Sarah Jansen

In fisheries biology of the late 19th century, the challenges posed to taxonomy by Darwinian theory intersected with attempts to increase the productivity of marine populations. Addressing both discourses, the influential German zoologist Friedrich Heincke developed a set of methods to determine exactly the differences between varieties or races of herring. In taxonomy, his methods contributed to the development of a biological species concept; in fisheries biology, they allowed tracing the herrings' migrations, which ultimately aided in divising schemes for sustainable fisheries. Heincke's use of mathematical statistics, some of them borrowed from anthropometry, served to distinguish his ‚exact’ approach from that of typological taxonomists. Beyond its use as a rhetorical ploy, exactness gained meaning in the epistemic regime of exact reproduction of measurements, which entailed the replication of measurement techniques for the purpose of comparison e.g. of herrings caught at different locations. This exactness was enabled by the formalisation of the process of taxonomic identification

The ArgumentThe vine lousePhylloxera vastatrixbecame a “pest” as it was transferred from North America and from France to Germany during the 1870s. Embodying the “invading alien,” it assumed a cultural position that increasingly gained importance in Imperial Germany. In this process, the minute insect, living invisibly underground, was made visible and became constitutive of the scientific-technological object, “pest,” pertaining to a scientific discipline, modern economic entomology. The “pest” phylloxera emerged by being made visible in a way that enabled control measures against it. Thus, visibility functioned as a prerequisite for control measures. I differentiate between social visibility and physical visibility, as well as between social control and physical control of the “introduced pest.” The object phylloxera emerged at the intersection of techniques of social control such as surveillance, techniques of physical control such as disinfection, and representational practices of the sciences such as mathematics and graphics. The space of its visibility was not the vineyard as property of a vintner but the vineyard as national territory, where German (viti-) culture was defended against foreign infiltration and destruction. Many vintners had alternate visions of the grapevine disease, they resented the invasion and destruction of their vineyards by government officers, and thus they did not participate in the social and epistemic constitution of the “pest.” By 1914, the “introduced pest” had not yet become an effective “machinery.” However, the “pest” as an object of scientific knowledge emerged together with economic entomology. The field became organized as a discipline in Germany in 1913, forty years after the phylloxera had first aroused the minds of some worried Wilhelmians, and, together with its nationalistic images, the field of “pest” control became organized towards a redefinition of German society and its perceived dangers.