The Science of Rape: (Mis)Constructions of Women's Trauma in Evolutionary Theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Zeedyk
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Human Behaviour ◽  
Traumatic Experience ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
Psychological Pain ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Way

The social sciences are witnessing renewed enthusiasm for sociobiological accounts of human behaviour. Feminist theory has, understandably, tended to engage cautiously with biological reasoning, because women have often been poorly served by the politics of such research. It is important, though, that feminists continue to contribute to this literature, in order to challenge problematic discourses that may emerge. The present paper seeks to analyse a domain of sociobiology that has been the focus of recent controversy: an evolutionary explanation of rape. Particular attention is given to the way in which women's traumatic experience of rape is constructed within this framework. It is argued that women's psychological pain is contorted, via the strategies of (a) diminishing women's pain and (b) ignoring their experience altogether. The operation of these two strategies is illuminated, and their practical consequences in the domains of legal reform and the depoliticization of science are evaluated.

The Distribution of Emotions: Affective Politics of Emancipation

Hypatia ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigitte Bargetz
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Affect Theory ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
The Social

Currently, affect and emotions are a widely discussed political topic. At least since the early 1990s, different disciplines—from the social sciences and humanities to science and technoscience—have increasingly engaged in studying and conceptualizing affect, emotion, feeling, and sensation, evoking yet another turn that is frequently framed as the “affective turn.” Within queer feminist affect theory, two positions have emerged: following Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's well‐known critique, there are either more “paranoid” or more “reparative” approaches toward affect. Whereas the latter emphasize the potentialities of affect, the former argue that one should question the mere idea of affect as liberation and promise. Here, I suggest moving beyond a critique or celebration of affect by embracing the political ambivalence of affect. For this queer feminist theorizing of affective politics, I adapt Jacques Rancière's theory of the political and particularly his understanding of emancipation. Rancière takes emancipation into account without, however, uncritically endorsing or celebrating a politics of liberation. I draw on his famous idea of the “distribution of the sensible” and reframe it as the “distribution of emotions,” by which I develop a multilayered approach toward a nonidentitarian, nondichotomous, and emancipatory queer feminist theory of affective politics.

Futures Honed

Futures ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-134
Author(s):  
Barbara Adam
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
The Past ◽  
Writing Theory ◽  
Time Space ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Future ◽  
Verse Form ◽  
The Way

This chapter comprises an interview between Barbara Adam and the editors, and is followed by Adam’s ‘Honing Futures’, which is presented in four short verses of distilled theory. In the interview Adam reflects on thirty-five years of futures-thinking rooted in her deeply original work on time and temporality, and her innovative response to qualitative and linear definitions of time within the social sciences. The interview continues with a discussion of the way Adam’s thinking on futures intersects in her work with ideas of ethics and collective responsibility politics and concludes with a brief rationale for writing theory in verse form. In ‘Honing Futures’, a piece of futures theory verse form, Adam charts the movements and moments in considerations of the Not Yet and futurity’s active creation: from pluralized imaginings of the future, to an increasingly tangible and narrower anticipated future, to future-making as designing and reality-creating performance. Collectively, the verses identify the varied complex interdependencies of time, space, and matter with the past and future in all iterations of honing and making futures.

scholarly journals We Need to Talk about Impact: Why Social Policy Academics need to Engage with the UK's Research Impact Agenda

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE E. SMITH ◽  
ELLEN STEWART
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Policy Response ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Policy Relevance ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

AbstractOf all the social sciences, social policy is one of the most obviously policy-orientated. One might, therefore, expect a research and funding agenda which prioritises and rewards policy relevance to garner an enthusiastic response among social policy scholars. Yet, the social policy response to the way in which major funders and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) are now prioritising ‘impact’ has been remarkably muted. Elsewhere in the social sciences, ‘research impact’ is being widely debated and a wealth of concerns about the way in which this agenda is being pursued are being articulated. Here, we argue there is an urgent need for social policy academics to join this debate. First, we employ interviews with academics involved in health inequalities research, undertaken between 2004 and 2015, to explore perceptions, and experiences, of the ‘impact agenda’ (an analysis which is informed by a review of guidelines for assessing ‘impact’ and relevant academic literature). Next, we analyse high- and low-scoring REF2014 impact case studies to assess whether these concerns appear justified. We conclude by outlining how social policy expertise might usefully contribute to efforts to encourage, measure and reward research ‘impact’.

Reply to Comments

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-300
Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan ◽  
Russell Powell
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Moral Progress ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
The Core ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
The Social ◽  
Core Elements

Abstract Commentators on The Evolution of Moral Progress: A Biocultural Theory raise a number of metaethical and moral concerns with our analysis, as well as some complaints regarding how we have interpreted and made use of the contemporary evolutionary and social sciences of morality. Some commentators assert that one must already presuppose a moral theory before one can even begin to theorize moral progress; others query whether the shift toward greater inclusion is really a case of moral progress, or whether our theory can be properly characterized as ‘naturalistic’. Other commentators worry that we have uncritically accepted the prevailing evolutionary explanation of morality, even though it gives short shrift to the role of women or presupposes an oversimplified view of the environment in which the core elements of human moral psychology are thought to have congealed. Another commentator laments that we did not make more extensive use of data from the social sciences. In this reply, we engage with all of these constructive criticisms and show that although some of them are well taken, none undermine the core thesis of our book.

The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
200Th Anniversary ◽  
The Social ◽  
Philosophy And Religion

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.

How Not to Use Evolutionary Theory in Politics: A Critique of Peter John

2000 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Dowding
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
Evolutionary Account ◽  
The Social ◽  
Poor Understanding ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Poll Tax

In a recent issue of this journal Peter John (1999) suggests we can use an evolutionary account to explain policy change. In particular he suggests we should see the battle of ideas about policy formation as an evolutionary process and gives as an example the introduction and abolition of the poll tax. John is correct in two claims in his article. First, traditional models of policy-generation tend to ignore the role of ideas, concentrating attention upon the bargaining and power struggles between different sets of competing interests. Secondly, he is right that evolutionary explanation has a place in the social sciences. But these two thoughts are best kept apart and the way he packages them suggests a poor understanding of evolutionary explanation and of the role ideas may play within it. There are at least three problems with his account. First, the object at which he directs explanation —in his example the poll tax—is misspecified. Secondly, he fails to specify a mechanism for the natural selection of ideas, leaving his claim about the promise of evolutionary accounts vague and unsatisfactory. Finally, he fails to distinguish learning as an intentional process from selection as an evolutionary one.

Investors and Exploiters in Ecology and Economics

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Natural World ◽  
The Other ◽  
Independent Research ◽  
Research Traditions ◽  
The Social ◽  
Widespread Phenomenon ◽  
Cancerous Cells

In the natural world, some agents (investors) employ strategies that provide resources, services, or information while others (exploiters) achieve gain through these efforts. Such behavior coexists and is observable in many species at many levels: from bacteria which depend on the existence of biofilms to synthesize constituent proteins; to cancerous cells which employ angiogenesis in tumors; to parents who forego vaccinating their children yet benefit from herd immunity; to countries’ actions in the handling of greenhouse gases. To analyze such behavior, two independent research traditions have developed in parallel—one couched in evolutionary theory championed by behavioral ecologists, the other in the social sciences advocated by economists. This book looks for commonalities in understanding and approach, in an effort to spur research into this widespread phenomenon.

Evolutionary Explanation in the Social Sciences: An Emerging Paradigm.

Social Forces ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 607
Author(s):  
Pierre L. Van Den Berghe ◽  
Philippe Van Parijs
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
The Social

scholarly journals Is bisexuality invisible? A review of sexualities scholarship 1970–2015

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surya Monro ◽  
Sally Hines ◽  
Antony Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Innovative Approach ◽  
Gay And Lesbian ◽  
Critical Commentary ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

This article provides a review of sexualities scholarship within the social sciences between 1970 and 2015. It takes an innovative approach by focusing on the way in which bisexuality is addressed in this body of literature. The article reveals the marginalisation, under-representation and invisibility of bisexuality within and across the social sciences in relation to both bisexual experience and identity. Reasons for this varied across the different eras, including the heterosexist nature of the literature, the impact of gay and lesbian-focused identity politics, and queer deconstructionism. In addition, patterns of bisexual erasure and invisibility were uneven, with some scholarship taking inclusive approaches or criticising prejudice against bisexuality. The initial findings of the review were enriched by critical commentary from key relevant sociologists and political scientists. The article concludes that future sexualities scholarship could be enhanced by greater consideration of bisexuality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document