Taking a Giant Leap into Interdisciplinary Studies of the Brain

1/19/2016

by April Irwin

To answer our thematic question that asks, “What is Neuroanthropology?” I pose that the most complete answer thus far is found in the second chapter of our text. Downey and Lende, as advocates of this new branch of anthropology, say that “neuroanthropology posits that subjectivity and the brain meet in the things that people do and say and the ways we interact with one another and the environment” (2012, p. 41). For me, this quotation wraps up the entirety of this chapter as well as provides an intriguing springboard from which we can leap as we develop an interest and sound methodology within this field and beyond it.

Similarly to what we discussed in our very first class, neuroanthropology at its core is all about weaving together strings from other fields into studying human beings, their environments, brains, and everything in between. Downey and Lende make a great case in setting neuroanthropology apart from other fields such as psychology and neuroscience in order to answer shortcomings that are inherent within each of these fields. In sharing a timeline for the development of neuroanthropology, they criticize the mass modularity theory that had taken root in these fields because it assumes that brain function and structure are universal across individuals and groups.

My personal favorite is the false assumption that brains are inflexible which plagued the social sciences around the 1980s. This was an area of great interest to me because within the field of education, often teachers, parents, and students continue to assume that they have a fixed level of intelligence and that their minds cannot adapt to their new environment or surroundings. (See this lovely Wikipedia page for more information.) These theories of intelligence have behavioral ramifications for their behavior with regards to learning which, to me, exemplifies the necessity for a field that integrates brain science with the rigorous research methods of anthropology. I completely agree with the authors as they argue that speaking to the endless, and highly nuanced, variations in human thoughts, behaviors, and neurological makeup is a critical next step in not only the social sciences, but also the brain sciences as well. With regards to all of this, I am excited to see that, along with integrating information and theory from a variety of fields, neuroanthropology’s grounding in anthropology means that defining terms like culture and applying quality field-based research methods are at the heart of this field.

Again, in agreement with Downey and Lende, I agree that culture is a term that is often used as a side note to the variables that we study, even in educational psychology, and that redefining the boundaries of this concept matters to how we study the brain. Their definition of culture includes the shared representations of a group of people and extends it to include the variations within the nervous system as well as the material world. As a second year student on the track for specializing in educational neuroscience, this is by far the most complete and coherent definition of culture because it incorporates the material world of human biology into the meanings and representations that encompass human existence. This definition speaks to the embodiment of thought in a way that my colleagues and I have pondered, but have not been able to put into a concise phrase.

Overall, this chapter and it’s look from the past to the future of neuroanthropology gives me hope that people haven’t studied everything yet. It allows me to dream about the things that we have yet to uncover. And it gives me the tools and language to carry these discoveries into new territory.

Downey, G. & Lende, D. H. (2012). Neuroanthropology and the encultured brain. In D. H. Lende & G. Downey (Eds.), The encultured brain: An introduction to neuroanthropology (pp. 23-65). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

13 Comments

Jake Aronoff

1/19/2016 04:06:58 pm

I found this reading, as well as April's review, very interesting. I second the admiration for placing a strong emphasis on human variation, not just cross-culturally, but also among individuals and even different areas of the brain. For example, Downey and Lende highlight the potential to essentialize cultured brains in the case of Western and Asian neural networks involved in the conceptualization of the self (rightfully mentioning Said's concept of the Oriental). The result can be a mistaken assumption of "East brains" and "West brains". They also note that enculturation will vary across regions and networks of the brain, thus highlighting variation within a single brain.

One worry I have though is in regard to the interdisciplinary approach of neuroanthropology. While I completely endorse this approach, seeing it play out in reality will no doubt have problems. For example, communication across disciplines is a major issue, and since neuroanthropology is grounded in anthropology (as April notes), I cannot see too many members of other disciplines going out of their way to "speak our language", especially when their discipline has not started the new field. I think the burden of communication rests for the most part on anthropologists to learn the language of other disciplines if there is any chance for a truly interdisciplinary field.

Amanda Oldani

1/19/2016 09:59:35 pm

I found this reading to be very helpful in providing a better idea of what neuroanthropology means and studies. Downey and Lende (2012) say, “A central principle of neuroanthropology is that it is a mistake to designate a single cause or to apportion credit for specialized skills (individual or species-wide) to one factor for what is actually a complex set of processes,” (p. 24). This speaks to the fear of reductionism; neuroanthropology is not trying to parse out one specific cause for behavior, but it is instead trying to understand the holistic answer. I think this speaks for the necessity of the interdisciplinarity of this field. Each of the disciplines embedded in this field provides a unique perspective and offering. However, I agree with Jake on the idea that communication and collaboration between disciplines will be an issue. Even within one discipline, research is often done without regard to similar topics; I can only imagine that across multiple disciplines the issue will be exacerbated.

The immersion in culture as a child develops is highly influential and developmentally necessary. I think it is interesting to understand how immersion in different settings affects the brain. How would a monolingual setting affect a child differently than a bilingual setting? Do certain practices by parents influence cognitive patterns? This relates to the topic of variation within experiences that can provide variation in cognition. The authors say, “Our brains become encultured through reciprocal processes of externalization and internalization, where we use the material world to think and act, even as that world shapes our cognitive capacities, sensory systems, and response patterns,” (p. 28). This idea made me realize how important and influential our settings are; it also shocked me to just how much information our brains process and utilize to further grow.

Amanda Oldani (2nd)

3/1/2016 09:04:14 am

Neuroanthropology is a growing field that provides answers and insight from a holistic background. After having read more articles and understanding the intersectionality of this field, I think I should alter one of my previous statements. At first I imagined this field to be hindered by the difficulty of communicating across disciplines and keeping up with research in other fields. Now, I realize that by partaking in neuroanthropology, a researcher already understands this and will do what he needs to in order to stay abreast of new knowledge. A neuroanthropologist is studying multiple fields at once, so most of his work will require him to pay more attention to more things. I also realized it is more common to work as part of an interdisciplinary, collaborative team. The article about HBERG students helped provide some insight.

In my initial post, I also discussed my early understandings of niche construction; this is one of the most interesting topics we have learned about. I think it ties in nicely with how we learned about how altricial our brains are when we are born. Our high rate of growth and development after birth primes us to be encultured, or “en-brained.”

Paige Ridley

1/19/2016 10:18:35 pm

I had never taken the time to consider Nueroanthropology as a sub field of anthropology. After reading chapter two I felt that the idea of Nueroanthropology should be considered as both Lende and Downey make very valid points. By incorporating ethnographies, research and holistic viewpoints this allows for both science and anthropological approaches to take place becoming one over time. I am very curious to see if their plan of approach is in fact too broad. Their plan seems ideal on paper as they are intermixing Neuroscience with Psychology and Anthropology as pointed out in class, but will they have the ability to meet the individual’s on their terms and stay true to the ideals of Anthropology?

I appreciate that Lende and Downey mention meeting the “Brains in the wild” rather than in the laboratory as one does not have the capabilities to recreate an environment where their brain will react the same (pp.25). It is very important to submerse yourself into the culture and daily life to fully understand what is happening hence the ethnographies. Not all questions can be answered this way as the brain is so complex

This is a great article and has very valuable information that makes the concept of Nueroanthropology more relatable.

Downey, G. & Lende, D. H. (2012). Neuroanthropology and the encultured brain. In D. H. Lende & G. Downey (Eds.), The encultured brain: An introduction to neuroanthropology (pp. 23-65). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Paige Ridley

3/1/2016 09:18:31 pm

I was not entirely convinced before that Neuroscience and Anthropology were a combination that should intertwine disciplines. It was not until we were able to immerse ourselves into the case studies that I was convinced that they do collaborate well. They collaborate with one another on a much broader scale than one tends to think of. These case studies were not just observed. The individuals who conducted the studies immersed themselves into the culture. Balance was not only important psychologically but it is very sophisticated in its design due to the fact that humans have evolved into bipedalism. We have to understand the thought processes that take place when balancing which hones in on both psychology and neuroscience but it also allows the ideology of evolution to all come together to understand a concept of which we take for granted on any given day. Seeing the triangle and how all these fields are incorporated into one was the visual that I needed to confirm that neuroscience and anthropology should in fact be a discipline

Amanda Oldani

1/20/2016 09:00:14 am

I also want to add that I have to side with most of my classmates about the Roepstorf and Frith article. I did not find the overall argument convincing because it picks apart the idea of subdisciplines in anthropology. I think that Downey and Lende provide a better argument for the neuroanthropological field and the new frontiers that can be explored in it.

Larry Monocello

1/20/2016 09:43:07 am

Admittedly, I read Chapter 2 before I read the Roepstorff and Frith article, but I found that it effectively anticipated many of Roepstorff and Frith's criticisms of the field of Neuroanthropology. As a more culture-minded biocultural anthropologist, I appreciated the attention that they paid to human variation, especially its recognition of the fact that most studies in neuroscience and psychology tend to be performed on the WEIRD population (Western, Educated and from Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries). It recognizes the need for cross-cultural research on neurological research questions since studies are often non-representative. One important thing that was left out, however, was the problem that when studies are conducted on college students, they tend to be between 18-24 years old. In the U.S., on average, the brain is not finished developing until the age of 25. This is obviously problematic, but should be minded and addressed by neuroanthropologists for whom the goal is much wider and more comprehensive studies.

Larry Monocello (2nd)

2/23/2016 07:17:31 pm

In reading up to this point, I've been able to see the power of the neuroanthropological perspective. However, I see it as more of a refiner of biomedically-infused neuroscience through the anthropological framework of human biopsychocultural variation than an epistemological innovator. Truly this speaks to the general nature of anthropology that trains its practitioners to recognize the Geertzian web of meaning-making, resulting in the appropriation and cultural-refinement of other fields' methods.

Jessica Muzzo

1/21/2016 04:07:17 pm

I am drawn to neuroanthropology because of what this chapter calls "one of the broadest frontiers" of modern science: embodiment of the self. I have always been fascinated by the utter fluidity of reality, how easily it can be manipulated by the self. I believe neuroanthropology will lead the way in this pioneering scientific endeavor. Until this point, we have only had philosophy, religion and mind-expansion gurus to rely on for an explanation of what a "self" is and how it connects to our world, and I am very excited to see what we may find when we begin to explore this scientifically.
One quote stuck out to me in particular. It was that our "neuroanatomy inherently makes experience material." It is like our brains are recording our experiences in the form of neural connections. I wonder if this means the patterns of neural networks provides some sort of code that can be "read". It's a scary thought when put it in context of all the memory manipulation we see in movies!

Jessica Muzzo

2/26/2016 12:51:22 pm

Neuroanthropology is a special intersection of scientific disciplines, between the anthropological and the neurological. By combining two seemingly disparate fields, a broader and more holistic understanding of the underlying principles of human cognition can be drawn out. Neuroanthropology combines ethnographic analysis with rigorous, scientific experimentation, allowing for studies of naturalistic phenomena that otherwise would be confounded by unnatural laboratory settings.
An important consideration suggested by Downey and Lende is to think of culture in terms of skill acquisition. In this way, we can begin talking about embodiment of culture, the unconscious behaviors that have literally become who we are by physically shaping and manipulating the patterns in the brain. This lens allows us to see (as we discuss in later chapters of the book) how capoiera performers can eventually balance in incredible ways without conscious thought, or how medical practitioners in the United States and Japan can synthesize their knowledge of familiar illnesses into curative potentialities without intense concentration.

April

2/28/2016 09:04:59 pm

To extend my thinking about this chapter, as well as what is neuroanthropology is, I’ve come across a theoretical perspective that extends material feminism and seeks to engage with matter (yes, the stuff that takes up space) in a way that doesn’t consider culture and science as two separate entities. To quote from my new favorite review of material feminism, “material feminism is not entirely convinced that culture entirely either produces and/or contains materiality or that culture and matter are isolated domains” (Hird, 2009, p. 331). Karen Barad calls it the entanglement of technoscientific practices (like neuroscience, which use materials like EEG caps) with how culture is enacted as in how people are thinking about how the brain works (2007). For me, neuroanthropology is one discipline where these theoretical perspectives come into play very nicely. As this discipline develops, it is going to be critical to begin thinking about the applicable theories, especially from other disciplines, that need to be incorporated into the work that is done.

References:
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hird, M. J. (2009). Feminist engagements with matter. Feminist Studies, 35(2), 329–346.

رعاية مسنين بالمنزل link

12/27/2021 02:10:42 am

Great article source to read. Thank you for sharing this.

Karya Bintang Abadi link

6/2/2024 09:04:49 pm

Great website you have here. It's hard to find high-quality writing like yours these days. Thank you for your articles. I find them very helpful. I really appreciate people like you! Take care and have a great day ahead!!
<a href="https://karyabintangabadi.id/">Karya Bintang Abadi</a>

Taking a Giant Leap into Interdisciplinary Studies of the Brain

by April Irwin

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories