Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:19:26.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Biopolitics in the Political Science Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

William Kitchin
William Kitchin*
Affiliation:
Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland 21210
Get access

Abstract

Biopolitics should be offered as a separate, independent course in the undergraduate curriculum, and graduate training should be offered within the rubric of political science. The primary reason that biopolitical materials should be covered in the undergraduate, liberal arts curriculum is that there is a need to train students to be vigilant, i.e., to have a critical capacity to confront ideas. Since so much of their lives will be intertwined with the political and so much of the political is better explained by considering biopolitical variables than by not considering them, students need exposure and academic coverage of biopolitical concepts and findings. Biopolitics represents only minor change in the general behavioralistic framework of explaining political phenomena, but represents the introduction into political science of some concepts and variables more widely used in the life sciences. Because biopolitical materials are high in quantity and because they are per se important and increase the explanatory power of traditional behavioralism, a biopolitics course belongs in the political science curriculum. The preparation of qualified teachers and researchers argues for graduate training in biopolitics. Without such graduate training in political science departments, the biopolitical inquiry will primarily be undertaken in disciplines other than political science.

Type
Overview of Curricular Concerns
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 5 - 13
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

Barber, J. D. (1985). Presidential Character. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carmen, I. H. (1981). “The Constitution in the Laboratory: Recombinant DNA Research as ‘Free Expression’.” Journal of Politics 45: 737–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (1973). The Need to Question. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr. (1977). “Self Recognition in Primates: A Comparative Approach to the Bidirectional Properties of Consciousness.” American Psychologist 32: 329–338.Google Scholar
Gabrielli, W. F., and Mednick, S. A. (1983). “Genetic Correlates of Criminal Behavior.” American Behavioral Scientist 27: 59–74.Google Scholar
Hartigan, R. S. (1983). “Genes and Myth: The Biology of Prescription.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Hoebel, B. G. (1983). “The Neural and Chemical Basis of Reward: New Discoveries and Theories in Brain Control of Feeding, Mating, Aggression, Self-Stimulation and Self-Injection.” In Gruter, M. and Bohannan, P. (eds.), Law, Biology, and Culture. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Ross-Erikson.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. (1985). “The Evocative Significance of Kinship Terms.” Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Paris.Google Scholar
Konner, M. (1982). The Tangled Wing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Kitchin, W. (in press). “The Dialectic of Dereliction: A Neurolinguistic Analysis of the Language of the Watergate Group.” In Losco, J. and White, E. (eds.), Biology and Bureaucracy. Washington, D. C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Losco, J. (1985) “Biology, Moral Conduct and Administrative Science.” Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Paris.Google Scholar
Losco, J., and White, E. S., eds. (in press). Biology and Bureaucracy Washington, D. C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. (1978). “The Psychopath and the Lie Detector.” Psychophysiology 15: 137–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maccoby, E. E., and Jacklin, C. (1980). “Sex Differences in Aggression: A Rejoinder and Reprise.” Child Development 51: 964–980.Google Scholar
Madsen, D. (1985). “A Biochemical Property Relating to Power-seeking in Humans.” American Political Science Review 79: 448–457.Google Scholar
Masters, R, Sullivan, D. G., Lanzetta, J. T., McHugo, G. J., and Englis, B. (1984). “Facial Displays and Political Leadership.” Paper presented at the Conference on Ethological Contributions to Research in Political Science, Tutzing, West Germany.Google Scholar
Mazlish, B. (1972). In Search of Nixon. Baltimore: Penguin.Google Scholar
Neustadt, R. (1960). Presidential Power. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. A. (1983). “Why Policies Don't Work: A Biocognitive Perspective.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Peterson, S. A., and Somit, A. (1984). “Biopolitics in 1983.” Politics and the Life Sciences 3: 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, S., Somit, A., and Brown, B. (1983). “Biopolitics in 1982.” Politics and the Life Sciences 2: 76–80.Google Scholar
Raskin, D., and Hare, R. (1978). “Psychopathy and Deception in a Prison Population.” Psychophysiology 15: 126–136.Google Scholar
Schubert, G. (1977). “Evolutionary Politics.” Western Political Quarterly 36: 175–193.Google Scholar
Schubert, G. (1983). “Psychobiological Politics.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 16: 535–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, G. (1985). Political Culture and Judicial Behavior. Washington, D. C.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Schubert, J. N. (1982). “Political Impacts of Life-Extending Technologies: A Preliminary Assessment.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver.Google Scholar
Schubert, J. N. (1985). “Age and Political Behavior in Collective Decision-Making.” Paper presented at the Congress of the International Political Science Association, Paris.Google Scholar
Sipes, R. G. (1973). “War, Sports, and Aggression: An Empirical Test of Two Rival Theories.” American Anthropologist 75: 528–558.Google Scholar
Springer, S. P., and Deutsch, G. (1985). Left Brain, Right Brain. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Tieger, T. (1980). “On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression.” Child Development 51: 943–963.Google Scholar
Watts, M., ed. (1981). Ethological and Physiological Approaches (New Directions for Methodology in Social and Behavioral Science). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1978). “The Psychophysiology of Elite Stress in Five International Crises.” International Studies Quarterly 22: 467–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1982). Biology and the Social Sciences: An Emerging Revolution. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wiegele, T. C. (1983). “Psychophysiology and the Study of Political Behavior: Progress and Problems.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1983). Promethean Fire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar