Suchergebnisse

Why should social scientists be interested in using molecular genetic data? Here are five reasons:

This essay reflects on the past, present, and future of biopolitics, starting with the academic interest in the link between biology and politics. Examples of primitive adumbrations of this approach appear throughout academic history; however, the modern roots of biology and politics began in the 1960s. This reflection traces biopolitics from its modern birth through the 1990s, and considers future research endeavors related to biology and politics.

Does the prima facie contradiction between the Declaration of Independence's description of the separate and unique "creation" of human beings and Darwin's evolutionary account indicate a broader contradiction between theories of human rights and Darwinian evolution? While similar troubling questions have been raised and answered in the affirmative since Darwin's time, this article renews, updates and significantly fortifies such answers with original arguments. If a "distilled" formulation of the Declaration's central claims, shorn of complicating entanglements with both theology and comprehensive philosophical doctrines, may still be in contradiction with Darwinian evolutionary theory, this should be cause for substantial concern on the part of all normative political theorists, from Straussians to Rawlsians. Despite the notable recent efforts of a few political theorists, evolutionary ethicists and sociobiologists to establish the compatibility of Darwinian evolutionary theory with moral norms such as the idea of natural or human rights, I argue that significant obstacles remain.

Although there may be some disagreement about the exact date, I think it safe to say that the biopolitics movement was launched in the 1960s. Now, a half century later, it may be appropriate to pose the rather obvious, if somewhat delicate, question: What has biopolitics contributed to political science? Here, I will try to persuade you that a biopolitical approach may have yielded answers to a couple of the most debated issues in political philosophy—one, the granddady of them all, is "What is the nature of political man?" The other, much more recent, but steadily increasing in importance, is "Why are democracies so rare and so fragile?"

Few intellectual battles compare in depth of passion or theatrics to the outrage that greeted the publication of Edward O. Wilson's 1975 path-breaking volume,Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Within days of publication, opponents organized symposia; wrote critical editorials; picketed in Harvard Square; and, at one meeting, assaulted Wilson with a bucket of cold water before he could deliver his address. Fueling this reaction was Wilson's temerity in asserting that the principles of the new synthetic theory applied no less to humans than to other species—and then to use the penultimate chapter to apply his theory to explaining human mating, aggression, and the development of moral and religious systems. Even some who were sympathetic with sociobiology were taken aback by some of the imperialistic sounding statements made by Wilson and his disciples, like Robert Trivers, who prophesized: "Sooner or later, political science, law, economics, psychology, psychiatry, and anthropology will all be branches of sociobiology."