David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 5 (3):247-259 (2012)
The NeuroGenderings project is reminiscent of an interdisciplinary program called Critical Neuroscience. But the steps towards a feminist/queer Critical Neuroscience are complicated by the problematic ways in which critical neuroscientists conceive of their critical practices. They suggest that we work and talk across disciplines as if neuroscientists were from Mars and social scientists from Venus, assigning the latter to the traditional feminine role of assuaging conflict. This article argues that brain science studies scholars need to clarify how we want to frame our critical practices—a critique of what and for whom?—and promote interdisciplinarity. The challenge is to articulate a critical stance that could not be collapsed into the all-encompassing claims of neuroscience, Critical Neuroscience included. I suggest we shift focus: from enhanced communication to the study of controversies (but also non-controversies, failed controversies, etc.) and conflicts. I explore the productiveness of this shift through two examples: the non-controversial notion of brain plasticity, and the controversial question of whether gender identity formation in intersex people is a function of their brain or their genitals. Socializing neuroscience with insights from gender and science studies is good; highlighting the conflicting dimensions of social life in the same gesture is even better.
|Keywords||NeuroGenderings Critical neuroscience Critique Interdisciplinarity Controversy Social conflict Scientific norms Brain plasticity Intersexuality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Anne Fausto-Sterling & Edward Stein (2004). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Hypatia 19 (3):203-208.
Fernando Vidal (2009). Brainhood, Anthropological Figure of Modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22 (1):5-36.
Ruth Bleier (ed.) (1986). Feminist Approaches to Science. Pergamon Press.
Cynthia Kraus (2005). Of "Epistemic Covetousness" in Knowledge Economies: The Not-Nothing of Social Constructionism. Social Epistemology 19 (4):339 – 355.
George L. Engel (1977). The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine. Science 196:129-136.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Katrin Nikoleyczik (2012). Towards Diffractive Transdisciplinarity: Integrating Gender Knowledge Into the Practice of Neuroscientific Research. Neuroethics 5 (3):231-245.
Jan Slaby (2010). Steps Towards a Critical Neuroscience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (3):397-416.
Alexander A. Fingelkurts & Andrew A. Fingelkurts (2009). Is Our Brain Hardwired to Produce God, or is Our Brain Hardwired to Perceive God? A Systematic Review on the Role of the Brain in Mediating Religious Experience. Cognitive Processing 10 (4):293-326.
Cynthia Kraus (2012). Linking Neuroscience, Medicine, Gender and Society Through Controversy and Conflict Analysis : A "Dissensus Framework" for Feminist/Queer Brain Science Studies. In Robyn Bluhm, Anne Jaap Jacobson & Heidi Lene Maibom (eds.), Neurofeminism: Issues at the Intersection of Feminist Theory and Cognitive Science. Palgrave Macmillan
Catherine Vidal (2012). The Sexed Brain: Between Science and Ideology. Neuroethics 5 (3):295-303.
R. Sinnerbrink (2011). The Future of Critical Theory? Kompridis on World-Disclosing Critique. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (9):1053-1061.
Amy Allen (1998). Power Trouble: Performativity as Critical Theory. Constellations 5 (4):456-471.
William Rehg (2000). Critical Science Studies as Argumentation Theory: Who's Afraid of Ssk? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1):33-48.
Jennifer Mundale & William P. Bechtel (1996). Integrating Neuroscience, Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology Through a Teleological Conception of Function. Minds and Machines 6 (4):481-505.
William P. Bechtel & Jennifer Mundale (1996). Integrating Neuroscience, Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology Through a Teleological Conception of Function. Minds and Machines 6 (4):481-505.
Charlie Kurth (2013). What Do Our Critical Practices Say About the Nature of Morality? Philosophical Studies 166 (1):45-64.
Michael Kurak (2003). The Relevance of the Buddhist Theory of Dependent Co-Origination to Cognitive Science. Brain and Mind 4 (3):341-351.
Douglas Kellner, Critical Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and Radical Democracy at the Turn of the Millennium: Reflections on the Work of Henry Giroux.
Mervyn Hartwig (2010). Response to Datta, Frauley and Pearce. Journal of Critical Realism 9 (2):248-254.
Thomas F. M.ü, Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells nte & Marta Kutas (1999). One, Two, or Many Mechanisms? The Brain's Processing of Complex Words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (6):1031-1032.
Added to index2011-05-07
Total downloads30 ( #131,089 of 1,796,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,138 of 1,796,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?