POLITICAL SCIENCE 630 --
SEMINAR IN BIOPOLITICAL THEORY
Spring 2010
Andrea Bonnicksen
815-753-7059; albcorn@niu.edu
Office hours T
100 –
Some of the most innovative work in political science is being done in interdisciplinary studies poised at the intersection of politics and the life sciences. Advances in genetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary theory, among other fields, have enriched our understanding of the bases of human behavior and have pointed to creative areas of research. They have also provided material for those who examine the ethical dimensions of new technologies and who debate issues in biomedical policy. This seminar, which is a core course in politics and the life sciences, will offer an overview of issues, understandings, and research approaches in biopolitics. It will cover theories about human cooperation and conflict, insights gained from the study of non-human primates, the role of emotion in political decision making, ethical and policy implications of neuroimaging, and relations between humans and the natural world. The seminar will be of particular use to students preparing to take comprehensive exams in biopolitics, and it will be of interest to all who follow cutting edge research in politics and the life sciences. A background in the biological sciences is not a prerequisite for this course.
BOOKS AND
In addition to the required books, other articles and
chapters are available on electronic reserves, which is accessible through a
link on the Blackboard website. They are indicated by an ER below. Material listed as “optional” is suggestive only and is
not required.
Required texts:
de Waal, Frans. Our
Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We
Are.
Hrdy, Sarah. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.
Glannon, Walter. Bioethics
and the Brain.
Rosen, Stephen Peter. War
and Human Nature. Princeton:
JANUARY 14, 21 OVERVIEW AND EARLY CONTROVERSIES
Renowned entomologist E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology, a book laying the
foundation for a science focusing on the biological (genetic) basis of behavior
in humans and non-humans, in 1975. The book prompted considerable interest, but
its application to humans also provoked heated critiques in the academic
community, including those generated by some of
Required readings:
Wade, Nicholas. “Sociobiology: Troubled Birth for a New
Discipline.” Science 191:1151-55
(
Allen, Elizabeth et al. “Against ‘Sociobiology.’” In Arthur
L. Caplan, ed., The Sociobiology
Debate.
Wilson, Edward O. “For Sociobiology.” In Arthur L. Caplan,
ed., The Sociobiology
Debate.
Smith, Daniel Scott. “Sociobiology and History.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History
13(2):301-310
(Autumn 1982). ER
Wilson, E.O. Consilience:
The Unity of Knowledge. Abacus, 2003. Available as an e-book in
the NIU
Libraries website B72 W54 1999eb, chapters 1, 2, 12 (skim
Blank, Robert H., and Samuel M. Hines, Jr. Biology and Political Science.
Routledge,
2001, pp. 1-15, 144-48. ER
Optional readings:
Wilson, Edward O. “Academic Vigilantism and the Political
Significance of Sociobiology.”
In Arthur
L. Caplan, ed., The Sociobiology Debate.
pp.
291-303. ER
Blank, Robert H., and Samuel M. Hines, Jr. Biology and Political Science.
Routledge,
2001 (rest of book).
Arnhart, Larry. “The New Darwinian Naturalism in Political
Theory.” American Political
Science Review 89(2):389-400 (1995). ER
JANUARY 21,
28 ETHOLOGY AS A THEORETICAL
APPROACH
Ethology is the study of animal behavior. In the field of
evolutionary biology, animal behavior yields hypotheses about the evolutionary
precursors of human behavior. Frans de Waal is a primatologist whose studies of
chimpanzees in the
de Waal, Frans. Our
Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We
Are.
Optional readings:
de Waal, Frans, Chimpanzee
Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. 25th Anniversary Edition.
Maestripierii, Dario. Macachiavellian
Intelligence.
2007.
FEBRUARY 4,
11 COOPERATION AND ALTRUISM
Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy’s book Mothers and Others develops the theme that shared child-rearing (“cooperative breeding”) among humans set the stage for the evolution of cooperation. The long period of infant dependency for humans was managed with help from others, which contributed to the human capacity for sharing and empathy. Other books listed below also explore the nature of altruism and cooperation in human society.
Required readings:
Hrdy, Sarah. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding.
Optional readings:
Ridley, Matt. The
Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. New
de Waal, Frans. The
Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.
Harmony
Books, 2009.
Wilson, David Sloan. Unto
Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior.
FEBRUARY 18 GENETIC
BASES OF BEHAVIOR
Not only has the completion of the human genome project
accelerated research into the genetic bases of diseases and debilitating
conditions, but it has also prompted new studies of the genetic bases of human
behavior. In recent years this has included studies purporting to link genetics
with political and ideological orientations. Matt Ridley’s Nature via Nurture presents a nuanced examination of the
interrelated roles of nature and nurture in human behavior.
Required readings:
Ridley, Matt. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. New
Hayden, Erika Check. “The Other
Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing, “Are Political Orientations
Genetically Transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99(2):153-67
(2005). ER
Fowler, James H., and Christopher T. Dawes.” Two Genes
Predict Voter Turnout.”
