Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 397–416 | Cite as

Steps towards a Critical Neuroscience

  • Jan Slaby
Article

Abstract

This paper introduces the motivation and idea behind the recently founded interdisciplinary initiative Critical Neuroscience (http://www.critical-neuroscience.org). Critical Neuroscience is an approach that strives to understand, explain, contextualize, and, where called for, critique developments in and around the social, affective, and cognitive neurosciences with the aim to create the competencies needed to responsibly deal with new challenges and concerns emerging in relation to the brain sciences. It addresses scholars in the humanities as well as, importantly, neuroscientific practitioners, policy makers, and the public at large. Does neuroscience indeed have such wide-ranging effects or are we collectively overestimating its impacts at the expense of other important drivers of social and cultural change? Via what channels is neuroscience interacting with contemporary conceptions of selfhood, identity, and well-being? Importantly, Critical Neuroscience strives to make the results of these assessments relevant to scientific practice itself. It aspires to motivate neuroscientists to be involved in the analysis of contextual factors, historical trajectories, conceptual difficulties, and potential consequences in connection to their empirical work. This paper begins to spell out a philosophical foundation for the project by outlining examples of the interaction taking place between the neurosciences and the social and cultural contexts in which they are embedded and by exposing some of the assumptions and argumentative patterns underlying dominant approaches. Recent anthropological work will be discussed to convey a sense of the de facto interactions between neuroscientific knowledge, its promissory projections, and the self-understandings of laypeople. This can be seen as a first step towards a phenomenology of the “seductive allure” that the neurosciences are exerting upon both the academic and the popular imagination. The concept of “critique” relevant to the project's overall orientation is outlined in the final section.

Keywords

Neuroscience Critique Subjectivity Normativity Anthropology Capitalism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

My work on this text and on the creation of the Critical Neuroscience initiative in general has been enabled by a research grant provided by the Volkswagen Foundation, Germany, within the initiative European Platform for Life Sciences, Mind Sciences, and the Humanities, research project “Neuroscience in Context.” I was greatly inspired by discussions with Suparna Choudhury, Simon Cohn, and Martin Hartmann enabled through the “Neuroscience in Context” project initiative. Moreover, valuable comments on oral presentations of earlier versions of the manuscript were provided by audiences in Berlin, Osnabrück, Marburg, and Würzburg. Special thanks for commenting on all or parts of the manuscript to Felicity Callard, Lutz Fricke, Jan-Christoph Heilinger, Christoph Demmerling, Malte Dreyer, Saskia K. Nagel, Max Stadler, and an anonymous referee for this journal.

References

  1. Abi-Rached, J. M., & Rose, N. (2010). The birth of the neuromolecular gaze. History of the Human Sciences, 23(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beddington, J., Cooper, C. L., Field, J., Goswami, U., et al. (2008). The mental wealth of nations. Nature, 455, 1057–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso. Translated from French by Gregory Elliot.Google Scholar
  4. Borck, C. (2005). Hirnströme. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Elektroenzephalographie. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, M. (1990). Schizophrenia: a scientific delusion? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, S. (2005). Human kinds and looping effects in psychology: Foucauldian and hermeneutic perspectives. Theory & Psychology, 15(6), 769–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, N. (2010). Towards a critical neuroscience of ‘addiction’. BioSocieties, 5(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
  8. Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Natural ethical facts. Evolution, connectionism, and moral cognition. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Choudhury, S., Nagel, S. K., & Slaby, J. (2009). Critical neuroscience: linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties, 4(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (Eds.) (2010). Critical neuroscience (forthcoming). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Churchland, P. (2002). Brain-wise: studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Cohn, S. (2010a). Picturing the brain inside, revealing the illness outside: a comparison of the different meanings attributed to brain scans by scientists and patients. In J. Edwards, P. Harvey, & P. Wade (Eds.), Technologized images, technologized bodies: anthropological approaches to a new politics of vision. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  13. tlsb -.09pt Cohn, S. (2010b). Disrupting images: neuroscientific representations in the lives of psychiatric patients. In S. Choudhury, & J. Slaby (Eds.), Critical neuroscience (forthcoming). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: the scientific search for the soul. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  15. Dumit, J. (2004). Picturing personhood. Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: on the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Fleck, L. (1935/1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project (2008). Final Project report. London: The Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S. (2010). Scanning the lifeworld. In S. Choudhury, J., & Slaby, (Eds.), Critical neuroscience (forthcoming). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Garner, A., & Hardcastle, V. G. (2004). Neurobiological models: an unnecessary divide—neural models in psychiatry. In J. Radden (Ed.), The philosophy of psychiatry. A companion (pp. 364–380). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. D. (2003). From neural "is" to moral "ought": what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 4, 847–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hacking, I. (1995). Rewriting the soul. Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hacking, I. (1998). Mad travellers. Reflections on the reality of transient mental illnesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hartmann, M. (2010). Against first nature: critical theory and neuroscience. S. Choudhury, & J. Slaby (Eds.), Critical neuroscience (forthcoming). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Hartmann, M., & Honneth, A. (2006). Paradoxes of capitalism. Constellations, 13(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honneth, A. (2009). Pathologies of reason. On the legacy of critical theory. New York: Columbia University Press. Translated from German by J. Ingram.Google Scholar
  28. Joyce, K. A. (2008). Magnetic appeal. MRI and the myth of transparency. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Karafyllis, N. C., & Ulshöfer, G. (Eds.). (2008). Sexualized brains: scientific modeling of emotional intelligence from a cultural perspective. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Kerr, A., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2000). On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology, 34(2), 283–304.Google Scholar
  31. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (2004). Why critique has run out of steam. From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch, Z. (2009). The neuro revolution: how brain science is changing our world. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  34. Malabou, C. (2008). What should we do with our brain? New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being no-one. The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Metzinger, T. (2009). The ego-tunnel. The science of the mind and the myth of the self. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Nagel, S. K. (2010). Ethics and the neurosciences. Ethical and social consequences of neuroscientific progress. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  38. Noë, A. (2009). Out of our heads. Why you are not your brain and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  39. Pickersgill, M. (2009). Between soma and society. Neuroscience and the ontology of psychiatry. BioSocieties, 4, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of meaning. In H. Putnam (Ed.), Mind, language and reality: philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 215–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raikhel, E. (2010). Radical reductions: neurophysiology, politics and personhood in Russian addiction medicine. In S. Choudhury, & J. Slaby (Eds.), Critical neuroscience (forthcoming). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Ratcliffe, M. (2009). Understanding existential changes in psychiatric illness: the indispensability of phenomenology. In M. Broome & L. Bortolotti (Eds.), Psychiatry as cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical perspectives (pp. 223–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rose, N. (2006). The politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power. Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science. How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rouse, J. (2002). How scientific practices matter. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shorter, E. (1997). A history of psychiatry. From the era of the asylum to the age of Prozac. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Singh, I. (2006). A framework for understanding trends in ADHD diagnosis and stimulant drug treatment: schools and schooling as a case study. BioSocieties, 1(4), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh, I. (2008). Culture, education, and ADHD. Early Child Development and Care, 178(4), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Singh, I., & Rose, N. (2009). Biomarkers in psychiatry. Nature, 460(9), 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skolnik-Weisberg, D., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, C. (1985/1977). Self-interpreting animals. In Philosophical papers (vol. 1, pp. 45–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Vidal, F. (2009). Brainhood. Anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences, 22(1), 6–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeki, Z. (2008). Splendors and miseries of the brain: love, creativity, and the quest for human happiness. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyPhilipps University of MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations