Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:17:49.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Can Biopolitics Teach us About Democratic Representation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2019

Kevin Arceneaux
Kevin Arceneaux*
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
Correspondence: Kevin Arceneaux, Thomas J. Freaney, Jr. Professor of Political Science, Director of Behavioral Foundations Lab, Institute for Public Affairs, Faculty Affiliate Temple University, 453 Gladfelter Hall, 1115 Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA19122. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Extract

My interest in biopolitics took a circuitous route. My guiding interest in studying politics is the study of democratic representation. Democracy is a special institution. It holds out the hope that we can resolve our differences in a peaceful way by letting the governed govern themselves. As a graduate student, I was immediately taken by Anthony Down’s (1957) theory of democracy. It just made so much sense. People hold preferences that are ordered and coherent. They derive utility from outcomes. Government policy should, therefore, reflect the distribution of policy preferences that maximizes the utility of the most people. Easy peasy, right?

Type
Perspective
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , Spring 2020 , pp. 4 - 8
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arceneaux, K. & Vander Wielen, R. J.. 2017. Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C. & Arceneaux, K.. 2019. “Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats: Evidence from three replications.” PsyArXiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L.. 1999. “The unbearable automaticity of being.” American Psychologist 54(7):462– 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, C. 2019. The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Egan, P. J. 2014. “‘Do something’ politics and double-peaked policy preferences.” Journal of Politics 76(2):333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, M. S. & Pennington, Z. T.. 2018. “A return to the psychiatric dark ages with a two-system framework for fear.” Behaviour Research and Therapy 100:24–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, S. 2016. Biocultural creatures: Toward a new theory of the human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, B. 2019. “Six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias and its criticism.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 14(4):574–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J.. 2003. “Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinder, D. R. & Ryan, T. J.. 2017. “Prejudice and politics re-examined the political significance of implicit racial bias.” Political Science Research and Methods 5(2):241– 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L.. 2001. “Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(26):15387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurzban, R. 2012. Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: Evolution and the modular mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lang, P. J. 1968. “Fear reduction and fear behavior: Problems in treating a construct.” In J. M. Shlien (Ed.), Research in psychotherapy (pp. 90–102). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, J. E. and Pine, D. S.. 2016. “Using neuroscience to help understand fear and anxiety: A two-system framework.” American Journal of Psychiatry 173(11):1083–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lodge, M. and Taber, C. S. 2013. The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnikoff, D. E. & Bargh, J. A. 2018. “The mythical number two.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22(4):280–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., Rockstroh, B. S., Hamilton, H. K. and Yee, C. M.. 2016. “Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC.” Psychophysiology 53(3):410–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, B. K., Krosnick, J. A., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Y., Akhtar, O. & Tompson, T.. 2010. “Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46(2):367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, H. S., Larson, C. L., Davidson, R. J. & Coan, J. A.. 2014. “Brain, body, and cognition: Neural, physiological and self-report correlates of phobic and normative fear.” Biological Psychology 98:59–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. 2003. “The mind’s best trick: how we experience conscious will.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2):65–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaller, J. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar