Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:26:00.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics and the Evolution of Inquiry in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Samuel M. Hines Jr.
Samuel M. Hines Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina 29424
Get access

Extract

Although we may be pessimistic (with good reason) about contemporary politics, especially as it effects the prospects for the survival of the human species in the long run, we can be more optimistic about the study of politics from a life science perspective. Certainly the two are related. Becoming optimistic about the former may depend in part upon the further development of biopolitics and of the biobehaviorial and life sciences generally.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 5 - 16
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

Notes

1. By “institutionalized” I refer to the establishment of association headquarters at Northern Illinois University with Dr. Thomas Wiegele serving as Executive Director of the Association and editor of Politics and the Life Sciences.Google Scholar

2. References to the works of these scholars appear in the bibliography and throughout the text. It should be noted that the empirical work done by students of biopolitics builds upon a substantial literature of empirical research in the behavioral and life sciences. No attempt is made here to acknowledge this body of research to which biopolitical research is deeply indebted. Such acknowledgment appears in all of the literature cited in this article.Google Scholar

3. Many political scientists do not come in regular contact with the literature of biopolitics except for the occasional article in the APSR or in the regional journals of the discipline. The appearance of Coming's book length study (forthcoming) and the preparation of a book length study by Roger Masters (in preparation) will provide better targets for criticism. We can anticipate that further attention will be given to biopolitics as a result of our sustained participation at professional meetings and the availability of a new journal devoted to biopolitical research.Google Scholar

4. A “credo” is offered with some trepidation, as is warranted by such exhortations. Still it is useful, if only to engender debate, because it focuses attention on the purposes, goals, and objectives of biopolitical inquiry.Google Scholar

5. A philosopher of science, Feyerabend, Paul (1970), once argued that inquiry is characterized by the tension created within science by scientists holding simultaneously to the principle of tenacity (sticking to and defending a point of view against criticism) and the principle of proliferation (generating new ideas, hypotheses, concepts, etc. which challenge the prevailing view). There are a number of salient concepts in biopolitics that need refinement, further application, and criticism. A sample list might include: basic needs, group selection, emergence, hierarchy, consciousness, hypostatization, synergism, functionalism, attention structure, and dispersal. Especially important is the task of specifying units and levels of analysis and the movement from studies of individual behavior (biobehavioralism) to macro–level studies (sociobiology and systems theory). SeeScott, (1982) andCharlesworth, (1982) for recommendations for research strategies and key concepts.Google Scholar

6. The best summary of the current situation in philosophy of science isSuppe, (1977). See alsoToulmin, (1977) andGunnell, (1975). The positivist or “received view” has been devastatingly criticized by historians and philosophers of science in the wake of work in analytic philosophy (influenced by the later Wittgenstein), phenomenology, and critical theory (seeAdorno, , et al., 1976).Google Scholar

7. Biopolitical research in this area is much needed. The study of political development and modernization is conceptually and theoretically impoverished. Despite recent attempts to be more diachronic and longitudinal (and these are largely found in dependency theory and Wallerstein's “world system” approach) political development studies are largely ahistorical (Hines, , 1976). The recent work of Corning (forthcoming), Philips, (1981), Masters, (n.d.), Willhoite, (1980), andHines, (1981) underscores the importance of taking the long view of political evolution in the comparative study of political change. See also the recommendations ofLasswell, (1968). Pettman's, (1981) recent attempt to bring together hermeneutics and empirical political science in the study of liberal values and international politics provides another example of how biopolitics, political theory, and policy science can be brought together to illuminate such key problems of political development as the relationship between hunger and freedom.Google Scholar

8. For an introduction to phenomenology and the social sciences seeNatanson, (1973), Schutz(1967), Reid, (1973), Reid, and Yanarella, (1975), andJung, (1979). For critical theory and the Frankfurt School seeJay, (1973), Schroyer, (1973), Connerton, (1980), Adorno, (1976), Dallmayr, (1976), Habermas, (1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1979), McCarthy, (1978), Farganis, (1975), Bernstein, (1976), andLukes, (1977). For a comparison of the two perspectives seeKisiel, (1970).Google Scholar

9. This is the stated purpose of the forthcoming “Dialogues in Political Science” panels of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences. This kind of critique of selected areas within political science has already begun. Examples include the biobehavioral critique of the voting behavior/survey research literature by both John Wahlke and those at Stony Brook, the critique of political socialization research by Peterson and White, the continuing development of the judicial behavior field by G. Schubert, and the critique of development studies referred to in note 7 above.Google Scholar