Journal of Politics 70(3):579-594 (July
2008). ER
Oxley, Douglas R., et al. “Political Attitudes Vary with
Physiological Traits.” Science
321:1667-1670
(
Fowler, James H., and Darren Schreiber. “Biology, Politics,
and the Emerging Science of
Human
Nature.” Science 322:912-914 (
Optional readings:
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene.
Charney, Evan. “Genes and Ideologies.” Perspectives on Politics 6(2):299-319 (June 2008).
Hannagan, Rebecca J., and Peter K. Hatemi. “The Threat of Genes:
A Comment on Evan
Charney’s ‘Genes and Ideologies.” Perspectives
on Politics 6(2):329-335 (June 2008).
Alford, John R., and John R. Hibbing. “The Origin of
Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of
Political Behavior.” Perspectives on Politics 2(4):707-723 (December 2004).
Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. “Beyond Liberals and Conservatives
to Political Genotypes and Phenotypes.” Perspectives on Politics 6(2):321-28 (June
2008).
Richerson, Peter, and Robert Boyd. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human
Evolution.
FEBRUARY 18 PAPER PROPOSALS DUE
FEBRUARY 25 MIDTERM EXAMS DISTRIBUTED
MARCH 4 MIDTERM EXAMS DUE
FEBRUARY 25,
MARCH 4, 18 NEUROETHICS AND
NEUROPOLICY
Advances in our ability to take images of the brain using functional MRI and other technologies have provoked questions about neurological influences on human behavior. Philosopher Walter Glannon’s Bioethics and the Brain explores different dimensions of neuroscience along with ethical issues raised by knowledge of the brain’s physiology. He also examines policy implications of the impact of neuroscience on concepts relating to responsibility, identity, and the definition of death.
Required readings:
Glannon, Walter. Bioethics
and the Brain.
Optional readings:
Illes, Judy, ed., Neuroethics:
Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy.
Gerald Cory, The
Consilient Brain: The Bioneurological Basis of Economic, Society, and
Politics. 2nd ed. Springer, 2003.
Scan tables of contents of the American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB Neuroscience (e.g., a series of
articles on functional MRIs and lie detection in January 2008 and a series of
the neurobiology of addiction in January 2007).
For an overview of topics in bioethics and biopolicy, see From Birth to Death and Bench to
Clinic: The
and Campaigns. Available
at www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/Briefingbook/Default.aspx
Steinbock, Bonnie, ed., The
Press,
2007.
MARCH 25 POLITICAL
DECISIONS AND EMOTIONS
Political scientist George Marcus (and colleagues)
published Affective Intelligence and
Political Judgment in 2000. The book drew on studies in cognitive
neuroscience to develop an approach to political behavior that challenged
rational choice models and instead examined the emotional underpinnings of
human judgment.
Required readings:
Cosmides, Leda, and John Tooby, “Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer.” Available at
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html ER
McDermott, Rose, “The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning
of Neuroscientific Advances for
Political
Science.” Perspectives on Politics
2(4):691-706 (December 2004). ER
Mazur, Allan and U. Mueller., “Facial Dominance.” In A. Somit
and S. Peterson, eds.
Research in Biopolitics. Vol. 4.
Zebrowitz, Leslie A., and Joann M. Montepare, “Appearance
DOES Matter.” Science
308:1565-66
(
Todorov, Alexander, et al., “Inferences of Competence from
Faces Predict Election
Outcomes.”
Science 308:1623-26 (
Buller, David J. “Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary
Psychology.” Scientific American
300(1):
74-81 (January 2009). ER
Optional readings:
Marcus, George E., “The Psychology of Emotion and
Politics.” In David O. Sears, Leonie
Huddy, and
Robert Jervis, eds.,
Newman, W. Russell, et al., eds. The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking
and Behavior.”
Marcus, George, The
Sentimental Citizen.
Press,
2002.
LeDoux, Joseph, The
Emotional Brain.
APRIL 1, 8 CONFLICT AND AGGRESSION
Reflecting the above framework about the links between
emotions and political behavior, Stephen
Rosen explores the emotional components of decision making in times of
war. Taking a broad sweep of leaders’ behavior in war time, he hypothesizes the
biological processes involved in calculating risk and in making decisions. In
so doing he challenges rational choice models.
Required readings:
Rosen, Stephen Peter, War and Human Nature.
Princeton:
Optional readings:
Johnson, Dominic D., et al. “Overconfidence in Wargames:
Experimental Evidence on Expectations, Aggression, Gender and Testosterone.” Proceedings of the Royal Society
273:2513-20 (2006).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1634904/pdf/rspb20063606.pdf
Wrangham, Richard W. “Evolution of Coalitionary Killing.”
