by Isaac DismukeBy discussing common interests and goals of cultural neuroscience and anthropology, Seligman and Brown successfully argue for the mutual integration of these two fields which have historically not engaged one another. Such a combination can potentially provide both biology and social sciences with a more robust understanding of our human brains and their relationship to the environment, especially the socio-culture environment. The article emphasizes a recent point of commonality between cultural neuroscience and anthropology, specifically on the theme of embodiment. Embodiment deals with how the socio-cultural environment influences both behavior as well as structure of the nervous system. This notion could prove to be the foundation for an interconnected study of these once segregated fields.
Neurobiology often attempts to identify and explain the bases of cognitive processes without taking into account the role that the socio-environment occupied in the evolution of the brain. This creates the possibility, if not probability, of biological reductionism. The article points to a salient factor to consider when studying cognition that perhaps neuroscience does not take in to account, which is the idea that not all cognitive processes will necessarily look the same in every context simply because all humans possess them. Neuroscience remains the predominant field for studying neural pathways and the underlying mechanisms by which they operate, but yet it may result in a more static response. Cultural neuroscience, however, seeks an ecologically sound explanation by considering the significance of culture and sociality in the forming of these cognitive and neural processes and the differences between them. The article points out the excellent position that anthropology is in to compliment cultural neuroscientific studies because of its historical focus with regards to studying culture. As the authors state, “Anthropology is positioned to make important contributions to the project of investigating culture in the brain, and the brain in culture” (p.130). Not only is culture important in the creating of social environments, but this social environment in turn influences the structure of the human brain. If this is true, and the evidence is quite suggestive, then ethnography based anthropology can be beneficial by supplying a more nuanced understanding of this process. Cultural neuroscience and anthropology obviously have an overlap in interests, but what are the direct benefits of a union of anthropology with cultural neuroscience? The authors state that the contribution from anthropology should derive from ethnographic data gathered about a culture in order to create a hypothesis that helps “push beyond identification of the neural substrates associated with isolated cognitive tasks, and better capture the contingent and socially embedded nature of human cognition” (p.131). Anthropology grants a more dynamic understanding of what is happening than a reductionist biological explanation and better captures the relevant social factors of human cognition. Furthermore, anthropologists, because of a more thorough cross-cultural knowledge, will aid in pointing out experimental design flaws that may exist because of cultural biases that otherwise may not be noticed. Using anthropological insight can be useful in advising neuroscientific experimental methodology. The subsection titled “common ground and complementary tools” traces a study on stress and emotional reactivity among Mexican immigrants in the United States, which found to have a translation problem regarding ‘social stresses’ or ‘trauma’ amongst the subjects of Mexican origin. They were given a math task and tested at public speaking in order to test the degree of stress amongst the individuals. The original study did not take into account the fact that highly educated adults, who were not amongst their immigrant population, may not experience the same amount of stress with these tests. After the realization of this issue, the authors had to change the design of the experiment which highlights the importance of “experimental manipulation [that] should also be subject to checks for conceptual and technical validity” (p132). The idea of an ethnographically-driven laboratory study and capitalizing on cultural knowledge from anthropology in order to create ecologically solid experiments does not appear to me to be a controversial one. In fact, it even seems necessary if the goal is to capture the complexity of human experience and study it in a laboratory setting. But the authors also propose the opposite stating, “The incorporation of proxy measures of central nervous system activity into ethnographically driven field-based research” (p 135). This idea seems more likely to be critiqued, and while the authors admit that in certain context this could be difficult, they also provide a concrete example of how it can be done. While studying religious practice and sprit possession in Northeastern Brazil, they measured in situ the emotional properties of various rituals by measuring physiological responses such as heart rate and blood pressure. This approach provided the author with a better understanding of the effect of ritualistic behavior on the human body that is beyond what simple observational ethnography would be able to provide. The article quotes Ochsner and Lieberman( 2001) who argue that the overall goal of a socio-culturally informed neuroscience should be “ to move beyond mapping, to the investigation of complex human behaviors and experiences”( 132). In my opinion this goal must be met with a neuro anthropological perspective that considers neural, ecological, and cultural factors. The article lays out this approach and argues for not only the influence on ethnography in the laboratory setting, but also field research to be complemented by laboratory studies by way of portable measurement devices. This calls for a combination in both theoretical and methodical approaches from anthropology and cultural neuroscience to provide a more rich understanding of the human brain as it is situated in its socio-environmental context. Rebecca Seligman, and Ryan A. Brown (2009). Theory and method at the intersection of anthropology and cultural neuroscience. Oxford University Press. Doi: 10.1093/scan/nsp032.
13 Comments
Edward Quinn
2/9/2016 06:51:43 pm
I really liked this article. Seligman and Brown do a good job of demonstrating how cultural neuroscience and anthropology are complimentary to one another. What I found most useful were the concrete methodological ideas the authors offered for researchers interested in questions at the intersection of cultural neuroscience and anthropology. I was especially intrigued by something Isaac brought up in his post, and that is the use of physiological measures to gain insight into the relationship between social address, culture, and the profile of an individual’s nervous system in real life situations, not just in the laboratory. To me, this seems like a great way to get at “brains in the wild.” It’s easy to imagine collecting dried blood spots following participation in a ritual to try to understand how different hormonal states might be associated with the performance of highly meaningful activities, or even simply watching a ritual being performed. These hormonal states might be compared to that of other rituals, or even more mundane interactions to see how these different socioemotional events are embodied. Anthropology can contribute to making laboratory experiments more realistic and valid, but ultimately researchers will have to leave the laboratory if they want to understand how meaningful experience is embodied. To this end, methodological advancements will be critical, especially those that are not expensive or obtuse in the field.
Reply
Edward Quinn (2nd post)
3/1/2016 10:12:48 am
The methods discussed by Seligman and Brown seem useful, but judging by the few case studies we read after Week 5, they seem difficult to implement in naturalistic settings. It is far easier to rely on traditional methods (e.g., ethnography) than it is to try to incorporate mixed methods into a single study. For neuroanthropology to truly take off, it will be necessary to mix methods like ethnography and the methods discussed by Seligman and Brown. I’m curious to see if any of the case studies we will read after this week do a better job of doing this. Part of the problem is related to the arbitrary divisions we have created in the social sciences. These divisions do not facilitate the interdisciplinary learning necessary to successfully carry out neuroanthropology.
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
2/9/2016 07:44:56 pm
This article by Seligan & Brown presents how “the intersection of neuroscience and anthropology can inform our understanding of the relationship between human brains and their socio-cultural contexts” (p. 130).
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
2/27/2016 01:57:04 pm
2nd response: In our class discussion (02. 10.16)we talked about the (physiological, neurological, behavioural), stress response which becomes activated to maximise coping ability in response to a perceived threat or stressor (not just environmental stressors, but also, or largely, in our case, social stressors). The stress response (like dissociation, which may be a from of stress response) may thus be seen as "at once protective and distressing"
Reply
Jake Aronoff
2/9/2016 07:54:46 pm
Seligman & Brown present three domains in which the combination of neuroscience and anthropology can provide a better understanding of the relationship between human brains and their socio-cultural contexts, including the social construction of emotion, cultural psychiatry, and ritual and embodiment. Two major strengths I found in this article included highlighting what anthropology brings to the table; a cross-cultural repertoire and dynamic research opportunities outside of the lab. As Lynn et al. (2014) note, "While compromising some precision, neuroanthropological approaches can employ smaller, more affordable and minimally invasive neuroscientific methods in the field" (93). If the neuroscience community is willing to accept less precision and a far less controlled setting, anthropologists can provide valuable insight on the human brain "in the wild" as Edward mentions.
Reply
Jake Aronoff (2nd Post)
3/1/2016 03:54:49 pm
Edward highlights the difficulty in pulling off mixed method research, while Seligman & Brown highlight the common interests of cultural neuroscience and anthropology. I think these points indicate a need for research teams consisting of neuroscientists and anthropologists in order to conduct adequate mixed method research projects. Dr. DeCaro recently noted the value of teamwork in biocultural research in an interview with Somatosphere (http://somatosphere.net/2016/02/bioculturalism-an-interview-with-jason-decaro.html). I think this is a strategy that can be very useful (maybe even a necessity) for neuroanthropology going forward. Rather than having neuroscientists trying to incorporate culture study into their research or anthropologists trying to incorporate neuroscience methods, it may be better to form teams with everyone playing to their strengths while informing each other of their perspective.
Reply
Paige Ridley
2/10/2016 08:00:54 am
I thought this particular article was very insightful and allowed the idea of nueroanthropology to come full circle for me. So far this semester the idea of nueroanthropology has been intangible. Seligman and brown mention “using creative protocols that allow amygdala activation to be measured during the encoding and retrieval of ritually salient symbolic material, cultural neuroscience can study the connections between ritual practices, associative learning and emotional memory” (Pg. 135).
Reply
Paige Ridley
3/1/2016 10:01:14 pm
This article sends me back to the early weeks of this class when we discussed the idea of “Brains in the Wild” some research can be based out of a laboratory. The results of a research question might vary greatly if the brain is not able to stay in its familiar surroundings. This in turn would cause the ending results to be skewed. However there will continue to be flaws in all studies that are conducted because we do not have the ability to isolate all variables completely.
Reply
Larry Monocello
2/10/2016 09:51:53 am
I thought it was very important that Seligman and Brown specifically state that "anthropology can contribute a nuanced, dynamic understanding of how culture shapes social environments, and how it contributes to the structure and function of individual minds" (p. 130). It's a particularly biocultural approach that takes into account the fact that the social environment is just as important to the formation of a body (and therefore brain, and therefore mind) as genes, and it is in fact a constant feedback loop in which the social environment affects how the world is perceived, that perception affects world-shaping behaviors, and that world-shaping in turn affects both the individuals and others all over the world.
Reply
Myra Barrett
2/10/2016 10:01:58 am
This article was pretty interesting while at the same time seeming obvious. I think it's interesting that emotion can vary depending on the cultural context. I would like to know if certain emotions associated with different cultures affect specific parts of the brain or if they have basic emotional homologs. It might also be worthwhile to compare geographically “close” cultures' range of emotions.
Reply
Myra
3/1/2016 05:00:15 pm
The connection to social learning and evolution in this article doesn't seem apparent to me. Although, perhaps reaching altered mental states and emotion could potentially lead to better pair-bonding, or a better social cognition in general. Maybe those who are better able to control their mental states and experience a wide range of emotions are able to more easily relate to people in their social group. Or they may be seen as powerful leaders because of their mental abilities.
Reply
James Michael Jones
2/10/2016 11:16:29 am
This article, as Myra stated above, was great, but also seemingly unneeded. The writers do a fantastic job stating their beliefs backed by substanial evidence, but to me, an argument with no adversary is not very well argued. I am not saying I disagree with them. I love how they propose looking at the 3 different aspects stated in their article and the increasing amount of information we can learn through colaboration of these fields, but I want to know what problems could arise using these methods and how people would properly go about fixing the problems when they arise. It seems too positive to me I can't personally believe everything could be so easy. I want to believe everything in this article but I think I would like a more rounded arguement which is honestly solely based in the writing of the piece and not necessarily the context.
Reply
Issac
2/15/2016 11:21:46 am
I agree, the article did seem to be overly positive. I noticed this because as I was trying to write my review of the article I found it difficult to be critical. I know a critical perspective is very important in anthropology and I also think a good review should properly vet the paper , but like you said , there was seemingly no adversaries to the argument so that process was difficult.
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 |