Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:02:15.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a theory of revolution The legacy of James C. Davies in historical perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

John M. Orbell  and
Roshani Cari Shay
John M. Orbell
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences, Straub Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. jorbell@uoregon.edu
Roshani Cari Shay
Affiliation:
Hawaii Wellness Institute, 3670 Kalihi Street, Honolulu, HI 96819. shayr@wou.edu
Get access

Extract

“Founders” of new scholarly ideas, perspectives, or paradigms are people who advocate for such ideas before wider scholarly audiences accept them or even know they exist. Such scholars have an uphill battle. They must persuade journal and book editors to publish their work. Those gatekeepers depend on reviewers with established reputations in conventional terms, and these reviewers generally oppose anything that threatens their comfortable intellectual lives. If the idea is as stunningly simple as Darwin's natural selection theory, an innovator might have a somewhat easier time; Thomas Huxley reportedly remarked upon reading On the Origin of Species, “How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that.” But with conceptually and methodologically broad ideas, such as the application of biologically based psychological thinking to a traditional set of disciplinary problems, it can be tough to even get a foot in the door.

Type
Founders' Forum
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 85 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Huxley, Leonard, The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1900).Google Scholar
2. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., “Biopolitics after three decades: A balance sheet,” British journal of Political Science, 1998, 28: 559–571.Google Scholar
3. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., “Rational choice and biopolitics: A (Darwinian) tale of two theories,” PS: Political Science and Politics, 1999, 32(1): 39–44.Google Scholar
4. Davies, James C., “Charisma in the 1952 campaign,” American Political Science Review, 1954, 48(4): 1083–1102.Google Scholar
5. Gerth, Hans H. and Mills, Charles W., eds, Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Routledge, 1946).Google Scholar
6. Davies, James C., “Toward a theory of revolution,” American Sociological Review, 1962, 27(1): 5–19.Google Scholar
7. Gurr, Ted Robert, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
8. Davies, James C., Personal interview conducted by John M. Orbell and Roshani Cari Shay, Eugene, Oregon, July 2010.Google Scholar
9. Davies, James C., Human Nature in Politics: The Dynamics of Political Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963).Google Scholar
10. Chomsky, Noam, “A review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior,” Language, 1959, 35(1): 26–58.Google Scholar
11. Simon, Herbert, “A behavioral model of rational choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, 69: 99–118.Google Scholar
12. Simon, Herbert, “Rational choice and the structure of the environment,” Psychological Review, 1956, 63: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hamilton, William D., “The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1964, 7: 1–52.Google Scholar
14. Williams, George C., Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).Google Scholar
15. Trivers, Robert, “The evolution of reciprocal altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology, March 1971, 46: 35–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Trivers, Robert L., “Parental investment and sexual selection,” in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971, Campbell, Bernard, ed. (Chicago: Aldine, 1972), pp. 136–179.Google Scholar
17. Campbell, Donald T., “On the conflict between biological and social evolution, and between psychology and moral tradition,” American Psychologist, 1975, 30(12): 1103–1126.Google Scholar
18. Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
19. Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
20. Trivers, Robert L., “The evolution of reciprocal altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971, 46(1): 35–57.Google Scholar
21. Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John, “Cognitive adaptations for social exchange,” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Barkow, Jerome, Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
22. Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking Press, 2002).Google Scholar