A developmental perspective on the ideal of reason in American constitutional law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201602.007Keywords:
developmental psychology, reasoned thinking, constitutional law, Supreme Court of the United States, caregiving relationshipAbstract
The ideal of reason is central to contemporary accounts of citizenship in American constitutional law. The individual capacity for reasoned choice lies closely aligned with the constitutional values of personal liberty and democratic self-government as they have evolved in Supreme Court decisions over the past century. Yet as presently conceived, the ideal of reason in constitutional law overlooks the process by which individuals actually acquire the capacity to choose their own values and commitments or to engage in reasoned thinking about collective ends. This paper argues that we cannot hope to sustain and foster a constitutional polity committed to the principles of individual liberty and democratic self-government without knowing something about how individual citizens come to possess this requisite skill of mind. A developmental perspective on reason in constitutional law provides a framework for examining the source and contours of the psychological skills that make it possible to lead an autonomous, self directed life and to participate meaningfully in the processes of democratic self-government. Developmental psychology, together with research in related fields, provides empirical support for the proposition that the psychological capacity for reasoned thinking has its roots in the early caregiving relationship. Thus, a comprehensive and integrated constitutional family law must recognize the role of early caregiving in the political socialization of children. This developmental approach offers a substantial reworking of constitutional doctrine in the areas of family privacy, parental rights, congressional power, and affirmative welfare rights.
Downloads
References
Astington, Janet W., Paul L. Harris & David R. Olson (1988). Developing theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Behrends, Rebecca Smith & Sidney J. Blatt (1985). Internalization and psychological development throughout the life cycle. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 40, 1-39.
Bohman, James & William Rehg (eds.) (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brakel, Linda A.W., Howard Shevrin & Karen K. Villa (2002). The priority of primary process categorizing: Experimental evidence supporting a psychoanalytic developmental hypothesis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 50(2), 483-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651020500020701
Bruner, Jerome (1995). From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction. En Chris Moore y Philip J. Dunham (eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buckley, Peter (ed.) (1986). Essential papers on object relations. Nueva York: New York University Press.
Cassidy, Jude & Phillip R. Shauer (eds.) (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Cicchetti, Dante & Donald J. Cohen (1995). Perspectives on developmental psychopathology. En Dante Cicchetti y Donald J. Cohen (eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Volume 1. Theory and methods (pp. 3-22). Nueva York: Wiley.
Cover, Robert M. (1986). Violence and the word. Yale Law Journal, 95(8), 1601-1630. https://doi.org/10.2307/796468.
Dailey, Anne C. (1998). Holmes and the romantic mind. Duke Law Journal, 48(3), 429-510. https://doi.org/10.2307/1373058
Dailey, Anne C. (2000). The hidden economy of the unconscious. Chicago-Kent LawReview, 74(4), 1599–1624.
Dailey, Anne C. (2005). A developmental perspective on the ideal of reason in American constitutional law. Journal of the American Psychonalytic Association, 53(4), 1175-1204.
Dewey, John (1918). The cult of irrationality. The New Republic, 9 de noviembre, 34-35.
Erikson, Erik (1963). Childhood and society. Nueva York: Norton.Fonagy, Peter (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. Nueva York: Other Press.
Fonagy, Peter & otros (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. Nueva York: Other Press.
Frank, Jerome (1930). Law and the modern mind. Nueva York: Brentano.
Freud, Sigmund ([1915] 1957). The unconscious. En The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Volume 14 (1914-1916): On the history of the post psychoanalytic movement, papers on metapsychology and other Works, edición de James Strachey(pp. 161-215). Londres: Hogarth Press.
Gay, Volney P. (1982). Liberalism and regression. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,37, 523-545.
Hartmann, Heinz (1939). Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. Nueva York: International Universities Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/13180-000
Hofstadter, Richard (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. Nueva York: Knopf.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr. (1881). The common law. Boston: Little Brown.
Koh, Harold Hongju & Ronald C. Slye (eds.) (1999). Deliberative democracy and human rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Loewald, Hans (1980). Papers on psychoanalysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mahler, Margaret S., Fred Pine & Anni Bergman (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Mayes, Linda C. & Donald J. Cohen (1992). The development of a capacity for imagination in early childhood. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 47, 23-47.
Mayes, Linda C. & Donald J. Cohen (1994). Experiencing self and others: Contributions from studies of autism to the psychoanalytic theory of social development. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 42(1), 191-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306519404200110
Mayes, Linda C. & Donald J. Cohen (1996). Anna Freud and developmental psychoanalytic psychology. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 51, 117-141
McLoyd, Vonnie C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.53.2.185
Meissner, William W. (1979). Internalization and object relations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 27(2), 345-360.
Rubenfeld, Jed (1989). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 102(4), 737-807. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341305
Sameroff, Arnold J. & Barbara H. Fiese (2000). Models of development and developmental risk. En Charles H. Zeanah Jr. (ed.), Handbook of infant mental health, segunda edición (pp. 3-19). Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Schafer, Roy (1972). Internalization: process or fantasy? Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 411-436.
