Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:58:37.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching Biopolitics: Needs, Experiences, Problems and Prospects1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Fred Kort
Fred Kort*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut 06268
Get access

Abstract

Biopolitics must be taught in a context that makes it possible for students to acquire competence in at least evolutionary biology, genetics (with the proper molecular biology perspective), biological anthropology, neurobiology, and the evolution of behavior. A more modest beginning may be necessary, however, and actually has been pursued at various institutions.

Although a systematic study of experiences in teaching biopolitics has not been prepared, various impressions have been obtained. In spite of some seemingly discouraging situations with respect to biopolitics, expectations that a biobehavioral perspective ultimately will be the principal and pervasive frame of reference for a proper study of political processes and institutions are justified.

Type
Overview of Curricular Concerns
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 14 - 21
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

Barkow, J. H. (1975). “Prestige and Culture: A Biosocial Interpretation.” Current Anthropology 16: 554–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boakes, R. (1984). From Darwin to Behaviorism: Psychology and the Minds of Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1974). The Descent of Man. Reprint of the 1874 edition. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
Kort, F. (1982). “Report from the Curriculum Committee.” Politics and the Life Sciences 1: 88–89.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York. (1905). 198 U. S. 45.Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. J., and Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, Mind, and Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Masters, R. (1982). “Teaching Biopolitics.” Politics and the Life Sciences 1: 91.Google Scholar
Sagan, C. (1977). The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Scientific American (1978). Evolution. Reprinted as a book. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, September.Google Scholar
Scientific American (1979). The Brain. Reprinted as a book. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, September.Google Scholar
Somit, A. (1976). Biology and Politics. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Somit, A., Peterson, S. A., Richardson, W. D., and Goldfischer, D. W. (1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986). The Literature of Biopolitics. DeKalb, III.: Center for Biopolitical Research.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1893). The Man Versus the State. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1979). Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar