Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:49:18.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The competing meanings of “biopolitics” in political science: Biological and postmodern approaches to politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Laurette T. Liesen  and
Mary Barbara Walsh
Laurette T. Liesen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Lewis University, One University Parkway, Romeoville, IL 60446, [email protected]
Mary Barbara Walsh
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Elmhurst College, 190 Prospect Avenue, Elmhurst, IL 60126, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

BiopoliticsbiopowerAPLSAPSAFoucaultknowledge regimesanatomo-politicscontrol of populationspolitics and the life sciences
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2 , Spring/Fall 2012 , pp. 2 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

1. Lemke, Thomas, “From state biology to the government of life: Historical dimensions and contemporary perspectives of ‘biopolitics,”’ Journal of Classical Sociology, 2010, 10: 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Roberts, Morley, Bio-politics: An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology and Politics of the Social and Somatic Organism (London: Dent, 1938).Google Scholar
3. Wiegele, Thomas C., Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979).Google Scholar
4. Wahlke, John C., “Pre-behavioralism in political science,” American Political Science Review 1979, 73: 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dryzek, John S. and Schlosberg, David, “Disciplining Darwin: Biology in the history of political science,” in Political Science in History, Farr, James, Dryzek, John S., and Leonard, Stephen T., eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
6. Reiter, Hans, “Unsere biopolitik und das auslands-deutschtum,” in Das Reichsgesundheitsamt: 1933–1939. Sechs Jahre nationalsozialistische Fuhrung (Berlin: Julius Springer Verlag, 1939).Google Scholar
7. Reiners, Derek, “Stuck in the pleistocene: Rationality and evolved social roles,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2001, 20: pp. 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Somit, Alfred and Peterson, Steven A., “Rational choice and biopolitics: A (Darwinian) tale of two theories,” PS: Political Science and Politics 1999, 32(1): 39–44.Google Scholar
9. Davies, James C., Human Nature in Politics: The Dynamics of Political Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Davies, James C., “Biology and politics: Wine and wineskins, old and new,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, August 1975.Google Scholar
11. Caldwell, Lynton, “Biopolitics: Science, ethics, and public policy,” The Yale Review 1964, 54: 1–16.Google Scholar
12. Somit, Alfred and Peterson, Steven A., “Review article: Biopolitics after three decades – A balance sheet,” British Journal of Political Science 1998, 28: 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Esposito, Roberto, Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008).Google Scholar
14. Davis, Reed, “From the nomad's gonads to Madame Bovary's ovaries: Biopolitics and its discontents,” The Political Science Reviewer 2009, 38: 185–228.Google Scholar
15. Masters, Roger D., The Nature of Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Peterson, Steven A. and Somit, Alfred, “Biopolitics: A preliminary history,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1979, 15: 333–339.Google Scholar
17. Somit, Alfred, “Review article: Biopolitics,” British Journal of Political Science 1972, 2: 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Thorson, Thomas Landon, Biopolitics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970).Google Scholar
19. Anderson, Walt, “Natural selection,” review of Thomas L. Thorson's Biopolitics, The Nation, August 3, 1970: 88–90.Google Scholar
20. Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, Volume i, Hurley, Robert, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1978).Google Scholar
21. Rosenau, Pauline Marie, Post-modernism and the Social Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
22. Foucault, Michel, The Birth of Biopolitics, in Senellart, Michel, ed., Burchell, Graham, trans. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).Google Scholar
23. Davidson, Arnold I., “Archaeology, genealogy, ethics” in Foucault: A Critical Reader, Hoy, David Couzens, ed. (New York: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 221–333.Google Scholar
24. Gutting, Gary, “Introduction, Michel Foucault: A user's manual,” in The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, 2nd edition, Gutting, Gary, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Martin, Luther H., Huck, Gutman, and Hutton, Patrick H., eds., Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988).Google Scholar
26. Sawicki, Jana, “Queering Foucault and the subject of feminism,” The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, 2nd edition, Gutting, Gary, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
27. Bernauer, James W. and Mahon, Michael, “Michel Foucault's ethical imagination,” The Cambridge Companion to Foucault, 2nd edition, Gutting, Gary, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
28. Downing, Lisa, The Cambridge Introduction to Michel Foucault (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
29. Rabinow, Paul and Rose, Nikolas, eds., The Essential Foucault (New York: The New Press, 2003).Google Scholar
30. Crome, Keith, “The nihilistic affirmation of life: Biopower and biopolitics in The Will to Knowledge,” Parrhesia, 2009, 6: 46–61.Google Scholar
31. Futuyma, Douglas J., Evolutionary Biology (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1986).Google ScholarPubMed
32. Daly, Martin and Wilson, Margo, Sex, Evolution, and Behavior (North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1978).Google Scholar
33. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer, The Woman that Never Evolved (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Smuts, Barbara, “The evolutionary origins of patriarchy,” Human Nature 1995, 6: 1–32.Google Scholar
35. Gowaty, Patricia Adair, “Sexual dialectics, sexual selection, and variation in mating behavior,” in Feminism and Evolutionary Biology: Boundaries, Intersections, and Frontiers, Gowaty, Patricia Adair, ed. (New York: Chapman & Hall, 1997), pp. 351–384.Google Scholar
36. Masters, Roger, “Explaining ‘male chauvinism’ and ‘feminism’: Cultural differences in male and female reproductive strategies,” in Biopolitics and Gender, Watts, Meredith, ed. (New York: Haworth Press, 1984).Google Scholar
37. Liesen, Laurette T., “Feminism and the politics of reproductive strategies,” Politics and the Life Sciences 1995, 14: 145–162.Google Scholar
38. Hoy, David Couzens, “Introduction,” in Foucault: A Critical Reader, Hoy, David Couzens, ed. (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 14–21.Google Scholar
39. Somit, Alfred, “Toward a more biologically oriented political science: Ethology and psychopharmacology,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 1968, 12: 550–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Blank, Robert H., “Biopolicy: A restatement of its role in politics and the life sciences,” Politics and the Life Sciences 1982, 1: 38–42.Google Scholar
41. Johnson, Gary R., “Politics and the life sciences: An unfinished revolution,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2011, 30(2): 45–67.Google Scholar
42. Johnson, Gary R., “Politics and the life sciences: A second decade and continuing mission,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2005, 20: 109–177.Google Scholar
43. Somit, Alfred and Peterson, Steven A., “Rational choice and biopolitics: A (Darwinian) tale of two theories,” PS: Political Science and Politics 1999, 32: 39–44.Google Scholar
44. Johnson, Gary R., “Science, Sulloway, and birth order: An ordeal and an assessment,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2005, 19: 211–245.Google Scholar
45. Hibbing, John, Alford, John, and Funk, Carolyn, “The source of political attitudes and behavior: Assessing genetic and environmental contributions,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Associations, Chicago, IL, September 2004.Google Scholar
46. Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R., “The origins of politics: An evolutionary theory of political behavior,” Perspectives on Politics 2004, 2: 707–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R., “Are political orientations genetically transmitted?” American Political Science Review 2005, 99: 153–167.Google Scholar
48. Masters, Roger, Beyond Relativism: Science and Human Values (Hanover, NH: University of New England, 1993).Google Scholar
49. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., Research in Biopolitics (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996).Google Scholar
50. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., “Rational choice and biopolitics,” PS: Political Science and Politics 1999, 32: 39–44.Google Scholar
51. McDermott, Rose, “The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science,” Perspectives on Politics 2004, 2: 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Somit, Alfred, Black, Naomi, Tullock, Gordon, and Schultz, David, “Counterpoint,” Perspectives on Politics 2005, 3: 435–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Liesen, Laurette T., “Women, behavior, and evolution: Understanding the debate between feminist evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 26: 51–70.Google Scholar
54. Hannagan, Rebecca, “Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach,” Sex Roles 2008, 59: 465–475.Google Scholar
55. Stewart, Patrick, “Taking leaders at face value: Ethology and the analysis of televised leader displays,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2009, 28: 48–74.Google Scholar
56. Halpern, Cynthia and Nackenhoff, Carol, “(Un)-doing the state: Feminist theorists and the transformation of 21st century politics,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 2002.Google Scholar
57. Goetze, David, “Identity challenges facing the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences,” Politics and the Life Sciences 2011, 30(1): 77–79.Google Scholar
58. Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R., “The new empirical biopolitics,” Annual Review of Political Science 2008, 11: 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar