Search Results

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for a biopolitical science that resolves some of the defects in contemporary political science. Critics of the contemporary state of political science have identified at least seven deficiencies—deficiencies that come from downplaying the importance in political science of history, morality, judgment, emotion, religion, ambition, and liberal education. The fundamental framework for biopolitical science is the theoretical analysis of political behavior as conforming to a nested hierarchy of three levels of deep history—the universal history of species, the cultural history of the group, and the individual history of animals within the group. To fully comprehend the human nature of politics, one must understand the unity of political universals, the diversity of political cultures, and the individuality of political judgments.

This chapter comments on the previous chapter's essay by Professor Larry Arnhart, suggesting that the question is not whether biology and neuroscience are relevant to fields like politics, economics, and history, but how they are going to be relevant. At the outset, Arnhart notes that some political scientists have been complaining about the deficiencies of their discipline, and the main target of the seven-point critique that follows is the principle of the rational maximization of self-interest. The implication of this critique is that the principle would do a poor job of accounting for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, which Arnhart hopes to explain. Hence the need for a biopolitical science and the more robust understanding of human nature that such a science can offer.

This chapter further comments on Professor Arnhart's “Biopolitical Science.” It endorses both the substance and the method of Arnhart's biopolitical approach. The substance of his approach lies in its reliance on what one knows from science to understand human political behavior. The method of his approach is pluralistic and empirical. It is pluralistic in terms of the “explananda”—what is being explained—the political history of the species, the cultural political history, and the individual political history. It is also pluralistic in terms of the “explanans”—the causal factors employed in explanation. Finally, Arnhart's approach is empirical in that he advocates reliance on the observationally based methods of science.