency. The conclusion is that the ontology of evolutionary biology is more complex than often assumed, and that we should distinguish: units of selection, agents, and two kinds of evolutionary individuals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Published
2026-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-026-00721-w
Primary Topic
Philosophy and History of Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Two kinds of evolutionary individuals: the concept of common interest as an evolutionary foundation of dualism on biological individuality

Adrian Stencel
History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Philosophy and History of Science
article

Two kinds of evolutionary individuals: the concept of common interest as an evolutionary foundation of dualism on biological individuality

Adrian Stencel
article en

Abstract

What is a biological individual? This is a question that has been of interest to biologists and philosophers for a long time. The usual response is an attempt either to find a single, unifying concept (a monistic stance) or to justify the existence of multiple concepts, for instance, by referring to scientific practice (a pluralistic stance). In this paper, I adopt a pluralistic stance and focus on evolutionary studies. I argue that in the context of evolutionary biology we need to distinguish between two kinds of evolutionary individuals, based on the concept of common interest. I decouple this into common interest by necessity (CIN) and common interest by contingency (CIC), and argue that this division corresponds to two kinds of evolutionary individuals. To situate the framework I thus develop within the context of ongoing discussions, I then compare it with frameworks corresponding to other concepts commonly found in the relevant literature, such as those concerning units of selection and agency. The conclusion is that the ontology of evolutionary biology is more complex than often assumed, and that we should distinguish: units of selection, agents, and two kinds of evolutionary individuals.

History & Philosophy of the Life SciencesVol. 48(1)
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 42%
Philosophy and History of Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.