Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:16:41.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Science and the Life Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Peter Corning ,
Joseph Losco  and
Thomas C. Wiegele
Peter Corning
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Joseph Losco
Affiliation:
Delaware Valley Technical and Community College
Thomas C. Wiegele
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the 1980 APSA meeting in Washington, a group of approximately 25 political scientists and others, out of a much larger network of contributors and sympathizers, agreed to form an Association for Politics and the Life Sciences dedicated to the advancement of an integrated biosocial perspective in our discipline. Although this short article is intended primarily to announce that fact and detail plans for the immediate future, we feel that this might also be an appropriate occasion to review briefly the history and rationale behind this intellectual activity and describe some of the objectives of the Association.

The study of the relationship between biology and politics (sometimes called “biobehavioral political science” and sometimes also “biopolitics”) drew its initial impetus in the latter 1960s and early 1970s from emergent developments in a number of other disciplines, particularly (a) ethology (the naturalistic study of animal behavior and adaptation), (b) psychophysiology (specifically, efforts to correlate various physiological characteristics and “indicators” with various mental and behavioral states), (c) psychobiology (including neurological and endocrine influences on social behavior), (d) behavior genetics (involving both human and non-human animal research), (e) psychopharmacology (especially the chemical manipulation of behavioral states), (f) sociobiology (the application of modern Darwinian theory to the explanation of social behaviors), and (g) ecology (the study of the relationships between organisms and their environments, which gained visibility when the so-called “environmental crisis” erupted).

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , Summer 1981 , pp. 590 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1981

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

Adrian, C. R. (1969). “Implications for Political Science and Public Policy of Recent Ethological Research.” Paper read before 2nd International Sinological Conference, the China Academy, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Caldwell, L. K. (1964). “Biopolitlcs: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy,” Yale Review 54: 1–16.Google Scholar
Corning, P. A. (1969). “The Biological Bases of Behavior and Some Implications for Political Theory.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, N.Y. Google Scholar
Corning, P. A. (1978). “Biopolitics: Toward a New Political Science.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, N.Y. Google Scholar
Corning, P. A. (forthcoming). The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution (New York: Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Davies, J. C. (1963). Human Nature in Politics: The Dynamics of Political Behavior (New York: John Wiley).10.1037/14301-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J. C. (1969). “The Psychobiology of Political Behavior: Some Provocative Developments.” Paper presented to the Western Political Science Association Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Haas, M. (1969). “Toward the Study of Biopolitics: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Mortality Rates,” Behavioral Science 14: 257–280.10.1002/bs.3830140402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1967). Politics and Social Science (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin).Google Scholar
Masters, R. D. (1967). “La Redécouverte de la Nature Humaine,” Critique 245: 847–876.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. A. and Somit, A. (1979). “Biopolitics: A Preliminary History,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 15: 333–339.10.1002/1520-6696(197910)15:4<333::AID-JHBS2300150406>3.0.CO;2-E3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pranger, R. (1967). “Ethology and Politics: The Work of Konrad Lorenz.” Prepared for the Southern Political Science Association Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Somit, A. (1968). “Toward a More Biologically-Oriented Political Science: Ethology and Psychopharmacology,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 12: 550–567.10.2307/2110295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somit, A., Peterson, S. A., Richardson, W. D., and Goldfisher, D. S. (1980). The Literature of Biopolitics, Second Edition (De Kalb, Ill.: Center for Biopolitical Research).Google Scholar
Stauffer, R. (1969). “The Biopolitics of Underdevelopment,” Comparative Political Studies 3: 361–387.10.1177/001041406900200304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorson, T. L. (1970). Biopolitics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).Google Scholar
Wahlke, J. C. (1979). “Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 73: 9–31 (March).10.2307/1954728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1979). Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science (Boulder, Colo.: Westview).Google Scholar