Sexual Politics: Some Biosociopsychological Problems

Schubert, Glendon

doi:10.2307/3790987

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there are important cultural differences in gender roles and behavior, human females -like those of other primates -tend to invest more in social bonds than males; these differences can be reflected in differences in the characteristic cognitive styles of men and women (Schubert, 1987;Birke, 1986). There is an element of plausibility in the feminists' charge that many social and philosophical theories have a "male" bias (Sayers, 1982).…”

Section: Personal Obligations: Kinship and Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Obligation and the new naturalism

Masters

1989

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it has become increasingly evident that an adequate theory of obligation must rest on evolutionary biology and human ethology, attempts toward this end need to explore the full range of personal, cultural, and political obligations observed in our species. The "new naturalism" reveals the complexity of social behavior and the defects of reductionist models that oversimplify the foundations of human duties and rights. Ultimately, this approach suggests a return to the Aristotelian concept of "natural justice." KEY WORDS: Obligation, altruism, law, human ethology, evolutionary theory, natural justice. I. CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF OBLIGATIONHuman social life has biological foundations. Although few contemporary philosophers and political theorists have focused on evolutionary biology and ethology, no theory can hope to explain human duties and rights without considering the life sciences (Alexander, , 1987 Ruse, 1986). To show why "obligation" must be studied as a scientific as well as philosophic question, it is useful to consider the difficulties that have resulted from the failure to do so.In recent social and political thought, human behavior is both literally and figuratively disembodied. Consider the following example from Richard E. Flathman's Political Obligation:We will argue that having a political obligation ordinarily presupposes the existence of a rule (whether a legal rule or some other type) which forbids or requires a specified form of conduct ... To say that there is a rule is not just to say that observers have detected that a certain number of people do or avoid doing X regularly or "as a rule." It is to say that at least some people have chosen to do X because they think that there are good reasons for doing so. And to say that B's conduct is governed by a rule is to say that B is one of those who has chosen to do X because he thinks there are good reasons for doing what the rule requires. Now to say that there are good reasons for doing X is to say that X can be distinguished from Y, Z, etc., (which may be merely not-doing-X), i.e., that there are alternatives to doing X over which X is preferred. It is also to say that doing Y, Z, etc., is potentially attractive to B such that there is a point to adducing reasons for doing X rather than Y or Z. In short, the existence of rules and rule-guided conduct presupposes the possibility of a tension in the thought of individuals, and hence in their society, between reasons for and reasons against accepting and choosing to conform to obligation rules. Moreover, the fact that reasoning and Biology and Philosophy 4 (1989) 17-32.

show abstract

Section: Personal Obligations: Kinship and Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Obligation and the new naturalism

Masters

1989

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies in the U.S. show that men and women follow different paths of elite recruitment (Darcy, Welch, and Clark, 1985;Sapiro, 1986) and respond differently to some, but not to all, events in American politics (Poole and Zeigler, 1985;Klein, 1987;Schubert, 1985Schubert, , 1987 . These effects mirror gender differences in social cognition more broadly (Gilligan, 1982;Barchas & Mendoza, 1984;Birke, 1986).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9. Gender of Viewer: Because there is increasing interest in gender differences in social cognition and political behavior (Gilligan, 1982;Schubert, 1985Schubert, , 1987, differences between the responses of male and female viewers were analyzed across a number of studies.…”

Section: B Variables Associated With Stimulus Presented Onmentioning

confidence: 99%