by Larry Monocello Upon the arrival of every new conceptual/scientific framework, criticism by the discipline’s veterans inevitably follows. In this article, Roepstorff and Frith take on the burgeoning field of neuroanthropology, arguing that a new discipline called “neuroanthropology” is unnecessary, that what the proposed field of “neuroanthropology” really is, is just “anthropology.” They further argue that the proposed mechanism of neuroanthropology, “experimental” in analogy to laboratory work, is too unwieldy, rejects Anthropology’s strength as a phenomenological science, and attempts research designs at which cultural anthropology is decidedly weak. Instead, they say, “experimental” anthropology is best practiced as (a) “an anthropological study of experiments” or (b) “an aesthetics of research practice” (105). Finally, they acknowledge and attempt to fit into their own framework previous work done in neuroanthropology on cognitive processes, neurological effects of ritual, and cultural notions of identity and selfhood. Roepstorff and Frith make some good points in their assessment of the previous work done, but their assertion that neuroanthropology be better left as anthropology is ultimately unconvincing.
Roepstorff and Frith rightly point out that the strengths of (cultural) anthropology do not include experimental laboratory work. It is a broad context- and meaning-based science that does not easily lend itself to the stringent, narrow, and necessarily highly controlled conditions of laboratory experiments. Even lab work done by biological anthropologists, although controlled as well as possible, is not done without difficulty (in terms of biomarker collection) and concerns about validity (in terms of the representativeness of the sample). Further, Roepstorff and Frith bring up the danger of over-interpreting brain scans and inadvertently racializing found cultural differences by reifying them as biological entities. However, this can be (relatively) easily to overcome by recognizing and addressing these weaknesses, and by further utilizing interdisciplinarity in conducting research. That said, what valid concerns they have are either addressed by Downey and Lende (2012), or do not invalidate “neuroanthropology” as a framework. Their main argument is that what neuroanthropology is purportedly set to accomplish is not so much a new epistemological framework as it is an extension of “experimental anthropology,” defined as (a) method (i.e., lab work), (b) object of study (i.e., an “anthropology of experiments”), and (c) research aesthetic (i.e., trying out novel ways of doing anthropology). Personally, I found this to be nonsensical, and my immediate reaction to the idea of “experimental anthropology” was “so what?” It seemed like a double standard, because the way I understand neuroanthropology from my readings so far in The Encultured Brain is an anthropology of the nervous system/neurological phenomena in the same way that medical anthropology is the broad study of how humans engage with health or that psychological anthropology can range from studies of ethnopsychology to cross-cultural manifestations of psychological phenomena. This is decidedly greater in scope than an “anthropology of experiments,” but not necessarily un-doable. Further, what is “experimental anthropology” but another loosely defined theoretical framework that is ultimately “just” Anthropology? The same argument made against “neuroanthropology” can be made against “experimental anthropology.” While Roepstorff and Frith argue that a narrowed field of neuroanthropology is unwarranted, they don’t fully engage the “so what?” that their argument begs. They say that it is best left as “anthropology,” or considered an extension of “experimental anthropology,” but the evidence for their argument was unconvincing. What good points they did make are recognized and addressed by those who support the field. Ultimately, their argument seemed more like a petty disagreement about semantics than a valid criticism about conceptual framework, and belied a lack of understanding of what neuroanthropology does and can represent. Or, maybe, it was a subconscious extension of the lumper-splitter dilemma entrenched in physical anthropology by paleoanthropologists. Either way, their points are made and well-taken, but not enough to stymie the growth of this new and exciting field. Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2012). Neuroanthropology or simply anthropology? Going experimental as method, as object of study, and as research aesthetic. Anthropological Theory, 12(1), 101-111.
27 Comments
Edward Quinn
1/19/2016 10:23:46 am
Downey and Lende convincingly argue for the subdiscipline of neuroanthropology. Neuroanthropology is the study of nervous system enculturation. Central to this new field will be the study of physiological mechanisms by which culture is embodied by the nervous system.
Reply
Issac
1/20/2016 03:08:59 pm
I also see the potential hesitation many people may have regarding accepting neuroanthropology as discipline out of fear from scientific reductionism. In my opinion, the early years of science and anthropology make this concern of reductionism a valid one. However, I agree that in this case their fears would be unreasonable. Downey and Lende outline their position in such a way that a person who reads about this new subdiscipline with an open mind will not share this concern. Furthermore, anyone who takes this position must not have very much confidence in the fact that anthropologist have learned from the past and will be able to notice and thus put a stop to any form of reductionism.
Reply
Edward Quinn (2nd Post)
3/1/2016 06:52:11 am
Week two was a continuation of the topic, “What is Neuroanthropology?” Since writing the above post, I have come to think of neuroanthropology as an exercise in the integration of different lines of evidence. My early impression of the field was that it placed primacy on biological mechanisms, but I no longer think this is true (as much as I wanted it to be true!). The aim in this field of study is to integrate different lines of evidence rather than privileging one over the other. This evidence can take the form of ethnographic vignettes, applications of neurophysiology, use of biomarkers, participant observation, etc.
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
1/19/2016 02:38:22 pm
While no part of the human body is fully mature at birth and all parts –bone structure, muscles, joints, etc – develop in a (physical and cultural) environment and are influenced and shaped by behaviors – the brain is particularly underdeveloped at birth and most influenced by outside, and specifically social/cultural, forces.
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
1/20/2016 05:13:09 pm
in my previous response I emphasized how our neurological system cannot be understood apart from culture. Now, after our class discussion on the topic, I would like to point out how, arguably, culture cannot be understood apart from neurological processes.
Reply
Danielle Long
1/19/2016 05:05:47 pm
Neuroanthropology requires that it has to be a problem-driven resource and openness to mixing different methods because it examines how the brain and culture interact with each other; and how our nervous system responds/adapts to social, material, and cognitive environments.
Reply
Jake Aronoff
1/19/2016 05:46:22 pm
While this article provides a necessary focus on the methodological directions of neuroanthropology, I disagree with their main point. I think Larry rightly points out the double standard, in which following the logic of the authors we could say medical anthropology is simply anthropology and therefore doesn't deserve its own subdiscipline title. Roepstorff and Frith make their case through examining new methodologies possible through neuroanthropology. However, neuroanthropology is more than just its methods. They claim that experimental anthropology (their preference over neuroanthropology) can accomplish the much less ambitious task of examining how the different factors of their ontological checklist interrelate (1. That humans have experiences, 2. That humans have brains, and 3. That humans are embedded in cultural contexts). However, neuroanthropology is more than just examining "how" questions, it includes "why" questions. Along with its new methodological potential, neuroanthropology also provides a revamped, biocultural theoretical framework. Roepstorff and Frith seem to get caught up on introducing cultural anthropology to neuroscience with no mention of what biological anthropology brings to the table in the form of evolutionary theory. The completely fluid integration of biological and cultural (and likely linguistic) anthropology is an important component of neuroanthropology and demonstrates why it should be considered its own subdiscipline.
Reply
Jake Aronoff
3/1/2016 11:03:42 am
Upon reflection since this post, I lean a little more toward the stance of Roepstorff & Frith (though not entirely). I think that as long as anthropologists only incorporate relevant neuroscience findings into their ethnographic findings, neuroanthropology will remain confined to the realm of only anthropology, such as medical anthropology. For example, I can see how Roepstorff & Frith would classify the readings by Hay and Bouskill as "just anthropology", as these readings do not entirely integrate neuroscience. However, I am also hesitant to say neuroanthropology can never cross this threshold of being truly interdisciplinary, since it is such a new field. I think that unless neuroanthropologists incorporate neuroscience (I'm thinking in terms of biomarkers) from the beginning as essential components to their research questions, this interdisciplinary mission will be highly difficult, if not impossible. However, it is also important to head the warning outlined by Roepstorff & Frith regarding the "double fail", in which anthropologists try experimental methods without particularly adequate training with less than desirable outcomes. I find myself navigating toward the fence on this issue. Perhaps neuroanthropology does not need to be completely interdisciplinary, and can find a satisfying home just in anthropology?
Reply
Myra Barrett
1/19/2016 08:00:15 pm
The bulk of this article did not really make sense to me in relation to the expressed topic. The majority of the article seemed to discuss more what "experimental" implies in relation to anthropology. The last few paragraphs were the only part that discussed neuroanthropology. The rest of it seemed to be technical jargon and rehashing of different experiments and studies. The only argument I was able to pick up on was the very last section of the article, and it didn't seem to fit with the rest of it. I just don't see how defining what "experimental" means has anything to do with neuroanthropology as a new sub-discipline of anthropology.
Reply
Myra
2/29/2016 07:44:35 pm
Neuroanthropology is absolutely valid within the field of anthropology. Seeing as there are already so many different kinds of applications of anthropology, it makes sense to study the nervous system in relation to our evolution and culture. Our big, specialized brains are what got us here in the first place. The evolutionary implications of how our brains work, especially in relation to sociality/culture, wouldn't be fully understood without neuroanthropology.
Reply
James Michael "Mike" Jones
1/20/2016 04:58:17 am
I agree with the blog post above that the article presented really did not give any definitive meaning or solid arguments to why "Neuroanthropology" should not be the proper terminology or subfield of anthropology that has been proposed by Downey and Lende and many others. To me, it seemed like Roepstroff and Frith used most of the article explaining the meaning of words to people in their own way to create the validation for their arguments. However, as they were attempting to argue that it should not be its own subfield, the argument quickly shifted to "I don't like that term". In my opinion, arguing that Neuroanthropology, using the arguments they presented, is simply anthropology is like saying archaeology, linguistics, cultural anthropology, and biological anthropology are all "just anthropology". I mean, ya. We know that, but if you scrutinize one possible subfield, you have to properly define the subfield and put each other existing subfield under the same scrutiny. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong, their arguments simply did not stand up properly to the situation in my opinion. I personally believe it could be interesting to fully introduce a new subfield and the implications of allowing wider, more indepth analysis of humans through new methodologies described within it.
Reply
While it is important to assess the limitations of any scientific field, especially novel ones like neuroanthropology, it is also important that these assessments be constructive. Roepstorff & Frith rightly raise several questions about the field of neuroanthropology. They, however, do not reflect on the field in a constructive manner; rather, they dismiss the need for an interdisciplinary between anthropology and the other social and life sciences. Their argument that neuroanthropology is just "experimental anthropology," and they say that the field should focus solely on analyzing the methodology of various other fields through an anthropological perspective. Neuroanthropology, in their eyes, should just be a sub-field of anthropology which they have termed "experimental anthropology." This characterization of neuroanthropology misses the point. Neuroanthropology seeks to unite anthropology with the other life and social sciences not through simply applying an anthropological perspective and methodology to other fields, though that is critical to neuroanthropology; rather, neuroanthropology seeks to bring in perspectives and methods from the other life and social sciences to anthropology so both sciences can benefit. With that said, I agree with the review posted above in that the argument posed by Roepstorff & Frith is not valid.
Reply
Nick Roy
2/29/2016 10:10:30 am
Looking back on this critique with more knowledge about the field of neuroanthropology, I am even more sure of Roepstroff & Frith's error in their argument. While it is true that, on one level, neuroanthropological work can be described as (using their name) "experimental anthropology (Neuroanthropology has an interest in applying psychological experiments in the field so as to get at "brains in the wild.), Roepstroff & Frith fail to see the many other levels of neuroanthropological research and how neuroanthropologists take what they learn from the field and apply it to both psychology and anthropology in novel ways.
Reply
Kelly
1/20/2016 07:14:10 am
When reading the Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. article against Chapter 2 of The Encultured Brain, I find that I have to side with Downey and Lende’s view of the growing field of anthropology. Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. raise valuable points about our quick production of new fields, but I believe that neuroanthropology is important to the way we carry on in other forms of anthropology and alternate scientific fields. We know the brain is plastic, not “hard wired”. The brain changes as we develop based on our surroundings. Without the study of how the outside worlds can affect our brains, we would be missing crucial information that could lead to further scientific development.
Reply
Kelly Likos
3/1/2016 06:24:34 pm
After re-reading my reflection, I still believe that the field of neuroanthropology is important to furthering research anthropology. We know that, through studying anthropology, a holistic point of view is vital. After participating in class the last few weeks, I believe that a holistic anthropological perspective would benefit neuroanthropology greatly. As we pioneer new research paths in neuroanthropology, I will be interested to see how the holistic perspective will continue to take form.
Reply
Molly Jaworski
1/20/2016 09:30:01 am
I found Roepstorff, A. and Frith, C. to be less critical about the field of Neuroanthropology and more judgmental and dismissive of it. They categorize Neuroanthropology as a subfield in "experimental anthropology" and discuss it as more of a method by which to conduct research, which limits it from other scientific fields. This is interesting because Downey and Lende's have a contradictory view, one by which Neuroanthropology embraces and combines multiple fields of study. It is this unification of multiple fields that make Neuroanthropology so interesting. I feel that the use of multiple fields of study only enhance our understanding and potential for knowledge in this field. Larry did a great job assessing Roepstorff and Frith's work. And I agree that the article did little more than simply disagree with and dismiss the field of Neuroanthropology.
Reply
Molly Jaworski
3/2/2016 07:32:01 am
After further discussion in class on this reading I still feel that Neuroanthropology is an important subfield of "experimental anthropology". I still feel that Roepstorff and Frith, were vague and at times overly judgemental of the field. Unfortunately I did not see much validity in their arguments against Neuroanthropology.
Reply
Catherine Lindsay Manson
1/20/2016 09:50:43 am
Roepstorff and Frith's argument against the addition of a new subfield, Neuroanthropology, is supported mainly by the idea that the discipline is still in the experimental stages. The article is written with a few pieces of evidence that illustrate experiments that have been performed under the neuro- subfield of anthropology. Roepstorff and Frith's debate against this subfield is largely held up by the definitions of the terms "neuroanthropology" and "experimental"; it is also supported by demonstrating how researching human beings can be difficult due to the agendas of not only the scientist, or anthropologist, but also by the "specimen" that the researcher is studying. I found the article and review to be interesting and informative on how biases and research can affect how neuroanthropology can be viewed as a sub discipline. I agree with the review, in that I was not substantially persuaded by Roepstorff and Frith's assessment of neuroanthropology to say that it does not deserve recognition as a discipline.
Reply
Catherine Lindsay Manson
3/2/2016 09:06:46 am
After the class discussion and rereading Frith and Roepstorff's article I still found myself wondering about their conclusion. The idea that neuroanthropology should not be considered an official subfield because it is too experimental or perhaps too ambitious still feels like they are bowing out from the challenge. If all sub-fields or even many disciplines of science were discounted because of the newness and giant undertaking they have, most sciences would not exist.
Reply
Olivia Davis
1/20/2016 09:54:22 am
I think that the arguments made regarding neuroanthropology as a discipline by Roepstorff and Frith lack introspection in terms of how the argument they make can be applied to the greater group of science. These issues surface, for me, when I look at their basic argument accusing the field of neuroscience to be to physical and too dependent upon the biological results of their testing in terms of the "statistical and logical" traps that it's proponents fall into because this argument can be applied to most if not all of the natural sciences that have at some point married into anthropology. With their view, any social discipline that attempts to incorporate lab experiments (which can be very useful in certain studies) into it's everyday theoretical framework will eventually fall apart and there is empirical evidence to falsify that hypothesis.Downey and Lende's exploration of interdisciplinary cooperation in terms of neurology and anthropology is just that-- exploration. To jump the gun and say that any neurological testing done in the name of neuroanthropology is "just" anthropology is greatly underestimating the physiological aspect of life and is going against the very basic concepts of anthropology which is a holistic perspective on human life.
Reply
Olivia Davis
3/2/2016 08:38:52 am
After lots of discussion in class on how to make certain studies neuroanthropological, I think that my previous statements about this article remain true. To undercut the exploration of interdisciplinary studies is to do a great disservice to the potential information that could be gathered if they are used.
Reply
McCallie L. Smith III (Trip)
1/20/2016 10:24:49 am
The article written by Ropestorff and Firth claiming that the identification of neuroarthropology as a discipline made plenty of points as to why they believe it should not be so; however, I felt as if many of their reasons and explanations where typically generalized and at times vague. Early in the article Ropestorff and Firth state that (nuroanthropology) "has potential to open new novel ways of doing experimental anthropology", okay but what is "experimental anthropology"? Could one not argue that ALL areas of anthropology has some degree of experimentation involved? I think so, and I think anthropology has always been experimental to a degree. So I believe their proposal of considering it apart of experimental anthropology is to generalized. Also, the Ropestorff and Firth point out how Dominguez argues for a "cultural nurophenomenology", and once again I disagree because again could one not just put "cultural nurophenomenology" under the larger metaphorical umbrella of "nuroanthropology"? Also, to say that nuroanthropology is just "anthropology", really? Even with their given explanation as to why I was not convinced. The arguments given here by the authors to me are much to general.
Reply
McCallie Smith III (Trip)
3/2/2016 06:51:35 am
After rereading my reflection, and portions of the article I still have some reservations about their argument. I still find it somewhat generalized and vague at times. I still believe there can, and should be a field of anthropology that should be called and recognized as "nuroanthropology". But who am I to make these claims, I am simply a undergraduate with limited knowledge in the filed. I do fell that it would be beneficial to the the field of Anthropology proper in that it can demonstrate holistic (as all fields of Anthropology should do), as well as a interdisciplinary approaches.
Reply
Michelle Bird
1/20/2016 10:27:45 am
After reading Chapter 2 of The Encultured Brain and Roepstorff and Frith's argument against neuroanthropology, I have to say that I agree entirely with Larry in that the authors of the article were definitely setting up a double-standard. I had a hard time understanding how their arguments against neuroanthropology as a subdiscipline on the basis of its experimental nature carried any read weight when their proposed solution was simply another name by which to classify the enigmatic field. They brought up some valid points in regards to tensions present between research methodology and ideal (discrepancies between neurological responses in laboratory settings vs the occurrence in the natural environment), but again, as Larry stated, many of these discrepancies can be resolved through applying interdisciplinary approaches. They also stress the concerns surrounding sample validity (usually due to little variation in the economic or educational backgrounds of participants), the dangers of data-over interpretation, and the potential to unintentionally "racialize" cultural differences. I think, again, that many of these issues can be prevented before they even occur if extreme care is taken during the collection and analysis of the data.
Reply
Michelle Bird 2nd Post
3/1/2016 11:02:40 pm
As the material for this week was primarily introductory to the field, coming back to it after seeing the vast array of research conducted in the field makes an introduction section seem rather inane, in terms of defining a starting place. We are aware of how intricate and complex the human brain and its systems are, and it seems silly to think that the field is relatively new, and its veracity and significance questioned when many of the findings corroborate those in other fields or allow for a new perspective that could lead to greater insight into the human condition. The potential this field offers for understanding humans is astounding, primarily due to its innate sense of interdisciplinarity. Approaching research from this perspective seems to do much to reduce incidence of misunderstanding or even flat-out false claims such as “brain inflexibility”, since the evidence is being viewed from several different angles, by multiple people working together to obtain a significant understanding of something.
Reply
10/20/2021 02:15:57 am
i like this article, it has a lot of info i need to know, thanks for sharing
Reply
7/7/2022 09:41:21 pm
Kami dari Pioneer Multiproduct ingin menawarkan jasa pembuatan plakat dan souvenir. Buat bapak/ibu yang saat ini sedang membutuhkan vendor untuk memulai bisnis maupun mengembangkan bisnis percetakan ke penjualan plakat dan souvenir custom bisa menghubungi kami. Kami dapat memproduksi:
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is group authored by Dr. DeCaro and the students in his ANT 474/574: Neuroanthropology. Archives
April 2019
Categories |