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42:1-30 (1999).
www.webster.edu/religionviolence/Readings/WrangamCoalitionaryKillingEvolution.pdf
APRIL 15, 22 HUMANS AND THE NATURAL
WORLD
In the Future of Life,
E.O. Wilson defines biophilia as “the innate tendency to be attracted by other
life forms and to affiliate with natural living systems” (p. 214). In this book
Required readings:
Bond, Michael. “
Clayton, Susan. “Can Psychology Save the World?” Minding Nature 2(3):13-15 (December
2009). ER
Brown, Peter G., and Geoffrey Garver. “Humans and Nature:
The Right Relationship.”
Minding Nature 2(1):8-16 (April 2009).
Jennings, Bruce. “Beyond the Social Contract of
Consumption.” Minding Nature
2(3):16-21
(December
2009). ER
Meine, Curt. “Conservation Science, Ethics, Policy, and
Practice.” Minding Nature 2(2):34-
36 (August
2009). ER
Jennings, Bruce. “Leopoldian Professionalism.” Minding Nature 2(2):36-37 (Aug. 2009). ER
APRIL 22, 29 PAPERS PRESENTED
APRIL 29 TAKE-HOME
FINAL EXAMS DISTRIBUTED
LINKS OF INTEREST
Association for Politics and the Life Sciences www.aplsnet.org
Politics and the
Life Sciences http://politicsandthelifesciences.org
Human Behavior and Evolution Society www.hbes.com
Evolution and Human Behavior www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ens
American
Humans and Nature http://www.humansandnature.org/category/minding-nature
Center for Humans and Nature http://www.humansandnature.org/mission/our-vision
Grades will be based upon a seminar paper, midterm exam, final exam, and participation.
The midterm take-home exam is due March 4 and the final
take-home exam is due at
ITEM POINTS DATE DUE
Paper proposal -- February 18
Midterm exam 60 points March 4
Final exam 60 points May 6
Paper 100 points April 22
Participation 20 points
A = 216 - 240; B = 192 – 215; C = 168 – 191; D = 144 – 167
SEMINAR PAPERS
The research paper is an opportunity to develop your expertise in a particular area of biopolitical inquiry. Many of the readings in this syllabus give ideas about topics to be explored. An additional way to gather ideas is to look through recent issues of scholarly journals, including Hastings Center Report; New England Journal of Medicine; JAMA; Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics; Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, American Journal of Bioethics, and Minding Nature. When deciding on your topic, select an intriguing but manageable research question about which you are genuinely quizzical. Pose the question in such a way that your conclusions could go either way, depending on the findings from your research.
The paper should be 15-20 double-spaced, typed pages. You should have a clear theme that can be stated in 1-2 sentences. I will be glad to read a draft version of the paper and make suggestions. In the papers, strive for cautious conclusions reached on the basis of thoughtful evidence, careful documentation, and the raising and addressing of counter-arguments. Minimize unsubstantiated opinion. Oral presentations will be scheduled for April 22 and 29 and, if necessary, May 6, but all written papers are due in HARD COPY on the same day – April 22. Each person should limit prepared comments to 15-20 minutes, and we will have 10-15 minutes for questions and answers (a total of 30 minutes for each presenter). Please make separate notes for the presentation (do not read from the paper). You are advised to practice before hand to make sure your presentation fits within the 15-20 minutes.
PAPER PROPOSALS
Paper proposals are important road maps for your research. Please work on it carefully; a well-formulated proposal will make the research and writing easier. Proposals often have the following problems: too general, no clear research question, conclusions already reached, sources not found or read, sources inadequately cited, signs of having been written with great haste. To avoid these problems, please write a proposal of approximately 2 pages that includes the following:
EXAMS
The midterm and final exams will be distributed one week before their due dates. It is expected that you will integrate (with APA-style citation) at least 3 different class readings into each essay. To prepare, you are encouraged to take notes on the readings. Exams must be submitted in HARD COPY.
PARTICIPATION
Participation will be based on attendance (with special attention to the days the papers are presented) and a demonstration that you have read the material. In addition, 2-4 individuals will present articles or chapters from the readings each week. This invites broad discussion and it gives experience in synthesizing and articulating observations orally. Each presentation should be 10 minutes or less and we will then discuss the material. When you present, assume we have all read the material so you do not need to go into great detail summarizing the content. Instead, pose analytical questions and comments. What is the author’s purpose? What were his/her conclusions? What are the implications of the article/book/chapter for biopolitical inquiry? What are substantive contributions to everyday knowledge? What are theoretical contributions? What counterarguments would you make to the authors?
SAFE ASSIGN
All exams and papers must be uploaded to Safe Assign (found on Blackboard). According to the NIU undergraduate catalogue, a student is considered to have committed plagiarism if, among other things, they “copy material from books, magazine, or other sources or if they paraphrase ideas from such sources without acknowledging them. Students guilty of, or assisting others in, either cheating or plagiarism on an assignment, quiz, or examination may receive a grade of F for the course involved and may be suspended or dismissed from the university.” Here is a useful link: http://lrs.tvu.ac.uk/find/Plagiarism_tutorial/index.html