Skip to main content
Log in

To speak for human nature: Cosmopolitics, critique and the neurosciences

  • Books Forum
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. For Stengers’ discussion of the “curse of tolerance”, see the entirety of Book VII, especially Chapter 19, ‘The Curse of Tolerance’, and Chapter 20, ‘The Curse as Test’.

  2. For a discussion of “obligations” and “requirements” see especially Book I, Chapter 4, ‘Constraints’.

  3. For Stengers’ discussion on peace, see especially Book VII, Chapter 26, ‘The Diplomats’ Peace’.

  4. See in particular Chapters 3, 4 and 6 on ‘ecology of practices’.

  5. Here Stengers paraphrases Deleuze and Guattari (Deleuze and Guattari, (1994) (Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. What is Philosophy? (London: Verso, 1994).

  6. For an example of how the Parliament would and does work in the case of illegal drug use, see p. 396.

  7. On “nomadism” and “sedentarism” see Book VII, Chapter 24, “Nomadic and Sedentary”.

  8. That Stengers might call her peace “a belligerent regime” does not make it any less dependent on proper behaviour, that is a prescribed openness to the knowledge claims of ‘others’ without any recourse to criteria of rigour or method (p. 387).

References

  • Colebrook, C. (2010) Deleuze and the Meaning of Life. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, M. (2012) Against first nature: Critical theory and neuroscience. In: S. Choudhury and J. Slaby (eds.) Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, C. (2012) Linking neuroscience, medicine, gender and society through controversy and conflict analysis: A ‘dissensus framework’ for feminist/queer brain science studies. In: R. Bluhm, A. Jaap Jacobson and H.L. Maibom (eds.) Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malabou, C. (2008) What Should We Do With Our Brain? New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, F. (2011) Toward a genealogy of neuroascesis. In: F. Ortega and F. Vidal (eds.) Neurocultures: Glimpses into an Expanding Universe. New York/Berlin: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitts-Taylor, V. (2010) The plastic brain: Neoliberalism and the neuronal self. Health 14 (6): 635–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, T. (2010) Being neurologically human today: Life and science and adult cerebral plasticity (an ethical analysis). American Ethnologist 37 (1): 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowson, J. (2010) The social value of neurological reflexivity: Decisions, habits and attention. Paper presented at the Neurosociety conference; December, University of Oxford.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choudhury, S., Sanchez-Allred, A. To speak for human nature: Cosmopolitics, critique and the neurosciences. BioSocieties 9, 104–109 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.44

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.44

Navigation