This article examines the implications of recent debate regarding the nature of moral development and moral maturily for public sector ethics. The research of Carol Gilligan and others has suggested that the conventional account of moral maturity (an "ethic of justice") overlooks an alternative "ethic of care," allegedly found only among women. Although these differing models of moral maturity are not as conceptually or empirically distinct as they initially appeared, treating the care and justice perspectives as ideal types demonstrates that neither provides a defensible account of moral maturity. The authors explain how an exclusive reliance on either impartial rationality or care and concern for particular others poses serious problems for administrators and that the administrative role demands capacities for ethical judgment and action associated with both the care and justice perspectives.
Although we may be pessimistic (with good reason) about contemporary politics, especially as it effects the prospects for the survival of the human species in the long run, we can be more optimistic about the study of politics from a life science perspective. Certainly the two are related. Becoming optimistic about the former may depend in part upon the further development of biopolitics and of the biobehaviorial and life sciences generally.
Preliminary findings are reported from a study of municipal councils, employing methods of direct observation under field conditions, that explored the effects of dominance status, age and relative age in groups involved in group decision-making processes. Findings show that old age was associated with greater participation in the group by actors and greater responsiveness by the group toward actors; while with regard to relative age, younger members received higher responsiveness from groups and participated at grand mean levels. Overall, being old was associated with status and involvement in small-group political interactions, but the ascriptive prerogatives of older age did not close out the opportunities for achievement by the relatively young.
An evolutionary perspective, which is currently enjoying a revival in the social sciences, raises the possibility of a major transformation in the study of political development and modernization. It may be desirable to supplement (and in some instances replace) the concept of “political development” with the concept of “political evolution.” Political development may be likened to the biological process of ontogeny. It involves the construction of a viable set of political qua cybernetic processes and structures at any level of social organization, from wolf packs to human families to empires. Political evolution is an aspect of phylogeny. It involves the invention, elaboration, and diffusion of novel political forms of all kinds, only some of which may be more effective, or inclusive, or democratic, etc. Nor are all evolutionary changes necessarily “better” (i.e., more adaptive). Political development is concerned with problems of social engineering, while political evolution is concerned with architectonics—with the emergence of functionally significant political innovations. Political development is always situation-specific, while political evolution is also historical and may include changes that diffuse and become “species-wide.” Political evolution is thus a dimension of the larger process of biological evolution. The emergence of political systems, which long predates the evolution of humankind, constitutes a set of adaptive strategies with significant evolutionary consequences. Political development and political evolution may go hand in hand, but this is not always the case. A particular polity may develop or decay independently of the larger process of political evolution. Among the many theoretical implications of this conceptual reformulation, we briefly address the impact on functionalist theory, modernization theory, social mobilization theory, political economy (positive theory), world systems theory, dependency theory, and contemporary Marxist views.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.