Neuroethics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 247–259 | Cite as

Critical Studies of the Sexed Brain: A Critique of What and for Whom?

Original Paper

Abstract

The NeuroGenderings project is reminiscent of an interdisciplinary program called Critical Neuroscience. But the steps towards a feminist/queer Critical Neuroscience are complicated by the problematic ways in which critical neuroscientists conceive of their critical practices. They suggest that we work and talk across disciplines as if neuroscientists were from Mars and social scientists from Venus, assigning the latter to the traditional feminine role of assuaging conflict. This article argues that brain science studies scholars need to clarify how we want to frame our critical practices—a critique of what and for whom?—and promote interdisciplinarity. The challenge is to articulate a critical stance that could not be collapsed into the all-encompassing claims of neuroscience, Critical Neuroscience included. I suggest we shift focus: from enhanced communication to the study of controversies (but also non-controversies, failed controversies, etc.) and conflicts. I explore the productiveness of this shift through two examples: the non-controversial notion of brain plasticity, and the controversial question of whether gender identity formation in intersex people is a function of their brain or their genitals. “Socializing” neuroscience with insights from gender and science studies is good; highlighting the conflicting dimensions of social life in the same gesture is even better.

Keywords

NeuroGenderings Critical neuroscience Critique Interdisciplinarity Controversy Social conflict Scientific norms Brain plasticity Intersexuality 

References

  1. 1.
    Choudhury, Suparna, Saskia Kathi Nagel, and Jan Slaby. 2009. Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties 4(1): 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dussauge, Isabelle, and Anelis Kaiser. 2009. NeuroGenderings: Critical studies of the sexed brain. Call for papers. http://www.genna.gender.uu.se/themes/bodyembodiment/news/CFP_NeuroGenderings/. Accessed 14 September 2010.
  3. 3.
    Engel, George L. 1977. The need for a new medical model: A challenge to biomedicine. Science 196(428): 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, John. 1992. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ehrenberg, Alain. 2004. Le sujet cérébral. Esprit 11: 130–155.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein, Steven. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values 20(4): 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roy, Deboleena. 2010. BrainTease: Feminist neuroethics and the search for a cosmopolitical brain. Paper given at the “NeuroGenderings: Critical studies of the sexed brain,” University of Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martinez-Alier, Joan. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor. A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Cooperation for what?: A view from the sociological/cultural study of science policy. Social Studies of Science 25(2): 314–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haraway, Donna. 1996. Modest witness: Feminist diffractions in science studies. In The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, ed. Peter Galison and David J. Stump, 428–441. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science 26(2): 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Honneth, Axel. 1995 [1992]. struggle for recognition: the moral grammar of social conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiser, Anelis, Sven Haller, Sigrid Schmitz, and Cordula Nitsch. 2009. On sex/gender related similarities and differences in fMRI language research. Brain Research Reviews 61(2): 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bleier, Ruth. 1986. Sex differences research: Science or belief? In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Ruth Bleier, 147–145. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992 [1985]. Myths of gender. Biological theories about women and men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Birke, Lynda. 1992. In pursuit of difference: Scientific studies of women and men. In Inventing women. Science, technology and gender, ed. Gill Kirkup and Laurie Smith Keller, 81–102. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kraus, Cynthia. 2000. Naked sex in exile: On the paradox of the “sex question” in feminism and in science. The Science and Politics of the Search for Sex Differences: A Special Issue of The National Women’s Studies Association Journal 12(3): 151–177.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kraus, Cynthia. 2005. Of “epistemic covetousness” in knowledge economies: The not-nothing of social constructionism. Social Epistemology 19(4): 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Droz, Marion. 2008. La plasticité cérébrale, grille de lecture pour une anthropologie du sujet cerebral individual. In Performances et défaillances du sujet cérébral. Regard anthropologique sur la plasticité cérébrale, les neurosciences et la clinique de la dégénérescence cognitive. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lausanne, chap. 1.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kraus, Cynthia. 22 January 2009. Clinique de l’intersexualité, biologie du sexe et normes de genre. Paper given at “Sexe et genre: pour un dialogue interdisciplinaire au carrefour des sciences de la vie et des sciences humaines,” Institut Emilie du Châtelet and Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris. http://leblogducorps.canalblog.com/archives/2009/01/12/12058321.html. Accessed 15 March 2010.
  22. 22.
    Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1999 [1989, abridged 1998]. Institutional ecology, “translation,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. In The sciences studies reader, ed. Mario Biagioli, 505–524. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galison, Peter. 1999 [1997, abridged 1998]. Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In The Sciences Studies Reader, ed. Mario Biagioli, 137–160. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vidal, Catherine, and Dorothée Benoit-Browaeys. 2005. Cerveau, sexe et pouvoir. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moir, Anne, and David Jessel. 1991 [1989]. Brain sex: The real difference between men and women. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hines, Melissa. 2005. Brain gender. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Droz, Marion. 2010. La plasticité cérébrale de Cajal à Kandel: cheminement d’une notion constitutive du sujet cerebral. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 63(2): 331–367Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rubin, Beatrix P. 2009. Changing brains: The emergence of the field of adult neurogenesis. BioSocieties 4(4): 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fox Keller, Evelyn. 1995. Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth-century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vidal, Fernando. 2005. Le sujet cérébral: une esquisse historique et conceptuelle. Psychiatrie, Sciences Humaines, Neurosciences 3(11): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vidal, Fernando. 2009. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22(1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ansermet, François, and Pierre Magistretti. 2007 [2004]. Biology of freedom: Neural plasticity, experience, and the unconscious. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ortega, Francisco. 2009. The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. BioSocieties 4(4): 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kraus, Cynthia 2011. Am I my brain or my genitals? A nature–culture controversy in the hermaphrodite debate from the Mid-‘60s to the Late ‘90s. Gesnerus. Swiss Journal for the History of Medicine and Sciences 68 (I): in print.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diamond, Milton. 1965. A critical evaluation of the ontogeny of human sexual behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 40(2): 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phoenix, Charles H., Robert W. Goy, Arnold A. Gerall, and William C. Young. 1959. Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig. Endocrinology 65: 369–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young, William C. 1961. The hormones and mating behavior. In Sex and internal secretions, ed. William C. Young, 1173–1239. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Young, William C., Robert W. Goy, and Charles H. Phoenix. 1964. Hormones and sexual behavior. Science 143(3603): 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Money, John, Joan G. Hampson, and John L. Hampson. 1955. An examination of some basic sexual concepts: The evidence of human hermaphroditism. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital 97: 301–319.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Money, John, Joan G. Hampson, and John L. Hampson. 1955. Hermaphroditism: Recommendations concerning assignment of sex, change of sex and psychological management. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital 97: 284–300.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van den Wijngaard, Marianne. 1997. Reinventing The Sexes. The Biomedical Construction of Femininity and Masculinity. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chase, Cheryl. 1998. Hermaphrodites with attitudes. Mapping the emergence of intersex political activism. GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies 4(2): 189–211.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beck, Max. Fall 1997/Winter 1998. Hermaphrodites with attitude take to the streets. Chrysalis: The Journal of Transgressive Gender Identities 2(5): 45–50.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hacking, Ian. 1998. Mad Travelers: Reflections on the Reality of Transient Mental Illnesses. Charlottesville & London: University of Virginia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Diamond, Milton, and H.Keith Sigmundson. 1997. Sex reassignment at birth: Long term review and clinical implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 151: 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Diamond Milton, and H. Keith. Sigmundson. 1997. Management of intersexuality: Guidelines for dealing with persons with ambiguous genitalia [web version]. http://www.ukia.co.uk/diamond/diaguide.htm. Accessed 25 December 2008.
  47. 47.
    Dreger, Alice, ed. 1998. Intersex in the age of ethics. J Clin Ethics 9(4).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Diamond, Milton. 2004. Sex, gender, identity over the years: A changing perspective. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 13(3): 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hughes, Ieuan A., Christopher P. Houk, S.Faisal Ahmed, Peter A. Lee, and in collaboration with the participants in the International Consensus Conference on Intersex organized by the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology. 2006. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Journal of Pediatric Urology 2: 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee, Peter A., Christoper P. Houk, S.Faisal Ahmed, Ieuan A. Hughes, and in collaboration with the participants in the International Consensus Conference on Intersex organized by the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology. 2006. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics 118: 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Section on Urology. 1996. Timing of elective surgery on the genitalia of male children with particular reference to the risks, benefits, and psychological effects of surgery and anesthesia. Pediatrics 97(4): 590–594.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kraus, Cynthia. Forthcoming. Linking neuroscience, medicine, gender and society through controversy and conflict analysis: A “dissensus framework” for feminist/queer brain science studies. In Robyn Bluhm, Anne Jacobsen, and Heidi Maibom (Eds.) Neurofeminism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations