Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:37:03.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychobiological Politics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Glendon Schubert
Glendon Schubert
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Strikingly innovative developments in brain science during the past two decades, reflecting advances in a dozen different biological disciplines (such as biochemistry, biophysics, endocrinology, neuropsychology, genetics, and human development) have created a new psychobiology that thus far appears to have had only slight impact upon mainstream political science theory and research. This field analysis examines the implications of psychobiology for the study and practice of politics, from the perspective of the founding father of political behaviouralism. The article discusses the psychobiology of mind in terms of human consciousness and memory and then examines the epigenetic and recursive relationships between brain structure and political perception; between brain lateralization and dynamics, and political thinking and decision-making; and between brain development and political equality, with particular regard to sex, age, health, race, and intelligence.

Résumé

Des développements innovateurs étonnants dans la science neurologique ont eu lieu pendant les deux dernières décennies. Ce processus est le résultat des progrès opérés dans une douzaine de disciplines biologiques telles que la biochimie, l'endocrinologie, la biophysique, la neuropsychologie, la génétique et le développement humain. Le résultat a été une nou velle psychobiologie qui n'a eu cependant qu'une faible influence sur la théorie et la recherche en science politique.

Cet article analyse les implications de la psychobiologie pour l'étude et la pratique de la politique partant de l'approche du père fondateur du behaviorisme politique. L'auteur étudie la psychobiologie de ol'esprit en termes de conscience humaine et de mémoire pour ensuite se pencher sur les relations épigénétiques et récursives entre la structure du cerveau et la perception politique, entre la latéralisation du cerveau et les dynamiques et la pensée politique et la décision, entre le développement du cerveau et l'égalité politique, en mettant l'accent sur le sexe, l'âge, la santé, la race et l'intelligence.

Type
Field Analysis/Orientations de la Science Politique
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 535 - 576
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1983

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

1 Merriam, Charles E., New Aspects of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925 [3rd edition, 1970]), 171Google Scholar, and Wallas, Graham, Human Nature in Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1908 [3rd edition, 1921]).Google Scholar

2 Somit presented both a paper by Robert Pranger (who unexpectedly was unable to attend) on “Ethology and Politics: The Work of Konrad Lorenz,” and also a paper of his own that subsequently was published, “Toward a More Biologically-Oriented Political Science: Ethology and Psychopharmacology,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 12 (1968), 550–67. Subsequent contributions are included in Appendix A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Manheim, Jarol, The Politics Within: A Primer in Political Attitudes and Behavior (2nd ed.; New York: Longman, 1982);Google Scholar and Gianos, Phillip L., Political- Behavior: Metaphors and Models of American Politics (Pacific Palisades, Cal.: Palisades Publishers, 1982)Google Scholar. A somewhat earlier undergraduate text in international politics also includes a chapter on “Biopolitics: The Human Brain” (Pettman, Ralph, Human Behavior and World Politics [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975], 153–75).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The author, for example, was a founding peer commentator of, and now is the Associate Editor for Biosocial Behavior, of Behavioral and Brain Sciences; and he is also a founding and continuing member of the editorial boards of both the Journal of Social and Biological Structures and Politics and the Life Sciences.

5 White, Elliot, “Clouds, Clocks, Brains and Political Learning,” Micropolitics 2 (1982), 279;Google Scholar and “The End of the Empty Organism: Human Neurobiology, Classical Social Science, and Political Learning,” paper delivered at the 1980 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 11.

6 Alcock, John, Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (2nd ed.; Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, 1981);Google Scholarde Waal, Frans B. M., Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982);Google ScholarGriffin, Donald, The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience (2nd ed.; New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, and Griffin, Donald (ed.), Animal Mind-Human Mind (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982);CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchubert, Glendon and Somit, Albert (eds.), The Biology of Primate Sociopolitical Behavior (DeKalb, III.: Center for Biopolitical Research, Northern Illinois University, 1982);Google Scholar and Schubert, Glendon, “Evolutionary Politics,” Western Political Quarterly 36 (1983), 175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Glendon Schubert, “Politics as a Life Science: How and Why the Impact of Modern Biology Will Revolutionize the Study of Political Behavior,” in Somit, Albert (ed.), Biology and Politics (The Hague: Mouton, 1976), 155–96;Google Scholar and “Biopolitical Behavioral Theory,” Political Science Reviewer 5 (1975), 403–28Google Scholar, at 406–12. See also White, Elliott, “Genetic Diversity and Political Life,” Journal of Politics 34 (1972), 1203–42;CrossRefGoogle ScholarEllis, Lee, “Back on the Path toward an Evolutionary-Biological Approach to Political Theory,” Politics and the Life Sciences 1 (1982), 69–71;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and James C. Davies, “Some Consequences of Environmental Determinism in the Social Sciences,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology.

8 Charles Boklage, “The Sinistral Blastocyst: An Embryologic Perspective on the Development of Brain-Function Asymmetries,” in Herron, Jeannine (ed.), Neuropsychology of Left-Handedness (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 129;Google ScholarCorballis, Michael and Beale, Ivan, The Psychology of Left and Right (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976);Google ScholarGardner, Martin, The Ambidextrous Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1964).Google Scholar

9 Panksepp, Jaak, “Toward a General Psychobiological Theory of Emotions,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 407–67;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDavies, James C., “Biological Perspectives on Human Conflict,” in Gurr, Ted R. (ed.), Handbook of Political Conflict (New York: The Free Press, 1980), 33;Google Scholar and Schwartz, Gary and Shapiro, David (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation, vols. 1 and 2 (New York: Plenum Press, 1976 and 1978).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10 Robert B. Livingston, “Frontiers of Neurosciences,” lectures delivered at Oregon Graduate Center in November 1980; Uttal, William, The Psychobiology of Mind (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978), 317Google Scholar: Dawson, John, “An Anthropological Perspective on the Evolution and Lateralization of the Brain,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 299 (1977), 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Uttal, , The Psychobiology of Mind, 318Google Scholar, andalso see 142,319; Pribram, Karl, “The Role of Analogy in Transcending Limits in the Brain Sciences,” Daedalus 109(1980), 19–38.Google Scholar

12 Laponce, Jean, “Relating Biological, Physical and Political Phenomena: The Case of Up and Down,” Social Science Information 17 (1978), 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Ibid., 386, following Mirabile, C. S. Jr., Glueck, G. C., and Stroebel, C. F., “Spatial Organization, Cognitive Process and Cerebral Specialization,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 1 (1976), 99–104;Google ScholarLivingston, Robert B, Sensory Processing, Perception, and Behavior (New York: Raven Press, 1978);Google Scholar and Schubert, Glendon, “The Evolution of Political Science: Paradigms of Physics, Biology, and Politics,” Politics and the Life Sciences 1 (1983), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Laponce, Jean, “Spatial Archetypes and Political Perception,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Laponce, “Relating Biological, Physical and Political Phenomena,” 387.

16 Somit, “Toward a More Biologically Oriented Political Science”; Davies, “Psychobiology of Political Behavior: Some Provocative Developments,” paper delivered at the 1969 meeting of the Western Political Science Association; Pelletier, Kenneth, Towards a Science of Consciousness (New York: Delta, 1978);Google Scholar and Schubert, Glendon, “The Evolution of Political Science: Paradigms of Physics, Biology, and Politics,” Politics and the Life Sciences 1 (1983), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Laponce, “Relating Biological, Physical and Political Phenomena,” 388, 390–91; and see Pettersson, Max, “Vertical Taxonomy: For Certain Social, Biological, and Physical Structures,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2 (1979), 255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Roederer, Juan, “Human Brain Functions and the Foundations of Science,” Endeavour, New Series 3 (1979), 100–01;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Pribram, “The Role of Analogy in Transcending Limits in the Brain Sciences,” 32–33; Schubert, “The Evolution of Political Science: Paradigms of Physics, Biology, and Politics”; Zukav, Gary, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (New York: William Morrow, 1979);Google ScholarDavies, Paul, Other Worlds (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980);Google ScholarJahn, Robert G. (ed.), The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981);Google ScholarWolf, Fred Alan, Taking the Quantum Leap (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981);Google ScholarPagels, Heinz R, The Cosmic Code (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982);Google Scholar and Wilber, Ken (ed.), The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes (Boulder, Colo.: Shambhala, 1982).Google Scholar

19 Rodman, John, “Paradigm Change in Political Science: An Ecological Perspective,” American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980), 49–78;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and see also Davies, James C., Human Nature in Politics (New York: John Wiley, 1963), 104–40;Google ScholarGoble, Frank G, The Third Force (New York: Pocket Books, 1970);Google ScholarAnderson, Walt, Politics and the New Humanism (Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1973);Google Scholar and Schumacher, E. F., Small Is Beautiful (New York: Harper and Row, 1973).Google Scholar

20 Lasswell, Harold D., Psychopathology and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1930);Google ScholarEtheredge, Lloyd, “Hardball Politics: A Model,” Political Psychology 1 (1979), 3–26;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHorowitz, Irving Louis, “Paradigms of Political Psychology,” Political Psychology 1 (1979), 99–103;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSulloway, Frank, Freud, Biologist of the Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1979);Google Scholar all on neo-Freudianism. On economic rationalism: Robert Axelrod, “The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981), 306–18;CrossRefGoogle ScholarAxelrod, Robert and Hamilton, William D., “The Evolution of Cooperation,” Sciences 211 (1981), 1390–96;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGianos, , Political Behavior, chap. 5; and compare Glendon Schubert, “Behavioral Jurisprudence,” Law and Society Review 2 (1968), 417.Google ScholarThe quotation is from Grant, J. A. C., “Felix Frankfurter: A Dissenting Opinion,” UCLA Law Review 12 (1965), 1042.Google Scholar

21 Rodman, “Paradigm Change,” 55.

22 Uttal, , The Psychology of Mind, 216.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., 685–86; Scher, Jordan M., Theories of the Mind (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962);Google Scholar Schwartz and Shapiro (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation; Globus, Charles, Maxwell, Grover, and Savodnik, Irwin (eds.), Consciousness and the Brain (New York: Plenum Press, 1976);CrossRefGoogle ScholarEdelman, Gerald and Mountcastle, Vernon, The Mindful Brain (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978);Google Scholar Pelletier, Towards a Science of Consciousness; Davidson, Julian and Davidson, Richard (eds.), The Psychobiology of Human Consciousness (New York: Plenum Press, 1980);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Frank Savage, “Project Abstract,” paper delivered at the Oregon Graduate Center in March 1981.

24 Eccles, John, “Evolution of the Brain in Relation to the Development of the Self-Conscious Mind,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 299 (1977), 173–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Jaynes, Julian, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1976).Google Scholar

26 E. Roy John, “Multipotentiality; A Statistical Theory of Brain Function: Evidence and Implications,” in Davidson, Davidson (eds.), The Psyclwbiology of Human Consciousness, 131, 138–39.Google Scholar

27 Pribram, Karl, Languages of the Brain (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971);Google Scholar “Consciousness and Neurophysiology,” Federation Proceedings 37:9 (1978), 2271–74; “Behaviourism, Phenomenology and Holism in Psychology: A Scientific Analysis,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2(1979), 65–72;CrossRefGoogle Scholar “The Role of Analogy in Transcending Limits in the Brain Sciences”; and “Mind, Brain, and Consciousness: The Organization of Competence and Conduct,” in Davidson and Davidson (eds.), The Psychobiology of Human Consciousness, 47–63; Savage, “Project Abstract,” 3; and Pribram, Karl and McGuinness, Diane, “Arousal, Activation, and Effort in the Control of Attention,” Psychological Review 82 (1975), 116–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Pope, Kenneth and Singer, Jerome, “Regulation of the Stream of Consciousness: Toward a Theory of Ongoing Thought,” in Shapiro, Schwartz (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation, Vol. 2, 106–07.Google Scholar

29 Pribram, “Consciousness and Neurophysiology,” 2271, 2273; and see Pelletier, Towards a Science of Consciousness, chap. 4.

30 Pribram, “Behaviorism, Phenomenology and Holism in Psychology,” 69–70; Lashley, Karl, “In Search of the Engram,” in Beach, Frank and Hebb, D. O. (eds.), The Neitropsychology of Lashley (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960);Google ScholarPribram, , Languages of the Brain, 153, 155;Google Scholar “The Role of Analogy in Transcending Limits in the Brain Sciences,” 27–34; and “Mind, Brain, and Consciousness,” 56–59; and Wheeler, Harvey et al., “Constructional Biology,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5(1982), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 McGuigan, F. J., “Imagery and Thinking: Covert Functioning of the Motor System,” in Schwartz, and Shapiro, (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation, 85, 90.Google Scholar

32 Gazzaniga, Michael and Doux, Joseph Le, The Integrated Mind (New York: Plenum Press, 1978), 135, 137. (Emphasis added.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Carroll Izard, “The Emergence of Emotions and the Development of Consciousness in Infancy,” in Davidson, Davidson (eds.), The Psychobiology of Human Consciousness, 193–216;Google ScholarTomkins, Sylvan, Affect, Imagery, Consciousness (New York: Springer-Verlag; vol. 1, The Positive Affects, 1962;Google Scholarvol. 2, The Negative Affects, 1963);Google ScholarRoitblat, H. L., “The Meaning of Representation in Animal Memory,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 353–406;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Panksepp, “Toward a General Psychobiological Theory of Emotions.”

34 Izard, “The Emergence of Emotions,” 1975, emphasis added: Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, Barbara, The Psychology of the Child (New York: Basic Books, 1969), 158;Google Scholar and Pope and Singer, “Regulation of the Stream of Consciousness,” 107.

35 O'Keefe, John and Nadel, Lynn, “Precis of O'Keefe and Nadel's The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1979), 487–533;CrossRefGoogle ScholarOlton, David, Becker, James, and Handelmann, Gail, “Hippocampus, Space and Memory,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1979), 313–65;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGray, Jeffrey, “Precis of The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo- Hippocampal System,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 469–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Schubert, Glendon, “Cooperation, Cognition, and Communication,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1978), 597–600;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Evolutionary Politics”; also, Roederer, “Human Brain Functions,” 100–01.

37 Bruner, Jerome, Jolly, Alison, and Sylva, Kathy (eds.), Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 1976);Google Scholar John Baldwin and Janice Baldwin, “The Role of Learning Phenomena in the Ontogeny of Exploration and Play,” in Chevalier-Skolnikoff, Suzanne and Poirier, Frank (eds.), Primate Bio-Social Development (New York: Garland, 1977);Google ScholarSymons, Donald, Play and Aggression (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978);Google ScholarSmith, Annette, “Playing With Play: A Test Case of' Ethocriticism,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2 (1979), 197–209;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Smith, Peter, “Does Play Matter? Functional and Evolutionary Aspects of Animal and Human Play,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 139–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Juan Roederer, “Functions of the Human Brain: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Neuropsychology for Students of Science and Humanities; Part I,” lecture notes for the course “Physics of the Brain,”. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver, 1976, 30, 35–37, 52; and also his “On the Relationship between Human Brain Functions and the Foundations of Physics, Science, and Technology,” Foundations of Physics 8 (1978), 423–38,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “Human Brain Functions,” 101.

39 Denenberg, Victor, “Hemispheric Laterality in Animals and the Effects of Early Experience,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (1981), 1–49;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGriffin, Donald, “Prospects for a Cognitive Ethology,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1978), 527–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Griffen, (ed.), Animal Mind-Human Mind.Google Scholar

40 For examples of this approach see cognitive psychologist Cohen, L. J.“Can Human Rationality be Experimentally Demonstrated?“ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (1981), 317–70;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and by political scientists, Shapiro, MichaelLanguage and Political Understanding (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981);Google Scholar and Tanenhaus, Joseph and Foley, Mary Ann“'The Words of Things Entangle and Confuse': The Ambiguous Political Concept,“ International Political Science Review 3 (1982), 130–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Steven Peterson and Robert Lawson, “Cognitive Psychology and Predicting Political Attitudes and Behavior,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association: and “Cognitive Psychology and the Study of Politics: A Methodological Introduction,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the American Political Science Association.

42 Peterson, “Cognitive Development, Biology and Political Socialization,” a paper delivered at the 1981 meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology; “Sociobiology and Ideas-become-Real: Case Study and Assessment”, Journal of Social and Biological Structures 4 (1981), 125–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “The Brain and Hypostatizing,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology; and “Neurophysiology and Rationality in Political Thinking,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the American Political Science Association, 5–8 (on schemata) and 9–28 (on neural templates).

43 Tanenhaus, and Foley, “The Ambiguous Political Concept“; and Milton Lodge and John Wahlke, “Politics, Apoliticals, and the Processing of Political Information,” International Political Science Review 3 (1982), 135–50 (reaction time, 145; schemata, 149).Google Scholar

44 See Schubert, Glendon “Sexual Differences in Political Behavior,“Google Scholar in Roberta, L. Hall (ed.), Male-Female Differences: A Bioatltural Perspective (New York: Praeger, 1983 [in press]).Google Scholar

45 Schubert, “Brain Science and Political Thinking,” and “The Evolution of Political Science: Paradigms of Physics, Biology, and Politics” (the section on “Quantizing Political Theory”), and “Two Versions of Pastoral” (section on “Psychobiology”) Politics and the Life Sciences 1 (1983), 108–10, 117–18.Google Scholar

46 Graber, Doris “Have I Heard This Before and Is It Worth Knowing? Variations in Political Information Processing,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the American Political Science Association, 3, II, 17; and see also her “Strategies for Processing Political Information,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar

47 Hopple, GeraldPolitical Psychology and Biopolitics: Assessing and Predicting Elite Behavior in Foreign Policy Crises (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980), 101:Google Scholar and see also Anderson, Jack “Why Presidents Stumble”, Parade (March 13. 1983), 4–5, 7–8;Google Scholar and Snyder, Glenn and Diesing, PaulConflict Among Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 313.Google Scholar

48 Peterson, “Neurophysiology and Rationality in Political Thinking,” I. He observes also that “one characteristic of classical conservatism has long been a distrust of humans' rational capacity” (4). Evidently, not without cause.Google Scholar

49 On rationalist theory of the public interest, see Schubert, GlendonThe Public Interest: A Critique of the Theory of a Political Concept (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982; reprint of 1960 ed.), chap. 2;Google Scholar and on a contemporary psychobiological understanding of Freud, see Sulloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind.

50 Roederer, “Human Brain Functions and the Foundation of Physics, Science and Technology”, 100; Livingston, Sensory Processing; Paul Shepard, Thinking Animals: Animals and the Development of Human Intelligence (New York: Viking Press, 1978);Google Scholar and Crook, JohnThe Evolution of Human Consciousness (Oxford, England: Clarendon and Oxford University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

51 Eysenck, Hans, The Psychology of Politics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954);Google ScholarEysenck, Hans and Wilson, Glenn (eds.), The Psychological Basis of Ideology (Lancaster, England: MTP Press, 1978);Google Scholar Manheim, The Politics Within; Ralph Pettman, Biopolitics and International Values (New York: Pergamon, 1981):Google ScholarRokeach, Milton, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968);Google ScholarPubMedSchubert, Glendon, The Judicial Mind Revisited (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974):Google ScholarHuman Jurisprudence: Public Law as Political Science (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1975);Google Scholar and “Political Culture and Judicial Ideology: Some Cross and Sub-Cultural Comparisons,” Comparative Political Studies 10 (1977), 363–408.

52 Roederer, “Human Brain Functions and the Foundations of Physics, Science and Technology,” 101; Pribram, “The Role of Analogy in Transcending Limits in the Brain Sciences,” 32–33: and “Emotions,” in Filskov, Susan and Boll, Thomas (eds.). Handbook of Clinical Neuropsychology (New York: Wiley, 1981).Google Scholar

53 Tiger, Lionel, Optimism: The Biology of Hope (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979)Google Scholar: and “Are Humans Optimistic?” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 4(1981). 97–98;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Peterson, “The Brain and Hypostatizing,” 10–12: Anderson, “Why Presidents Stumble“; and VanGulick, “Information, Feedback and Transparency,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 27–29.

54 Lodge and Wahlke, “Politicals, Apoliticals,” 148.

55 White, “The End of the Empty Organism,” and “The Neuropsychological Basis of Human Action,” paper delivered at the 1981 meeting of the Western Political Science Association; “Sociobiology Neurobiology, and Political Socialization,” Micropolitics 1 (1981), 113–44;Google Scholar “Clouds, Clocks” and “Political Socialization from the Perspective of Generational and Evolutionary Change,” in White, Elliott (ed.), Sociobiology and Human Politics (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1981), 259–81;Google Scholar Peterson, “Cognitive Development”; and Peterson, Steven and Somit, Albert, “Cognitive Development and Childhood Political Socialization: Questions About the Primacy Principle,” American Behavioral Scientist 25 (1982), 313–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Baldwin, John and Baldwin, Janice, Beyond Sociobiology (New York: Elsevier North Holland, 1981);Google ScholarLumsden, Charles and Wilson, Edward, “Precis of Genes, Mind, and Culture,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (1982), 1–37;Google ScholarSchubert, Glendon, “The Sociobiology of Political Behavior,” in White (ed.), Sociobiology and Human Politics, 193–238;Google Scholar Gianos, Political Behavior; and Stuart Gilman, Robert Simon, and Stephen Zigura, “Evolution, Ethics, and Equality,” paper delivered at the 1979 meeting of the American Political Science Association.

57 Schubert, “Biopolilical Behavioral Theory,” 416–17, and see also “Politics as a Life Science,” 172–73, 181.

58 Kinsbourne, Marcel, “Evolution of Language in Relation to Lateral Action,” in Kinsboume (ed.), Asymmetrical Function of the Brain (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978);Google ScholarCalvin, William, “The Throwing Theory for Language Origins,” Human Ethology Newsletter 3 (December 1981), 17–22;Google Scholar Roger Masters, “The Impact of Ethology on Political Science,” in Somit (ed.), Biology and Politics, 197–233, and “Nice Guys Don't Finish Last: Aggressive and Appeasement Gestures in Media Images of Politicians,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Glendon Schubert, “The Use of Ethological Methods in Political Analysis,” in Meredith Watts (ed.), Biopolitics: Ethological and Physiological Approaches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981), 15–32; and “Nonverbal Communication as Political Behavior,” in Mary Ritchie Key (ed.), Non-verbal Communication Today (The Hague: Mouton, 1982), 69–85; Michael Corballis, “Brain Twisters and Hand Wringers,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 1978), 332–33; Bruce, Virginia, “Rock Throwing as a Determining Event in Human Development,” Human Ethology Newsletter 4 (March 1983), 5–16;Google ScholarCalvin, William H., “Did Throwing Stones Shape Hominid Brain Evolution?” Ethology and Sociobiology 3 (1982), 115–24;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mateer, Catherine A., “In Your Right Mind: Communication Beyond Words,” Human Ethology Newsletter 3 (June 1982), 24–34.Google Scholar

59 Izard, “The Emergence of Emotions“; Schubert, “Nonverbal Communication as Political Communication“: and Nancy Henley, Body Politics: Power, Sex and Non verbal Communication (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1977).

60 Washburn, Sherwood, “The Evolution of Man,” Scientific American 239:4 (September 1978), 194–208;Google ScholarStanley, Steven, The New Evolutionary' Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981)Google Scholar, chap. 7; and Sue Parker, Taylor and Gibson, Kathleen, “A Developmental Model of the Evolution of Language and Intelligence in Early Hominids,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1979), 367–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Chomsky, Noam, Reflections on Language (New York: Pantheon, 1975);Google ScholarBarbara von Eckardt, “What Is the Biology of Language?“ in Walker, Edward(ed.), Explorations in the Biology of Language (Montgomery, Vermont: Bradford, 1978);Google Scholar and Lenneberg, Eric, Biological Foundations of Language (New York: John Wiley, 1967).Google ScholarPubMed

62 Denenberg, “Hemispheric Laterality in Animals,” 8, 20.

63 Gazzaniga and LeDoux, The Integrated Mind, 63; Bradshaw, John, “Sex and Side: A Double Dichotomy Interact,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980), 229–30;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBradshaw, John and Nettleton, N. C., “The Nature of Hemispheric Specialization in Man,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (1981), 51–91;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSackheim, Harold and Gur, Ruben, “Self-deception, Self-confrontation, and Consciousness,” in Shapiro, Schwartz (eds.). Consciousness and Self-Regulation, vol. 2, 186;Google Scholar Pelletier, Towards a Science of Consciousness, 88–97; and Eccles, “Evolution of the Brain,” 175.

64 Gazzaniga and LeDoux, The Integrated Mind, 79, 81–82, 92.

65 Kocel, Katherine, “Age-related Changes in Cognitive Abilities and Hemispheric Specialization,” in Herron (ed.), Neuropsychology of Left-Handedness, 299–300.Google Scholar

66 Dimond, Stuart, “Concluding Remarks: The Diversity of the Human Brain,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science 299 (1977), 491;Google Scholar and see Katchadourian, Herant (ed.), Human Sexuality: A Comparative and Developmental Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979);Google ScholarMcGlone, Jeannette, “Sex Differences in Human Brain Asymmetry: A Critical Survey,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980), 215–27;CrossRefGoogle ScholarParsons, Jacquelynne (ed.), The Psychobiology of Sex Differences and Sex Roles (New York: Hemisphere/ McGraw-Hill, 1980);Google ScholarWittig, Michele and Petersen, Anne (eds.), Sex-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning (New York: Academic Press, 1979);Google Scholar “The Sexual Brain,” Newsweek, November 26,1979,100,103–05; Kocel, “Age-Related Change,” 298; and Levy, Jerry and Levy, J. M., “Human Lateralization from Head to Foot: Sex-Related Factors,” Sciences 200 (1978)Google Scholar, 1291–92.

67 Grady, K. E., “The Belief in Sex Differences,” paper delivered at 1977 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.Google Scholar

68 Schubert, Glendon, “The Biopolitics of Sex: Gender, Genetics, and Epigenetics,” Women and Politics 4 (1983), in press;Google Scholar Lauren Harris, “Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: Possible Environmental, Genetic, and Neurological Factors,” in Kinsboume (ed.), Asymmetrical Function; Whitaker, Harry and Ojemann, G. A., “Lateralization of Higher Cortical Functions: A Critique,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 299 (1977), 459–73;Google Scholar and Taylor, David, “The Biases of Sex and Maturation in Lateralization: 'Isomeric' and Compensatory Left-Handedness,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1978), 318–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Schubert, “The Biopolitics of Sex“; George Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975);Google ScholarLevy, Jerry, “Varieties of Human Brain Organization and the Human Social System,” Zygon 15 (1980), 367–71;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Springer, Sally and Deutsch, Georg, Left Brain, Right Brain (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1981), chap. 6;Google Scholar Diane McGuinness and Karl H. Pribram, “The Origins of Sensory Bias in the Development of Gender Differences in Perception and Cognition,” in Bortner, Morton (ed.), Cognitive Growth and Development (New York: Bninner/ Mazel, 1978), 3–56;Google ScholarMcGuinness, Diane, “Was Darwin Conscious of His Mother?” in The Re-Evaluation of Existing Values and the Search for Absolute Value (New York: Intercultural Foundation, 1979), 725–35.Google Scholar

70 Pettman, Biopolitics and International Values, 140–46; and Meredith Watts (ed.), Biopolitics: Ethological and Physiological Approaches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981), 5.

