Watts Jr - Biopolitics and Gender

Biopolitics and Gender

Biopolitics and Gender

Meredith W. Watts, Editor

First Published by

The Haworth Press, Inc., 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580

Transferred to Digital Printing 2009 by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Biopolitics and Gender has also been published as Women & Politics, Volume 3, Numbers 2/3, Summer/Fall 1983.

Copyright 1984 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of articles in this publication may be reproduced noncommercially for the purpose of educational or scientific advancement. Otherwise, no part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilm and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:

Biopolitics and gender.

Biopolitics and Gender has also been published as Women & Politics, Volume 3, Numbers 2/3, Summer/Fall 1983Verso of t.p.

Includes bibliographical references.

Contents: Biopolitics and gender / Meredith W. Watts Biology, gender, and politics / Denise L. Baer, David A. Bositis Political ideology, sociology, and the U.S. women's rights movement / Susan Ann Kay, Douglas B. Meikle [etc.]

1. Women in politicsUnited StatesAddresses, essays, lectures. 2. Women's rightsUnited StatesAddresses, essays, lectures. 3. BiopoliticsAddresses, essays, lectures. I. Watts, Meredith W. II. Women & politics.

HQ1236.5.U6B56 1983 305.42 83-18597

ISBN 0-86656-250-8

Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.

Biopolitics and Gender

Women & Politics
Volume 3, Numbers 2/3

CONTENTS

EDITOR

SARAH SLAVIN, Assistant Professor, Political Science Department, State University College at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York

EDITORIAL BOARD

KIRSTEN AMUNDSEN, Professor of Political Science, California State University at Sacramento

BARBARA R. BERGMANN, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland at College Park

MELISSA BUTLER, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wabash College

ELLEN BONEPARTH, Associate Professor of Political Science, San Jose State University, San Jose, California

IRENE DIAMOND, Women's Studies Program, University of California at Los Angeles

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

JO FREEMAN, Brooklyn, New York

WALTER R. GOVE, Professor of Sociology, Vanderbilt University

MARTIN GRUBERG, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh

LYNNE B. IGLITZIN, Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies; Lecturer in Political Science, University of Washington at Seattle

JANE S. JAQUETTE, Associate Professor of Political Science, Occidental College at Los Angeles

M. KENT JENNINGS, Professor, Political Science Department, University of California at Santa Barbara

ALBERT K. KARNIG, Associate Professor, Center for Public Affairs, Arizona State University

RITA MAE KELLY, Professor, Center for Public Affairs, Arizona State University

JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

J. STANLEY LEMONS, Professor of History, Rhode Island University

NAOMI LYNN, Professor, Political Science Department, Kansas State University at Manhattan

SUSAN GLUCK MEZEY, Political Science Department, DePaul University

BETTY A. NESVOLD, Dean, San Diego State University

KAREN O'CONNOR, Associate Professor of Political Science, Emory University; member of the Georgia bar

JEWEL L. PRESTAGE, Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, Southern University

VIRGINIA SAPIRO, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin at Madison

DEBRA W. STEWART, Associate Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University at Raleigh

KENT TEDIN, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Houston

SUSAN J. TOLCHIN, Professor of Public Administration, The George Washington University

SUSAN WELCH, Professor and Chair, Political Science Department, University of Nebraska at Lincoln

BIBLIOGRAPHY EDITOR

KATHLEEN A. STAUDT, Assistant Professor, Political Science Department, University of Texas at El Paso

BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

SHARON L. WOLCHIK, Visiting Assistant Professor of International Affairs and Political Science, Institute for Sino-Soviet Studies, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University

EDITORIAL INTERN

JUDY HARLA, State University College at Buffalo

DATA BASES EDITOR

ROBERT DARCY, Associate Professor of Political Science, Oklahoma State University at Stillwater

Biopolitics and Gender

Meredith W. Watts

In general, the term biopolitics denotes a relatively young interdisciplinary approach with a focus on the contemporary life sciencespsychophysiology, brain science, ethology, endocrinology, or any number of othersas sources of insight and method for the analysis of political behavior. In the standard interpretation of normal science (cf. Thomas Kuhn), the life sciences can be usefully discussed in two parts: 1) as a body of knowledge developed through the accumulation of interrelated, replicable and replicated studies which have produced empirically verified and inter-subjectively accepted findings, and 2) as the methodology employed in carrying out empirical analysis. The dichotomy between a corpus of knowledge and the methods for acquiring that knowledge is used in avoiding confusion over substantive findings on the one hand and the means (ranging from broad epistemology to specific data-gathering techniques) commonly employed within a particular field for conducting research.

It is commonly understood that one's predispositions and perceptions, among other influences, affect the manner in which research problems are defined and data are interpreted; indeed, it is difficult to maintain, particularly in the social sciences but also in the natural sciences, that substantive findings exist in an ethereal realm un-guided by human purposes and visions, and even limitations and tendentiousness. It is, however, worthwhile to bear in mind this venerable distinction between substance and method to the extent that it reflects a real diversity among those involved in biopolitics. As we see in this introductory review, and in the chapters which it precedes, the term biopolitics has been used to include, on the one hand, sociopolitical extrapolations from the substance of one or more of the life sciences and on the other hand, empirical studies which primarily borrow methods from the life sciences to examine hypotheses of more or less traditional interest to their home disciplines. In this volume, the papers by Kay and Meikle, Schubert, and Masters tend more toward the former category, while studies by Jones, and Jaros and White tend toward the second. The Baer paper offers a critique that deals with both areas, but standing in sharpest relief is a concern that social scientists make appropriate use of findings in such areas as endocrinology and that they be aware of limitations and conceptual difficulties involved in borrowing from those areas.