Political animals and social animals as biologically meaningful categories

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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,463
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
Michael Polanyi (1967). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Richard B. Carter (1980). Rousseau's Newtonian Body Politic. Philosophy and Social Criticism 7 (2):144-167.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

18 ( #255,392 of 1,925,534 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #418,152 of 1,925,534 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.