Crossing Intellectual Boundaries
Starting in the mid-1960s, a small handful of political scientists, understandably viewed as eccentric by even the most charitable or their colleagues, began to use biological1 concepts and techniques in their efforts to better explain and study political behavior. Today, barely two decades later, the advocates of “biopolitics,” as the movement was quickly dubbed, number several hundred, drawn from more than a dozen countries; the latest survey of the literature identifies over a thousand items, and biopolitics has been recognized as an “official” subarea of political science by both the International Political Science Association and the American Political Science Association, the discipline’s two largest and most prestigious organizations.
KeywordsPolitical Science Political Behavior Political Socialization Interdisciplinary Effort American Political Science Association
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Blank, Robert. (1988). Life, death, and public policy. De Kalb: Northern Illnois University Press.Google Scholar
- Caldwell, Lynton K. (1964). Biopolitics: Science, ethics, and public policy. The Yale Review, 54, 1–16.Google Scholar
- Kitchin, William. (1982). Hemispheric specialization and political communication. Paper presented at American Political Science Association annual meeting.Google Scholar
- Ra, Chong Phil. (1988). An ontogeny of political behavior: A punctuated equilibrium model of political socialization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
- Schubert, Glendon. (1989). Evolutionary Politics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
- Schubert, Glendon. (1991). Sexual Politics and Political Feminism. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Somit, Albert. (1981). Human nature as the central issue in political philosophy. In Elliott White (Ed.), Sociobiology and human politics. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar