Abstract
The champions of “biopolitics” (a small branch of political science) Albert Somit and Steven Peterson in a series of publications suggested that the persistence of non-democratic regimes in the current political landscape can be explained by the human genetic proclivities towards domination/submission relations and, correspondingly, towards hierarchically structured societies as opposed to egalitarian democratic relations. Somit and Peterson insist that because of this genetic behavioral bias, special enabling conditions are needed in order to make a democratisation project (nation building) successful. I demonstrate that modern totalitarian and authoritarian regimes do not necessarily manifest explicitly hierarchical structures detectable by any “genes” shaped in the Pleistocene. Rather these regimes try to simulate democratic institutions to legitimise their power relations and only rational analytical efforts such as a thorough examination of the public sphere can contribute to the distinction between democratic and non-democratic governments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Belarus: Permanent mission to the United Nations: http://embassies.mfa.gov.by/un/about_political.htm.
References
Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ember, C. (2001). Review of Chr. Boehm “Hierarchy in the Forest”. American Anthropologist, 103(2), 562–563.
European Commission. (2009). Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Unit E2. Contractor: Institute for Privatisation and Management, Minsk, Belarus.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
Ghiselin, M. (1969). The triumph of the Darwinian method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Griffiths, P. E. (2010). Ethology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutynski (Eds.), Blackwell’s companion to philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Hampton, S. (2010). Essential evolutionary psychology. Washington, DC: SAGE.
Ioffe, G. (2011). Avtoritarizm bez oligarkhii (Authoritarianism without oligarchy) (pp. 29–49). May–August: Pro et Contra.
Junker, T., & Hossfeld, U. (2009). Die Entdeckung der Evolution (2nd ed.). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kaya, R., & Bernhard, M. (2013). Are elections mechanisms of authoritarian stability or democratization? Evidence from postcommunist Eurasia. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 734–752.
Kutschera, U. (2008a). Evolutionsbiologie (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Verlag Eugen Ulmer.
Kutschera, U. (2008b). From Darwinism to evolutionary biology. Science, 321, 1157–1158.
Lemke, Th. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Levit, G. S., Meister, K., & Hossfeld, U. (2008). Alternative evolutionary theories: A historical survey. Journal of Bioeconomics, 10, 71–96.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.
Portela, C. (2011). The European Union and Belarus: Sanctions and partnership? Comparative European Politics, 9, 486–505.
Putterman, L., Roemer, J. E., & Silvestre, J. (1998). Does egalitarianism have a future? Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVI, 861–902.
Shlapentokh, V. (2001). A normal totalitarian society: How the USSR functioned and how it collapsed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. (1997). Darwinism, dominance and democracy: The biological bases of authoritarianism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. A. (1998). Biopolitics after three decades—A balance sheet. B. J. Pol. S., 28, 559–571.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. A. (1999). Rational choice and biopolitics: A (Darwinian) tale of two theories. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32(1), 39–44.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. A. (2003). From human nature to public policy: Evolutionary theory challenges the “Standard Model”. In A. Somit & S. Peterson (Eds.), Human nature and public policy: An evolutionary approach (pp. 3–18). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Somit, A., & Peterson, S. A. (2007). The failure of democratic nation building: Ideology meets evolution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Vugt, M., Johnson, D., Kaiser, R., & O’Gorman, R. (2008). Evolution and the social psychology of leadership: The mismatch hypothesis. In C. Hoyt, G. Goethals, & D. Forsyth (Eds.), Leadership at the crossroads (Vol. 1, pp. 267–282). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Wheeler, M., & Clark, A. (2008). Culture, embodiment and genes: Unravelling the triple helix. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 3563–3575.
Zihlmann, A. (2000). Aping human societies. Nature, 405, 735–736.
Acknowledgments
I am thankful to Ian G. Stewart (Halifax) for valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levit, G.S. Can a hypothetical ‘innate proclivity to hierarchically structured political systems’ explain real authoritarian/totalitarian regimes?. J Bioecon 17, 71–81 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-014-9186-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-014-9186-8