Schimek, Jean & Leo Goldberger (1995). Thought. En Burness E. Moore y Bernard D. Fined (eds.), Psychoanalysis: The major concepts (pp. 209-220). New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.
Schwaber, Paul (1999). The cast of characters: A reading of Ulysses. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stern, Daniel (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Stone, Geoffrey R. (2003). Civil liberties in wartime. Journal of Supreme Court History, 28(3), 215-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5818.00065
Tyson, Phyllis & Robert L. Tyson (1990). Psychoanalytic theories of development: An integration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vaughan, Susan C. (1997). The talking cure: The science behind psychotherapy. Nueva York: Putnam.
Wellman, Henry M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Winnicott, Donald Woods (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. Nueva York: International Universities Press.
Normativa y Jurisprudencia
Corte de Apelaciones de California (1983). In re Guardianship of Phillip B. California Court of Appeal Cases, Third Series, 139, pp. 407-430.
Corte de Apelaciones del Sexto Circuito de los Estados Unidos (1987). Mozert vs. Hawkins County Board of Education. Federal Reporter, Second Series, 827, pp. 1058-1081.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1905). Lochner vs. New York. United States Reports, 198, pp. 45-76.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1923). Meyer vs. Nebraska. United States Reports, 262, pp. 390-403.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1925). Pierce vs. Society of Sisters. United States Reports, 268, pp. 510-536.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1927). Whitney vs. California. United States Reports, 274, pp. 357-380.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1954). Brown vs. Board of Education. United States Reports, 347, pp. 483-496.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1964). Reynolds vs. Sims. United States Reports, 377, pp. 533-632.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1965). Griswold vs. Connecticut. United States Reports, 381, pp. 479-531.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1966). Miranda vs. Arizona. United States Reports, 384, pp. 436-545.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1967). Loving vs. Virginia. United States Reports, 388, pp. 1-13.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1969). Shapiro vs. Thompson. United States Reports, 394, pp. 618 -677.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1970). Dandridge vs. Williams. United States Reports, 397, pp. 471-530.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1972a). Eisenstadt vs. Baird. United States Reports, 405, pp. 438-472.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1972b). Stanley vs. Illinois. United States Reports, 405, pp. 645-668.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1972c). Wisconsin vs. Yoder. United States Reports, 406, pp. 205-249.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1973). United States vs. Orito. United States Reports, 413, pp. 139-148.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1976). Washington vs. Davis. United States Reports, 426, pp. 229-270.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1977a). Moore vs. City of East Cleveland. United States Reports, 431, pp. 494-552.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1977b). Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform. United States Reports, 431, pp. 816-863.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1977c). Maher vs. Roe. United States Reports, 432, pp. 464-490.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1978a). Quilloin vs. Wolcott. United States Reports, 434, pp. 246-256.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1978b). Zablocki vs. Redhail. United States Reports, 434, pp. 374-411.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1979a). Caban vs. Mohammed. United States Reports, 441, pp. 380-417.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1979b). Parham vs. J.R. United States Reports, 442, pp. 584-639.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1979c). Bellotti vs. Baird. United States Reports, 443, pp. 622-657.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1980). Harris vs. McRae. United States Reports, 448, pp. 297-357.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1982a). Santosky vs. Kramer. United States Reports, 455, pp. 745-791.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1982b). Plyler vs. Doe. United States Reports, 457, pp. 202-254.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1983). Lehr vs. Robertson. United States Reports, 463, pp. 248-276.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1984). Palmore vs. Sidoti. United States Reports, 466, pp. 429-434.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1989a). DeShaney vs. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services. United States Reports, 489, pp. 189-213.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1989b). Michael H. vs. Gerald D. United States Reports, 491, pp. 110-163.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1992a). Ankenbrandt vs. Richards. United States Reports, 504, pp. 689-718.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1992b). Lee vs. Weisman. United States Reports, 505, pp. 577-646.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1992c). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pensylvania vs. Casey. United States Reports, 505, pp. 833-1002.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1995a). United States vs. Lopez. United States Reports, 514, pp. 549-644.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1995b). Adarand Constructors, Inc. vs. Pena. United States Reports, 515, pp. 200-276.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1998). Miller vs. Albright. United States Reports, 523, pp. 420-490.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (1999). Saenz vs. Roe. United States Reports, 526, pp. 489-528.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2000a). United States vs. Morrison. United States Reports, 529, pp. 598-666.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2000b). Troxel vs. Granville. United States Reports, 530, pp. 57-102.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2001). Nguyen vs. INS. United States Reports, 533, pp. 53-97.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2002). Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris. United States Reports, 536, pp. 639-729.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2003a). Nevada vs. Hibbs. Supreme Court Reporter, 123, pp. 1972-1994.
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (2003b). Lawrence vs. Texas. United States Reports, 539, pp. 558-606.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Derecho PUCP

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.