71 Corning, Peter, The Synergism Hypothesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, in press);Google Scholar and with specific regard to sex, see Meredith Watts, “Biopolitics and Sex Differences,” paper delivered at the 1982 meeting of the Western Political Science Association.

72 On Petra Kelly, see Sandra Hill, “The Grass is Much Greener Now for this Peace Activist,” United Press International dispatch (from Bonn, West Germany) in The Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiser (Honolulu, Hawaii), May 1, 1983Google Scholar, A-29. On the male political model, see Chagnon, Napoleon and Irons, William, Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1979);Google ScholarTiger, Lionel and Fox, Robin, The Imperial Animal (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), 32;Google Scholar and compare Crook, The Evolution of Human Consciousness, chap. 5. For contrasting female perspectives, see: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Man-Made World, or. Our Androcentric Culture (New York: Charlton Co., 1911);Google ScholarFirestone, Shulamith, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: William Morrow, 1970)Google Scholar, chap. 8: “(Male) Culture“; Lerner, Gerda, The Majority Finds Its Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar, vii, where she speaks of women “trying to combat within ourselves and one another the competitiveness which is structured into our institutional and professional life and to substitute for it a new and as yet untested model of supportive and engaged scholarship. Feminist scholarship seeks to respect individual work, while searching for collective solutions to intellectual as well as societal problems“; Elizabeth Fisher, Woman's Creation (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1979); Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982);Google Scholar and Boulding, Elise, Women in the Twentieth Century World (New York: Sage/ John Wiley-Halstead, 1977)Google Scholar. More explicitly on androgynous politics, see ibid., 230–32; Marjorie Hershey, “The Politics of Androgyny?” American Politics Quarterly 5 (1977), 261–87, especially at 277–78; and Schubert, “Sexual Differences in Political Behavior,” sections IVC (“Androgynous Politics“), VF (“Why can't a woman be like a man?“), and VG (“Why can't a man be like a woman?“).

73 Denise Baer, “Disentangling Gender Differences: An Inquiry into Biological and Learning Based Explanations,” paper delivered at the 1980 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 25; and see Katz, Neil and List, David, “Seabrook: A Profile of Anti-Nuclear Activists, June 1978,” Peace and Change 7 (1981), 59–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ellen Goodman, “Women's Vote Really Counts Now,” Honolulu Advertiser, May 21,1982, A-18; and Schubert, “Sexual Differences in Political Behavior.” Although “the hope that women would elect Cox was not to reach fruition,” nevertheless “the Democratic politicians of 1920 may have had the right idea after all. If the sex differences in evaluations of Ronald Reagan stem from an underlying unwillingness to risk war. and if those evaluations result in long-term differences in partisan attachments and votes between men and women, the only mistake the Democrats made in 1920 was in being 62 years ahead of the times,” according to Kathleen Frankovic, “Sex and Politics,” PS 15 (1982), 448.

74 Dimond, “Diversity of the Brain,” 490.

75 Atuhiro Sibatani. “The Japanese Brain: The Difference between East and West May Be the Difference between Left and Right,” Science 80 (December 1980), 22–26; see also Sibatani, Atuhiro, “Inscrutable Epigenetics of the Japanese Brain,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 3 (1980), 255–66;Google ScholarMaruyama, Magoroh, “Summary of Tsunoda's Seven Experimental Methods,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 3 (1980), 267–71Google Scholar, and “Comments on Tsunoda's Book,” ibid., 273–76; and Sasanuma, Sumiko, “Do Japanese Show Sex Differences in Brain Asymmetry? Supplementary Findings,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980), 247–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 Waber, Deborah, “What is the Significance of Sex Differences in Performance Asymmetries?“ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980), 250;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Corballis, “Brain Twisters,” 335; and Uttal, The Psychobiology of Mind, 327.

77 Mecacci, Luciano, “Brain and Sociocultural Environment,” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 4 (1981), 319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 Rogers, Linda, TenHouten, Warren, Kaplan, Charles, and Gardiner, Martin, “Hemispheric Specialization of Language: An EEG Study of Bilingual Hopi Indian Children,” International Journal of Neuroscience 8 (1977), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 TenHouten, Warren, Thompson, Andrea, and Walter, Donald, “Discriminating Social Groups by Performance on Two Lateralized Tests,” Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Societies 41 (1976), 99–108;Google Scholar and TenHouten, Warren, “Social Dominance and Cerebral Hemisphericity: Discriminating Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Sex Groups by Performance on Two Lateralized Tests,” International Journal of Neuro-Science 10 (1980), 223-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Hamad, Steven and Steklis, Horst, “Comment on Split-Brain Research and the Culture-and-Cognition Paradox,” Current Anthropology 17 (1976), 322.Google Scholar

