The Politics of Pictured Reality: Locating the Object from Nowhere in fMRI

Meynell, Letitia

doi:10.1057/9780230368385_2

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Feminist scholars of the NeuroGenderings Network have argued that stereotypical preconceptions about sex/gender can influence research already at the level of study design, especially with the choice of categories to be compared. Feminist scholars criticize that the operationalization of the variable “sex/gender” and interpretations about it are characterized by a strong commitment to sex dimorphism in most research on SGDs (Dussauge & Kaiser, 2012; Fine, 2013; Fine et al, 2013; Joel, 2014; Jordan‐Young & Rumiati, 2012; Kaiser, 2014; Meynell, 2012). Sex dimorphism describes the idea that sex/gender presents itself in two distinct forms, without overlap between those forms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences

Friedrichs

Kellmeyer

2022

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last three decades, the human brain and its role in determining behavior have been receiving a growing amount of attention in academia as well as in society more generally. Neuroscientific explanations of human behavior or other phenomena are often especially appealing to lay people. Therefore, neuroscientific explanations that can affect individuals, groups, or social relations in general should be formulated in a careful and responsible way. One field in which especially feminist scholars request more caution is the neuroscientific examination of sex/gender differences. Feminist scholars have described various ways in which sexist bias might be present in neuroscientific research on sex/gender differences. In this context, they coined the term "neurosexism" to describe the entanglement between neuroscientific work and sexist ideology, and "neurofeminism" as a response to that. Here, we aim to give an overview over the contemporary neurofeminist literature. In the first part, common levels of analysis in the neurofeminist literature are presented and the research level is explored in more detail. In the second part, some common developments in more recent neurofeminist scholarship are discussed. For this, we review recent publications with the aim to provide neuroscientists with a solid understanding of neurofeminist criticism so that they may evaluate neuroscientific claims about on sex/gender differences from this critical perspective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences

Friedrichs

Kellmeyer

2022

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding language, it is clear that certain words and phrases may accentuate differences more than others (think of the choice between the phrases ‘striking difference’, ‘notable difference’, and ‘difference’). Regarding images, there are a vast number of choices that must be made in modes of presentation of visual depictions of brain activation (for example, the particular color scale that should be used to represent differing levels of brain activity), many of which are open to influence by scientists' biases (Schmitz and Höppner 4; Roskies; Meynell; Dumit).…”

Section: Forms Of Neurosexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurosexism and Neurofeminism

Hoffman

Bluhm

2016

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As neuroscience has gained an increased ability to enchant the general public, it has become more and more common to appeal to it as an authority on a wide variety of questions about how humans do and should act. This is especially apparent with the question of gender roles. The term ‘neurosexism’ has been coined to describe the phenomenon of using neuroscientific practices and results to promote sexist conclusions; its feminist response is called ‘neurofeminism’. Here, our aim is to survey the phenomena of neurosexism and neurofeminism using a largely philosophical approach, incorporating concepts from the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of science, ethics, and feminist philosophy. First, we delineate how neuroscientific studies purporting to show sex brain differences may be prone to bias at a number of methodological levels – including the choice of categories to be studied, and the choice of tools for data gathering, analysis, and presentation. Then, we show how interpretations of such studies may wrongly assume the notion of ‘hard‐wiring’. Furthermore, lack of attention to distinctions within philosophy of mind may result in a mistaken supposition that brain differences lead to mental and/or psychological and/or behavioral ones. It is not difficult to see how these forms of neurosexism, leading to claims of ‘hard‐wired’ gender differences that map onto traditional and harmful gender stereotypes, raise ethical questions. We conclude by briefly considering one: are the harms caused by neurosexist studies and their interpretations outweighed by their potential benefits?

show abstract

“…; Hein and Singer ; Singer and Lamm ). Although feminists have good reason to be wary of fMRI studies of gender differences in brain systems (Jordan‐Young ; Meynell ), Singer and Lamm's suggestion that vicarious activation does not happen in a symbolic void, but rather is “malleable with respect to a number of factors—such as contextual appraisal, the interpersonal relationship between empathizer and other, or the perspective adopted during observation of the other” (Singer and Lamm , 81) is unsurprising from feminist perspectives. The event of perception/premotor activation occurs in a context saturated with information, including highly cultural variables.…”

Section: Embodied Situated Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I Feel Your Pain: Embodied Knowledges and Situated Neurons

Pitts‐Taylor¹

2013

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widely touted discovery of mirror neurons has generated intense scientific interest in the neurobiology of intersubjectivity. Social neuroscientists have claimed that mirror neurons, located in brain regions associated with motor action, facial recognition, and somatosensory processing, allow us to automatically grasp other people's intentions and emotions. Despite controversies, mirror neuron research is animating materialist, affective, and embodied accounts of intersubjectivity. My view is that mirror neurons raise issues that are directly relevant to feminism and cultural studies, but interventions are needed for the work to be compatible with nonreductionist critical thought. In this article I critique the dominant neuroscientific account of mirror neurons, called embodied simulation theory. I draw from feminist epistemologies as well as alternative interpretations of mirror neurons in cognitive science and philosophy of mind to consider mirroring as situated, embodied perception.

show abstract

The Politics of Pictured Reality: Locating the Object from Nowhere in fMRI

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences

Neurofeminism: Feminist critiques of research on sex/gender differences in the neurosciences

Neurosexism and Neurofeminism

I Feel Your Pain: Embodied Knowledges and Situated Neurons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About