Subjectivity

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 346–365 | Cite as

Constituting neurologic subjects: Neuroscience, subjectivity and the mundane significance of the brain

  • Martyn Pickersgill
  • Sarah Cunningham-Burley
  • Paul Martin
Original Article

Abstract

What are the links between neuroscience and personhood? This article explores this question empirically through the lens of ‘neurologic subjectivity’. Drawing on focus group research, we examine how individuals draw on both neuroscience and the neurological to articulate subjectivity. Our participants’ talk demonstrates the importance of ideas about the brain for understanding their selves and others. However, reference to the brain was not a thoroughly dominant discourse; rather, neurologic ideas may be accepted, played with, and resisted. Thus, the brain is an object of ‘mundane significance’, often distant from everyday experience. We argue that individuals can best be understood as bricoleurs, piecing together diverse knowledges pertaining to soma, psyche and society: neuroscientific concepts compete with, integrate into, and only occasionally fully supplant, pre-existing notions of subjectivity. It might therefore be argued that it is, in part, through the sociological gaze itself that neurologic subjectivity is constituted.

Keywords

focus groups ontology personhood neurological neuroscience subjectivity 

References

  1. Blackman, L., Cromby, J., Hook, D., Papadopoulos, D. and Walkerdine, V. (2008) Creating subjectivities. Subjectivity 22 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burkitt, I. (2008) Subjectivity, self and everyday life in contemporary capitalism. Subjectivity 23 (1): 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bury, M. (1982) Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and Illness 4 (2): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M. and Rabeharisoa, V. (2004) Gino's lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist's role. Economy and Society 33 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooter, R. (1984) The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth Century Britain. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham-Burley, S., Kerr, A. and Pavis, S. (1999) Theorizing subjects and subject matter in focus group research. In: R.S. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds.) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doidge, N. (2007) The Brain that Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. New York and London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  8. Dumit, J. (2004) Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, J.E. and Miller-Idriss, C. (2008) Everyday nationhood. Ethnicities 8 (4): 536–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, A.W. (2002) At the Will of the Body: Reflections on Illness. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Frazetto, G. and Anker, S. (2009) Neuroculture. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10 (11): 815–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gimlin, D. (2006) The absent body project: Cosmetic surgery as a response to bodily dys-appearance. Sociology 40 (4): 699–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greco, M. (1993) Psychosomatic subjects and the ‘duty to be well’: Personal agency within medical rationality. Economy and Society 22 (3): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (2002) Historical Ontology. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Tutton, R. (2007) Exploring ambivalence about genetic research and its social context. Social Theory and Health 5 (1): 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leder, D. (1990) The Absent Body. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lock, M. (2004) Living cadavers and the calculation of death. Body & Society 10 (2–3): 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Millward, L.M. and Kelly, M.P. (2003) Incorporating the biological: Chronic illness, bodies, selves and the material world. In: S.J. Williams, L. Birke and G.A. Bendelow (eds.) Debating Biology: Sociological Reflections on Health, Medicine and Society. London: Routledge, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
  20. Newton, T., Handy, J. and Fineman, S. (1995) ‘Managing’ Stress: Emotion and Power at Work. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (1999) Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology 50 (3): 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phillip, R. (2007) Engaging ‘Tweens and Teens: A Brain-compatible Approach to Reaching Middle and High School Students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwins Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pickersgill, M. (2009a) Between soma and society: Neuroscience and the ontology of psychopathy. BioSocieties 4 (1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pickersgill, M.D (2009b) Ordering disorderly personalities: Co-producing antisocial personality disorder through policy, science and standards. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  25. Pickersgill, M.D. (2011a) Connecting neuroscience and law: Anticipatory discourse and the role of sociotechnical imaginaries. New Genetics and Society 30 (1): 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pickersgill, M.D. (2011b) ‘Promising’ therapies: Neuroscience, clinical practice, and the treatment of psychopathy. Sociology of Health and Illness 33 (3): 448–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose, N. (2008) Psychology as a social science. Subjectivity 25 (1): 446–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapin, S. (1975) Phrenological knowledge and the social structure of early nineteenth-century Edinburgh. Annals of Science 32 (3): 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheper-Hughes, N. and Lock, M.M. (1987) The mindful body: A prolegomenon to future work in medical anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1 (1): 6–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schutz, A. (1970) Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Terkelsen, T.B. (2009) Transforming subjectivities in psychiatric care. Subjectivity 27 (1): 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomson, M. (2006) Psychological Subjects: Identity, Culture and Health in Twentieth-century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vidal, F. (2009) Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22 (1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams, G. (1984) The genesis of chronic illness: Narrative re-construction. Sociology of Health and Illness 6 (2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, S.J. (2005) Sleep and Society: Sociological Explorations and Agendas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, S.J. (2010) New developments in neuroscience and medical sociology. In: W.C. Cockerham (ed.). The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 530–551.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, S.J. and Bendelow, G.A. (1998) Malignant bodies: Children's beliefs about health, cancer and risk. In: S. Nettleton and J. Watson (eds.) The Body in Everyday Life. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 103–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martyn Pickersgill
    • 1
  • Sarah Cunningham-Burley
    • 1
  • Paul Martin
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Population Health Sciences, Medical School, The University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Institute for Science and Society, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, The University of NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations