Genes, agents and the institution of responsible action

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 292-302

  Barnes, Barry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIOLOGY; THEORY;

EID: 0036967333     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770216010     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Barnes, B. (1995) The Elements of Social Theory (London: UCL Press).
2. Barnes, B. (2000) Understanding Agency: Social Theory and Responsible Action (London: Sage).
3. Bhaskar, R. (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism (Brighton: Harvester).
4. Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
5. Giddens, A. (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method (London: Hutchinson).
6. Gilbert, W. (1992) A vision of the grail. In Kevles, D. & Hood, L. (eds) The Code of Codes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
7. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior (New York: Doubleday).
8. Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge: Polity).
9. Habermas, J. (1992) Postmetaphysical Thinking (Cambridge: Polity).
10. Kaplan, J.M. (2000) The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research: Dangers for Social Policy (London: Routledge).
11. Rose, N. (2000) The biology of culpability: pathological identity and crime control in a biological culture, Theoretical Criminology, 4 (1), pp. 5-34.
12. Scheff, T.J. (1988) Shame and conformity: the deference-emotion system, American Sociological Review, 53, pp. 395-406.