Critical neuroscience meets medical humanities

Abstract

This programmatic theory paper sketches a conceptual framework that might inspire work in critical Medical Humanities. For this purpose, Kaushik Sunder Rajan's account of biocapital is revisited and discussed in relation to the perspective of a critical neuroscience. Critical neuroscience is an encompassing positioning towards the recent public prominence of the brain and brain-related practices, tools and discourses. The proposed analytical scheme has five focal nodes: capital, life, technoscience, (neoliberal) politics and subjectivity. A special emphasis will be placed on contemporary framings of subjectivity, as it is here where deepreaching entanglements of personhood with scientific practice and discourse, medical and informational technologies, and economic formations are most evident. Notably, the emerging subject position of the 'prospective health consumer' will be discussed as it figures prominently in the terrain between neuroscience and other medico-scientific disciplines.

Beyond musical qualia. Reflecting on the concept of experience.

“…Claiming that cognitive processes go beyond the boundaries of the skull does not imply that the brain does not participate in it (Fuchs, 2011). In this sense, our approach may be situated within recent nonreductionist trend in critical neuroscience (Fuchs, 2005a, 2005b; Slaby, 2015; Slaby & Gallagher, 2015), which emphasizes the role of bodily and extraneural factors in driving cognitive processes (Colombetti, 2014; Thompson, 2007). The brain, as a part of larger system including body and world (Gallagher et al, 2013) remains a fundamental area to be explored.…”

Perspectives on patienthood, practitioners and pedagogy

“…Jan Slaby reminds us that ‘Work in the Humanities is always a strategic move in a complexly configured field of power relations. We should not allow ourselves to be blinded to this fact’ 5. One of the key ‘strategic’ arguments digital humanities succeeded in winning was in convincing scholars of humanities and, to a lesser extent computer science, that they were already digital humanists and thus the community broadened organically.…”

Moving beyond discourse? A response to Jan Slaby

“…Although this example may not be typical, it certainly isn't difficult to see how neuroscience has become a major part of the public imaginary. This is why Jan Slaby and his ‘critical neuroscience’ initiative is so important, because it seeks to analyse the ways in which human behaviours and/or the biological categorisation of people have become ‘naturalised’ or taken for granted 1 2. In an attempt to move away from the culture of ‘hope and hype’ in the biosciences,3 the critical neuroscience approach involves a concentrated attentiveness to language, looking to the politics behind the allure of the brain image, questioning why certain ideas have become popularised and evaluating where cultural representations of scientific concepts have emerged.…”

“…Call me optimistic, but I wonder if neuroscientists at many other sites across the world were more open to alternative explanations than some commentators give them credit for, or did indeed recognise their institutional restraints and included things like affect and familial relations into their analyses, what might critique look like then? There is much more room for manoeuvre than perhaps Slaby allows in his piece 2. To begin with ‘loss’ automatically hinders our analysis because it constructs barriers between social and the life sciences.…”