, Volume 99, Issue 2–3, pp 173–184 | Cite as

Biopolitics: the newest synthesis?

  • Ira H. Carmen


On first impression, the disciplines of genetics and political science would appear to be unrelated. And yet, commencing more than 30 years ago, the interdisciplinary field known as Biopolitics has now taken hold. This essay traces the central thrust of the biopolitical research agenda. It describes, analyzes, and assesses how political scientists have sought to show connections between our species' genetic constitution and our species' political behavior. Important bridges between the two are the neurophysiology of the human brain and the role of evolutionary theory in charting man's adaptational political profile. The parameters of the emerging biopolitical literature raise profound policy questions, some of which are also characterized.

Key words

evolution genetics neurophysiology philosophy politics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, L.B. & D. Nelkin, 1996. The Bell Curve: A statement. Science 271: 13.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R., 1986. An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review 80: 1095–1111.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R., 1987. The evolution of strategies in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, in Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, edited by Lawrence Davis. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. & W.D. Hamilton, 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211: 1390–1396.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M.W., 1993. Mozart makes the brain hum. The New York Times, Oct. 8, B1.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, H.G., M. Nelson, X.O. Breakefield, H.H. Ropers & B.A. van Oost, 1993. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262: 578–580.Google Scholar
  7. Carmen, I.H., 1987. Bioconstitutional politics: Toward an interdisciplinary paradigm. Politics and the Life Sciences 5: 193–207.Google Scholar
  8. Carmen, I.H., 1989. Chess algorithms of Supreme Court decision making: A bioconstitutional politics analysis. Political Behavior 11: 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N., 1980. Rules and Representations. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Cipra, B., 1996. Will a computer checkmate a chess champion at last? Science 271: 599.Google Scholar
  11. Corning, P.A., 1983. The Synergism Hypothesis. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Cosmides, L. & J. Tooby, 1987. From evolution to behavior: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link, in The Latest on the Best, edited by John Dupré. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Culliton, B.J., 1975. XYY: Harvard researcher under fire stops newborn screening. Science 188: 1284–1285.Google Scholar
  14. de Groot, A.D., 1965. Thought and Choice in Chess. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  15. Deutsch, K.W., 1951. Mechanism, organism, and society: Some models in natural and social science. Philosophy of Science 18: 230–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton, W.D., 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior, I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrnstein, R.J. & C. Murray, 1994. The Bell Curve. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Holden, C., 1996. Happiness and DNA. Science 272: 1591–1593.Google Scholar
  19. Kevles, D.J., 1985. In the Name of Eugenics. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Lasswell, H.D., 1950. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? P. Smith, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Lewontin, R.C., S. Rose & L.J. Kamin, 1984. Not in Our Genes. Pantheon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lumsden, C.J. & E.O. Wilson, 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Lumsden, C.J. & E.O. Wilson, 1983. Promethean Fire. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  24. MacLean, P.D., 1982. A triangular brief on the evolution of brain and law. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5: 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Madsen, D., 1985. A biochemical property relating to power seeking in humans. American Political Science Review 79: 448–457.Google Scholar
  26. Mann, C.C., 1994. Behavioral genetics in transition. Science 264: 1686–1689.Google Scholar
  27. Masters, R.D., 1983. The biological nature of the state. World Politics 35: 161–193.Google Scholar
  28. Masters, R.D., 1989. The Nature of Politics. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  29. Masters, R.D. & D.G. Sullivan, 1989. Nonverbal displays and political leadership in France and the United States. Political Behavior 11: 123–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGuire, M., M. Raleigh & C. Johnson, 1983. Social dominance in adult male vervet monkeys II: Behavior-biochemical relationships. Social Science Information 22: 311–328.Google Scholar
  31. McGuire, T.R. & J. Hirsch, 1977. General intelligence (g) and heritability (H2, h2). In The Structuring of Experience, edited by Ina C. Uzgiris & Fredric Weizmann. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Michod, R.E., 1994. A science of fitness (review of Ecological Genetics, edited by Leslie A. Real). Science 266: 468–470.Google Scholar
  33. Morton, O., 1995. A survey of biotechnology and genetics. The Economist, Feb. 25, 3–18.Google Scholar
  34. Nowak, R., 1995. Brain center linked to perfect pitch. Science 267: 616.Google Scholar
  35. Pool, R., 1995. Putting game theory to the test. Science 267: 1591–1593.Google Scholar
  36. Raleigh, M., A. Yuwiler, G. Brammer, M. McGuire, E. Geller & J. Flannery, 1981. Peripheral correlates of serotonergically influenced behaviors in vervet monkeys. Psychopharmacology 72: 241–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, M., 1938. Bio-Politics: An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology, and Politics of the Social and Somatic Organism. Dent, London.Google Scholar
  38. Schubert, G., 1982. Epigenesis: The newer synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5: 24–25.Google Scholar
  39. Simon, H.A., 1979. Models of Thought. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  40. Somit, A., 1968. Toward a more biologically-oriented political science: Ethology and psychopharmacology. Midwest Journal of Political Science 12: 550–567.Google Scholar
  41. Somit, A. & S.A. Peterson, 1990. Biopolitics and Mainstream Political Science: A Master Bibliography. Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.Google Scholar
  42. Steiner, G., 1972. Fields of force. The New Yorker, Oct. 28, pp. 42–117.Google Scholar
  43. Thorson, T.L., 1970. Biopolitics. Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Trivers, R.L., 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Hoof, J.A.R.A.M., 1969. The facial displays of the catarrhyne monkeys and apes, in Primate Ethology, edited by Desmond Morris. Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
  46. van Hoof, J.A.R.A.M., 1973. A structural analysis of the social behavior of a semi-captive group of chimpanzees, in Social Communication and Movement, edited by Mario von Cranach & Ian Vine. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Wiesel, T., 1994. Genetics and behavior. Science 264: 1647.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, E.O., 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, J.Q., 1993a. The Moral Sense. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, J.Q., 1993b. The moral sense. American Political Science Review 87: 1–11.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, J.Q. & R.J. Herrnstein, 1985. Crime and Human Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ira H. Carmen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations