Human Studies 11 (1):65 - 86 (1988)

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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00143286
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,342
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Tacit Dimension. --.Michael Polanyi & Amartya Sen - 1966 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
A Biological Approach to Sociological Functionalism.Vernon Pratt - 1975 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 18 (4):371 – 389.
Rousseau's Newtonian Body Politic.Richard B. Carter - 1980 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 7 (2):144-167.
What States Are Made Of: New Questions.Richard B. Carter - 1981 - International Studies in Philosophy 13 (2):1-16.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
44 ( #212,071 of 2,326,059 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #650,227 of 2,326,059 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes