Journal of Medical Humanities

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 65–80 | Cite as

Medicalization of the Post-Museum: Interactivity and Diagnosis at the Brain and Cognition Exhibit

  • David R. GruberEmail author


The introduction of digital games and simulations into science museums has prompted excitement about a new "post-museum" pedagogy emphasizing egalitarianism, interactivity, and personalized approaches to learning. However, many post-museums of science, this article aims to show, enact rhetorical performances that lead visitors to narrowly targeted answers and hide the authority of the expert in a play of tactile and affective activities, thus operating in opposition to many of the basic ideals of the post-museum. The Brain and Cognition Exhibit at the Hong Kong Science Museum serves as a case study for how a post-museum exhibit, through embracing interactivity and visitor-centered tasks, becomes a site where science is tested on and performed through visitors' bodies such that institutional prescriptions are applied. Visitors are not merely encouraged at this exhibit to learn about the brain through doing but are trained to see functional and dysfunctional brains and to then diagnose themselves and their children by playing games and taking brain-measurement tests. As a result, the interactive engagement of the exhibit creates a new space of public medicalization. Reflections and suggestions are offered at the end of the article.


brain cognition games interactivity medicalization museum pedagogy 



  1. Behrens, T. EJ, and O. 2011. Sporns. "Human Connectomics." Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22:1-10.Google Scholar
  2. Bogost, I. 2006. "Video Games and Ideological Frames." Popular Communication 4 (3): 165-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brenna, B. 2012. "Nature, Contexts and Natural History." Science, Technology & Human Values 37 (4): 355-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colucci, M. 2006. "Medicalisation." Journal of Science Communication 5 (1): 1.Google Scholar
  5. Conrad, P. 1975. "The Discovery of Hyperkinesis: Notes on the Medicalization of Deviant Behavior." Social Problems 23 (1): 12-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ------. 2005. "The Shifting Engines of Medicalisation." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46:3-14.Google Scholar
  7. Danaher, G. 2000. Understanding Foucault. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Davison, A., I. Barns, and R. Schibeci. 1997. "Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology." Science, Technology & Human Values 22 (3): 317-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickinson, G., B. Ott, and E. Aoki. 2006. "Spaces of Remembering and Forgetting: The Reverent Eye/I at the Plains Indian Museum." Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3 (1): 27-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickinson, G., C. Blair, and B. L. Ott. 2010. Places of Public Memory: The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dubriwny, T. 2010. "Television News Coverage of Postpartum Disorders and the Politics of Medicalization." Feminist Media Studies 10 (3): 285-303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyehouse, J. 2011. “‘A textbook case revisited’: Visual rhetoric and series patterning in the American Museum of Natural History’s horse evolution display.” Technical Communication Quarterly 20 (3): 327-346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. 1973. The Birth of the Clinic; An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  14. ------. 1990. History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  15. ------. 2001. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by Richard Howard. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fruguglietti, S. 2009. “The Theatre, (Art) and Science: Between Amazement and Applause!” Journal of Science Communication 8 (2): C07.Google Scholar
  17. Gee, J.P. 2011. "Stories, Probes, and Games." Narrative Inquiry 21 (2): 353-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M. 2007. "Seeing the Mind in the Matter: Functional Brain Imaging as Framed Visual Argument." Argumentation and Advocacy 43:175-88.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Heath, C, D. vom Lehn, J. Osborne. 2005. “Interaction and Interactivities: Collaboration and Participation with Computer-based Exhibits.” Public Understanding of Science 14:91-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2000. Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Jack, J. 2009. "A Pedagogy of Sight: Microscopic Vision in Robert Hooke’s Micrographia." Quarterly Journal of Speech 95 (2): 192-209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. 2008a. "Brain Images as Rhetorical Resources: Scientific Authority and the 'Democratization of Expertise'" National Communication Association Conference Paper.Google Scholar
  24. ------. 2008b. "Psychiatric Power: The Post-Museum as a Site of Rhetorical Alignment." Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 5 (4): 344-62.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson Thornton, D. 2011. Brain culture: Neuroscience and popular media. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kenderdine, S. 2010. “Place Hempi, an Embodied Theater of Participation, 2006” Alive Open Exhibition Brochure, Hong Kong Science Park.Google Scholar
  27. Kitalong, K.S., Moody, J., Middlebrook, R. Helminen, and G. Saldana Ancheta. 2009. “Beyond the Screen: Narrative Mapping as a Tool for Evaluating a Mixed-Reality Science Museum Exhibit.” Technical Communication Quarterly 18 (2): 142-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Martins, D. 2009. “Diabetes and Literacy: Negotiating Control through Artifacts of Medicalization” Journal of Medical Humanities 30 (2): 115-130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Navid, E. and Einsiedel, E. 2012. “Synthetic Biology in the Science Café: What have We Learned about Public Engagement?” Journal of Science Communication 4:1-10.Google Scholar
  31. Peterson, Valerie V. 1994. "The Rhetorical Criticism of Visual Elements: An Alternative to Foss’s Schema." Communication Studies 45: 213-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prelli, L. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rodari, P. 2010. “A Game of Democracy. Science Museums for the Governance of Science and Technology.” Journal of Science Communication 09 (2): E.Google Scholar
  34. Silverstone, R. 1991. "Communicating Science to the Public." Science, Technology & Human Values 16 (1): 106-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. "Vision, Mission, Value." Hong Kong Science Museum. October 17, 2012. Accessed February 18, 2013.
  37. Waldorp, L., I. Christoffels, and V. Van De Ven. 2011. "Effective Connectivity of FMRI Data Using Ancestral Graph Theory: Dealing with Missing Regions." NeuroImage 54 (4): 2695-705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watermeyer, Richard. 2012. "A Conceptualisation of the Postmuseum as Pedagogical Space." Journal of Science Communication 11 (1): A02.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, S.J., C. Seale, S. Boden, P. Lowe, and D. L. Steinberg. 2008. "Medicalization and Beyond: The Social Construction of Insomnia and Snoring in the News." Health 12 (2): 251-68.Google Scholar
  40. Winn, W. 2009. “‘Proof’ in Pictures: Visual Evidence and Meaning Making in the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Controversy." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 39 (4): 351-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations