The study of political attitudes and behaviours is important from a cognitive point of view and carries considerable practical implications. Therefore, researchers should consider the widest possible spectrum of factors determining the participation of individuals in politics. Their analyses, however, are usually limited to the effects of environmental factors, ignoring or marginalizing the impact of genetic factors. An approach called ‘genopolitics’ has been trying to fill the resulting knowledge gap for over a decade. The aim of this article is to provide a synthetic description of genopolitics based on institutional, methodological, epistemological and social criteria. The main points of consideration are the assessment of the explanatory utility of genopolitical research, as well as the analysis of the cognitive and non-cognitive conditions and barriers to the development of genopolitics.
AlfordJohn R., FunkCarolyn L., and HibbingJohn R.. 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?
” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 153–167. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051579.
2.
AlfordJohn R., and HibbingJohn R.. 2008. “The New Empirical Biopolitics. ” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 183–203. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060806.161216.
3.
BakerMonya.2016. “1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. ” Nature 533 (7604): 452–454. doi: 10.1038/533452a.
4.
BenjaminDaniel J., CesariniDavid, van der LoosMatthijs J.H.M., DawesChristopher T., KoellingerPhilipp D., MagnussonPatrik K.E., ChabrisChristopher F., 2012. “The Genetic Architecture of Economic and Political Preferences. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (21): 8026–8031. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120666109.
5.
CharneyEvan.2008. “Politics, Genetics, and ‘Greedy Reductionism’. ” Perspectives on Politics 6 (2): 337–343. doi: 10.1017/S1537592708080651.
6.
CharneyEvan, and EnglishWilliam. 2012. “Candidate Genes and Political Behaviour. ” American Political Science Review 106 (1): 1–34. doi: 10.1017/S0003055411000554.
7.
DawesChristopher T., CesariniDavid, FowlerJames H., JohannessonMagnus, MagnussonPatrik K.E., and OskarssonSven. 2014. “The Relationship Between Genes, Psychological Traits, and Political Participation. ” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 888–903. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12100.
8.
DawesChristopher T., and FowlerJames H.. 2009. “Partisanship, Voting, and the Dopamine D2 Receptor Gene. ” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1157–1171. doi: 10.1017/S002238160909094X.
9.
DawesChristopher T., LoewenPeter John, SchreiberDarren, SimmonsAlan N., FlaganTaru, McElreathRichard, BokemperScott E., FowlerJames H., and PaulusMartin P.. 2012. “Neural Basis of Egalitarian Behaviour. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (17): 6479–6483. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118653109.
10.
DawkinsRichard.1976. The Selfish Gene . New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
DeppeKristen D., StoltenbergScott F., SmithKevin B., and HibbingJohn R.. 2013. “Candidate Genes and Voter Turnout: Further Evidence on the Role of 5-HTTLPR. ” American Political Science Review 107 (2): 375–381. doi: 10.1017/S0003055413000087.
12.
EavesLindon J., and HatemiPeter K.. 2008. “Transmission of Attitudes Toward Abortion and Gay Rights: Effects of Genes, Social Learning and Mate Selection. ” Behavioral Genetics 38 (3): 247–256. doi: 10.1007/s10519-008-9205-4.
13.
EavesLindon J., HatemiPeter K., HeathAndrew C., and MartinNicholas G.. 2011. “Modeling the Cultural and Biological Inheritance of Social and Political Behavior in Twins and Nuclear Families. ” In Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics , edited by HatemiPeter K. and McDermottRose, 101–184. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
EngelmannStephen G.2010. “Theory Trouble: The Case of Biopolitical Science. ” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 39 (1): 55–71.
15.
FanelliDaniele.2009. “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. ” Plos One 4 (5): e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
16.
FowlerJames H., BakerLaura A., and DawesChristopher T.. 2008. “Genetic Variation in Political Participation. ” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 233–248. doi: 10.1017/S0003055408080209.
17.
FowlerJames H., and DawesChristopher T.. 2008. “Two Genes Predict Voter Turnout. ” The Journal of Politics 70 (3): 579–594. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1032632
18.
FowlerJames H., and DawesChristopher T.. 2013. “In Defense of Genopolitics. ” American Political Science Review 107 (2): 362–374. doi: 10.1017/S0003055413000063.
19.
FowlerJames H., and SchreiberDarren. 2008. “Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature. ” Science 322 (5903): 912–914. doi: 10.1126/science.1158188.
20.
FriesenAmanda, and KsiazkiewiczAleksander. 2015. “Do Political Attitudes and Religiosity Share a Genetic Path?
” Political Behavior 37 (4): 791–818. doi: 10.1007/s11109-014-9291-3.
21.
HannaganRebecca J., and HatemiPeter K.. 2008. “The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney's “Genes and Ideologies”. ” Perspectives on Politics 6 (2): 329–335. doi: 10.1017/S153759270808064X.
22.
HatemiPeter K., FunkCarolyn L., MedlandSarah E., MaesHermine M., SilbergJudy L., MartinNicholas G., and EavesLindon J.. 2009. “Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Attitudes Over a Life Time. ” The Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1141–1156. doi: 10.1017/S0022381609090938.
23.
HatemiPeter K., GillespieNathan A., EavesLindon J., MaherBrion S., WebbBradley T., HeathAndrew C., MedlandSarah E., 2011. “A Genome-Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes. ” The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 271–285. doi: 10.1017/S0022381610001015.
24.
HatemiPeter K., and McDermottRose. 2012a. “The Genetics of Politics: Discovery, Challenges, and Progress. ” Trends in Genetics 28 (10): 525–533. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.004.
25.
HatemiPeter K., and McDermottRose. 2012b. “A Neurobiological Approach to Foreign Policy Analysis: Identifying Individual Differences in Political Violence. ” Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (2): 111–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00150.x.
26.
HatemiPeter K., MedlandSarah E., MorleyKatherine I., HeathAndrew C., and MartinNicholas G.. 2007. “The Genetics of Voting: An Australian Twin Study. ” Behavioral Genetics 37 (3): 435–448. doi: 10.1007/s10519-006-9138-8.
27.
HerrnsteinRichard J., and MurrayCharles. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life . New York: Free Press.
28.
HibbingJohn R., SmithKevin B., and AlfordJohn R.. 2014. “Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political Ideology. ” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3): 297–307. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13001192.
29.
KandlerChristian, Zapko–WillmesAlexandra, RichterJulia, and RiemannRainer. in press. “Dynamic Genotype–Environment Interplays in the Development of Personality Differences. ” In The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes , edited by RauthmannJohn F., chapter 7. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc.
30.
KlemmensenRobert, HatemiPeter K., HoboltSara Binzer, PetersenInge, SkyttheAxel, and NørgaardAsbjørn S.. 2012. “The Genetics of Political Participation, Civic Duty, and Political Efficacy Across Cultures: Denmark and the United States. ” Journal of Theoretical Politics 24 (3): 409–427. doi: 10.1177/0951629812438984.
31.
KsiazkiewiczAleksander, and FriesenAmanda. 2017. “Genes and Politics. ” In Handbook of Biology and Politics , edited by PetersonSteven A. and SomitAlbert, 85–105. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
32.
KsiazkiewiczAleksander, and FriesenAmanda. 2019. “The Higher Power of Religiosity Over Personality on Political Ideology. ” Political Behavior , 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s11109-019-09566-5.
33.
KsiazkiewiczAleksander, and KruegerRobert F.. 2017. “The Role of Genes and Environments in Linking the Need to Evaluate with Political Ideology and Political Extremity. ” Social Justice Research 30 (4): 381–407. doi: 10.1007/s11211-017-0292-3.
34.
KulczyckiEmanuel.2017. ““Punktoza jako strategia w grze parametrycznej w Polsce” [Running for Points as a Strategy in the ‘Parametric Game’ in Poland]. ” Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe 1 (49): 63–78. doi: 10.14746/nisw.2017.1.4.
35.
LarregueJulien.2018. “« Une bombe dans la discipline »: l’émergence du mouvement génopolitique en science politique. ” Social Science Information 57 (2): 159–195. doi: 10.1177/0539018418763131.
36.
LittvayLevente.2012. “Do Heritability Estimates of Political Phenotypes Suffer From an Equal Environment Assumption Violation? Evidence From an Empirical Study. ” Twin Research and Human Genetics 15 (1): 6–14. doi: 10.1375/twin.15.1.6.
37.
LoewenPeter J., and DawesChristopher T.. 2012. “The Heritability of Duty and Voter Turnout. ” Political Psychology 33 (3): 363–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00881.x.
38.
MakelMatthew C., PluckerJonathan A., and HegartyBoyd. 2012. “Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?
” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (6): 537–542. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460688.
39.
MartinNicholas G., EavesLindon J., HeathAndrew C., JardineRosemary, FeingoldLynn M., and EysenckHans J.. 1986. “Transmission of Social Attitudes. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 83 (12): 4364–4368. doi: 10.1073/pnas.83.12.4364.
40.
McCourtKathryn, BouchardThomas J., LykkenDavid T., TellegenAuke, and KeyesMargaret. 1999. “Authoritarianism Revisited: Genetic and Environmental Influences Examined in Twins Reared Apart and Together. ” Personality and Individual Differences 27 (5): 985–1014. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00048-3.
41.
McDermottRose, DawesChristopher T., Prom-WormleyElizabeth, EavesLindon J., and HatemiPeter K.. 2013. “
MAOA and Aggression: A Gene–Environment Interaction in Two Populations. ” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57 (6): 1043–1064. doi: 10.1177/0022002712457746
42.
McDermottRose, TingleyDustin, CowdenJonathan, FrazzettoGiovanni, and JohnsonDominic D.P.. 2009. “Monoamine Oxidase A Gene (MAOA) Predicts Behavioral Aggression Following Provocation. ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (7): 2118–2123. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808376106.
43.
MerelmanRichard M.1971. “The Development of Policy Thinking in Adolescence. ” American Political Science Review 65 (4): 1033–1047. doi: 10.2307/1953496.
44.
NealeMichael C., and CardonLon R.. 1992. Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
45.
NocońJarosław.2018. “Węzłowe problemy badań państwa w świetle założeń socjobiologii” [Crucial Problems of the State Research in the Light of Sociobiological Assumptions]. ” In Państwo w Czasach Zmiany [The State in the Times of Change] , edited by PietraśMarek, HofmanIwona, and MichałowskiStanisław, 345–366. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
46.
NowakLeszek.2000. “The Idealizational Approach to Science: A New Survey. ” In Idealization X: The Richness of Idealization (Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, Vol. 69) , edited by NowakowaIzabella and NowakLeszek, 109–184. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
47.
OskarssonSven, CesariniDavid, DawesChristopher T., FowlerJames H., JohannessonMagnus, MagnussonPatrik K.E., and TeorellJan. 2015. “Linking Genes and Political Orientations: Testing the Cognitive Ability as Mediator Hypothesis. ” Political Psychology 36 (6): 649–665. doi: 10.1111/pops.12230.
48.
PinkerSteven.2002. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature . New York: Viking Penguin.
49.
PlominRobert, DeFriesJohn, McClearnGerald E., and McGuffinPeter. 2001. Behavioral Genetics . 4th ed. New York: Worth.
50.
RemisiewiczŁukasz.2017a. ““Biologia w socjologii – trzy sposoby wiązania” [Biology in Sociology: Three Ways of Linking]. ” Filozofia Nauki 1 (79): 65–89.
51.
RemisiewiczŁukasz.2017b. ““Zarzut redukcjonizmu w kontekście relacji biologia–socjologia” [Problem of Reductionism in the Context of the Relations Between Biology and Sociology]. ” Progress. Journal of Young Researchers 1: 37–49. doi: 10.4467/25439928PS.17.003.6509.
52.
RidleyMatt.2003. Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human . New York: HarperCollins.
53.
SettleJaime E., DawesChristopher T., LoewenPeter J., and PanagopoulosCostas. 2017. “Negative Affectivity, Political Contention, and Turnout: A Genopolitics Field Experiment. ” Political Psychology 38 (6): 1065–1082. doi: 10.1111/pops.12379.
54.
SimonsDaniel J.2014. “The Value of Direct Replication. ” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (1): 76–80. doi: 10.1177/1745691613514755.
55.
SmithKevin, AlfordJohn R., HatemiPeter K., EavesLindon J., FunkCarolyn, and HibbingJohn R.. 2012. “Biology, Ideology, and Epistemology: How Do We Know Political Attitudes Are Inherited and Why Should We Care?
” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 17–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00560.x.
56.
SprinkleRobert H.2017. “The Organizational Structure of Biology in Politics. ” In Handbook of Biology and Politics , edited by PetersonSteven A. and SomitAlbert, 18–26. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
57.
ten HaveHenk A.M.J.2001. “Genetics and Culture: The Geneticization Thesis. ” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (3): 295–304. doi: 10.1023/A:1012090810798.
58.
VisscherPeter M., HillWilliam G., and WrayNaomi R.. 2008. “Heritability in the Genomics Era – Concepts and Misconceptions. ” Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (4): 255–266. doi: 10.1038/nrg2322.
59.
WatsonJames D., BerryAndrew, and DaviesKevin. 2017. DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
60.
WatsonJames D., and CrickFrancis H.C.. 1953. “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. ” Nature 171 (4356): 737–738. doi: 10.1038/224470a0
61.
WilsonEdward O.1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
62.
WilsonGlenn D., and PattersonJohn R.. 1968. “A New Measure of Conservatism. ” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 7 (4): 264–269. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/
10.1111/j.2044-8260.1968.tb00568.x.
63.
WuketitsFranz M.2008. Der freie Wille. Die Evolution Einer Illusion [The Free Will. The Evolution of an Illusion]. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag.