81 Shneour, Elie, The Malnourished Mind (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974);Google Scholar and Gordon Pryor, “Malnutrition and the 'Critical Period' Hypothesis,” in Prescott, James, Read, Merrill, and Coursin, David (eds.), Brain Function and Malnutrition (New York: John Wiley, 1975), 103–09Google Scholar

82 Myron Winick and Pedro Rosso, “Malnutrition and Central Nervous System Development,” in ibid., 44, 47–48.

83 Fernando Monckeberg, “The Effect of Malnutrition on Physical Growth and Development,” in ibid., 23; and see Davies, , Human Nature in Politics, 14, n. 18, and “Biological Perspectives,” 45–49.Google Scholar

84 Monckeberg, “The Effect of Malnutrition,” 29.

85 Pryor, , “Malnutrition and the 'Critical Period' Hypothesis,” 108–09.Google Scholar

86 Elisabeth Stern, “Frontiers of Neurosciences,” lectures delivered at the Oregon Graduate Center in March 1981.

87 Robert Livingston, “Frontiers of Neurosciences,” lectures delivered at the Oregon Graduate Center in March 1981.

88 H. Peter Chase and David Metcalf, “Undernutrition and Brain Development: Clinical, Biochemical, and Experimental Encephalographic Studies,” in Read, Prescott, and Coursin, (eds.), Brain Function and Malnutrition, 279.Google Scholar

89 Geber, Marcelle and Dean, R. F. A., “Gesell Tests on African Children,” Pediatrics 20 (1957), 1055–65.Google Scholar

90 Jensen, Arthur, “Bias in Mental Testing,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980), 325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 Glendon Schubert, “Some Implications of Evolutionary Biology for Political Science,” Occasional Papers in Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Political Science, 1:2 (May 1981), 48–81, and “The Sociobiology of Political Behavior,” and “Evolutionary Politics.”

92 Geber, Marcelle, “The Psycho-motor Development of African Children in the First Year, and the Influence of Maternal Behavior,” Journal of Social Psychology 47 (1958), 185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93 “The Breast, vs. the Bottle,” Newsweek, June 1, 1981, 54–55.Google Scholar In support of the author's academic competence to make such an assertion, see Schubert, Glendon, Constitutional Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960);Google Scholar and Kort, Fred, “The Works of Glendon Schubert,” Political Science Reviewer 4 (1974), 193–227.Google Scholar

94 Stauffer, Robert, “The Biopolitics of Underdevelopment,” Comparative Political Studies 2 (1969), 361–87;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Davies, “The Psychobiology of Political Behavior”; “Ions of Emotion and Political Behavior,” in Somit, (ed.), Biology and Politics; “Biological Perspectives” (especially the sections on “Cognitive Nutrition,” 53–56Google Scholar, and on “Physical Hunger,” 45–49); and James Schubert, “Biopolitics and World Malnutrition,” paper delivered at the 1979 meeting of the International Studies Association; “The Impact of Food Aid on World Malnutrition,” International Organization 35 (1981), 329–54;CrossRefGoogle Scholar “Malnutrition and Political Violence: Frustration-Agression or Anemia-Passivity?” paper delivered at the 1981 meeting of the Western Political Science Association; “The Politics of Famine: Political Adaptation in Populations under Short-Term Nutritional Stress,” paper delivered at the 1981 meeting of the American Political Science Association; and “Toward a Psychobiological Model of Malnutrition and Political Violence,” paper delivered at the 1982 world congress of the International Political Science Association.

95 Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976);Google ScholarWilson, Charles and Wilson, Edward, Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981);Google Scholar Baldwin and Baldwin, Beyond Sociology; Plotkin, H. C. and Olding-Smee, F. J., “A Multiple-Level Model of Evolution and Its Implications for Sociobiology,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (1981), 225–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Richard Lewontin, “Sleight of Hand,” The Sciences 23:6 (1981), 23–26.

96 Benson Ginsburg, “What Will Students in Political Science Have to Know About Biology to Understand the New Dimensions of Their Discipline and to Advance the Frontiers of Knowledge?” paper delivered at the 1978 meeting of the American Political Science Association (emphasis added); and see Blank, Robert, The Political Implications of Human Genetic Technology (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1981).Google Scholar

97 Horowitz, Contrast, “Paradigms of Political Psychology,” with the references cited in footnote 18, and Fritjof Capra, “The New Physics: Implications for Psychology,” American Theosophist 68 (1980), 114–20.Google Scholar