Search results

Feminists have long been aware of the pathology and the dangers of what are now termed "adaptive preferences." Adaptive preferences are preferences formed in unconscious response to oppression. Thinkers from each wave of feminism continue to confront the problem of women's internalization of their own oppression, that is, the problem of women forming their preferences within the confining and deforming space that patriarchy provides. All preferences are, in fact, formed in response to a (more or less) limited set of options, but not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression. Feminist theory therefore requires a method for distinguishing all preferences from adaptive or deformed preferences. Social contract theory provides such a tool. Social contract theory models autonomous preference‐acquisition and retention at both the external level of causation and the internal level of justification. In doing so, social contract theory exposes preferences that do not meet those standards, acting as both a conceptual test that identifies adaptive preferences and as a practical tool for personal and social clarification. A social contract approach helps persons and societies to identify and to confront preferences rooted in unconscious response to oppression.

This article, contrary to many feminist interpretations, argues that Rawls's work reflects not a patriarchal inability to address coercive family structures, but a deep understanding of the role of family life in expressing diversity, individual goods, and liberty. Moreover, his later espousal of a political liberalism founded on fairness and cooperation signifies not a shift toward toleration of either patriarchy or oppression in the family. Rather, by understanding the relationship between the political and the comprehensive as porous, and as neither dichotomous nor distinctly separate realms, Rawls proposes an effective strategy for combating oppression in the family while protecting comprehensive ends from political oppression. Ultimately, his paradigm accounts for the actual and the potential practices, and for the coercive and the voluntary aspects, of family life. He thus pushes "the limits of the possible.". Adapted from the source document.

This paper details the collaborative efforts of a reference librarian and a political science professor to seamlessly meld the study of politics with the acquisition of information literacy skills using a problem-based learning approach. Students in an introductory American Government class were engaged in a group project in which they acted as media consultants for the political candidate of their choice. Two information literacy sessions were embedded into the project. ACRL Information Literacy Standards were used to generate and assess performance outcomes. Student feedback, as well as pre-test and post-test results, indicate that a problem-based approach to enhancing information literacy in political science courses effectively engages students interest and improves students' information literacy skills.

The term "biopolitics" carries multiple, sometimes competing, meanings in political science. When the term was first used in the United States in the late 1970s, it referred to an emerging subdiscipline that incorporated the theories and data of the life sciences into the study of political behavior and public policy. But by the mid-1990s, biopolitics was adopted by postmodernist scholars at the American Political Science Association's annual meeting who followed Foucault's work in examining the power of the state on individuals. Michel Foucault first used the term biopolitics in the 1970s to denote social and political power over life. Since then, two groups of political scientists have been using this term in very different ways. This paper examines the parallel developments of the term "biopolitics," how two subdisciplines gained (and one lost) control of the term, and what the future holds for its meaning in political science.