Skip to main content
Log in

Political animals and social animals as biologically meaningful categories

  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses itself to the question as to whether Homo is properly to be considered as a political animal, or whether Homo is best understood as merely a form of social animal which has evolved particularly complex survival stratagems. We will proceed primarily on the basis of the published work of the contemporary Swiss zoologist, Adolf Portmann, and argue for the view that there are solid grounds for distinguishing between social and political animals, and that Homo inhabits the realm of the political animal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Carter, R.B. (1981). Rousseau's Newtonian body politic. Philosophy and Social Criticism 7.2 (Spring).

  • Carter, R.B. (1982). What States are made of: New questions. International Studies in Philosophy 14.1:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R.B. (1984). Descartes' methodological transformation of homo sapiens into homo faber. Sudhoffs Archiv 68(2):224–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, W.S. (1968). Hunting: An integrating biobehavioral system and its evolutionary importance. In R.B. Lee and I. DeVore (Eds.), Man and hunter (Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co., 1968):304–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malson, L. (1972). Wolf children and the problem of human nature. New York and London: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, R. (1979). Sociobiology: Science or myth?: Review of E.O. Wilson's On human nature. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 2:245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1977). Principa. Trans. Motte, rev. Cajori. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1964). Animals as social beings. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1966). Die Kindheit des Menschen. Praxis der Psychotherapie 14.5 (Oktober):209–213 (Basel, Switzerland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, A. (1971). Der Mensch im Felde der Evolutionstheorie. Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon, 161–166. Mannheim: Wein, Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, V. (1981). A biological approach to sociological functionalism. Inquiry 18:371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, J.M. (1968). The organism as an adaptive control system. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J.A.L., and Zengg, R.M. (1942). Wolf children and feral man. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. (1908). Constitutional government in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carter, R.B. Political animals and social animals as biologically meaningful categories. Hum Stud 11, 65–86 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143286

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143286

Keywords

Navigation