The Visual Culture of Brain Imaging

Abstract

Brain images are believed to be physical explanations for cognitive phenomena. However, the persuasive power of brain imaging cannot be fully explained by the general tendency to biologise the mind in contemporary cognitive sciences. It needs to be understood in relation to histories of imaging techniques, of mediated forms and of their social and cultural discourses.

Three Forms of Neurorealism: Explaining the Persistence of the “Uncritically Real” in Popular Neuroscience News

“…Finally, subdividing neuro-realism into three forms allows for a more in-depth examination into whether and how uncritical reader responses emerge in neuroscience texts. Indeed, considering the three forms and what they do in the text may aid in unraveling the debate about brain images and whether or not they inordinately seduce when framing a neuroscience text containing such rhetorical features (Ali et al, 2014; Farah & Hook, 2013; Gruber & Dickerson, 2012; Hauskin, 2015). Overall, the three forms of neuro-realism tell us more about the varied nature of rhetorical appeals to neuroscience and pave the way for enhanced knowledge about the growing and changing relationship among the neurosciences, the textual structures of the press, and the biosocial configurations offered to and accepted by a public readership.…”

“…Uttal (2011) agrees, claiming that brain images generally entail a “pictorial splendor” that overwhelms critical faculties (p. 21); the loss of “faculties” results in uncritical statements. Hauskin (2015) makes a similar point, suggesting, “Brain images are often presented as pictures providing physical explanations for cognitive phenomena” (p. 68). Yet, the idea that neuro-realist statements derive from the obviousness or seductive nature of brain scan images lacks explanatory power.…”

“…Hauskin (2015), for instance, is herself not fully convinced that the allure of brain images on their own will necessarily lead to a lack of criticality. She argues that “histories of imaging techniques” and awareness of “social and cultural discourses” need to also be considered when assessing criticality (p. 68).…”

Visual Representations in Science

“…Verdi and Kulhavy (2002, 33). Hausken's and Roskies's analyses of fMR images in medical practices show nicely what happens in interpretive processes if people (experts or laypeople) wrongly assume that they are familiar with the results of new imaging technologies (see Hausken 2015;Roskies 2007;. Actually, he mentions three reasons.…”

Visual sociology

“…These iconic images will remain the essence of visual analysis and the analysis of social reality behind them. A huge amount of work has been done that engages with the use and the analysis of contemporary media-based social practices; they are not branded by the authors as visual sociology but can be identified by visual sociologists as such: see for instance a study on the role of urban surveillance in the night-time economy (Brands et al, 2016), the new aesthetic discourse regarding new media (Sterling, 2012), media aesthetics (Hausken, 2014(Hausken, , 2015 and the social mediapowered shopping practices of transnational Chinese middle-class women (Zhang, 2017), or the materiality of the visual (Bruno, 2014). All these studies focus on the processes directly related to viewing, seeing, recording or otherwise interacting with the visual and in the 'visual sphere' (Nathansohn and Zuev, 2013b) as the context of the ongoing scholarly interrogation.…”