The neurosciences have spawned in only a few decades both a hegemonious neuro-culture and a neural subjectivity (i.e. Fernando Vidal’s “cerebral subject”, Nikolas Rose “neurochemical self”). How we experience ourselves and the world increasingly hinges on neurological rather than psychological and internalistic notions. Within the field of the sciences themselves the prefix “neuro” becomes ubiquitous. Approaches, such as neuroeducation, neuropolitics or neuro-aesthetics, are prone to flood our contemporary life-world.
But what if these swift and sometimes blunt and misplaced expropriations of the neurosciences tell us something essential on the neurosciences themselves, and, in particular, on the wedding of the neuro with the sciences? In other words if there is such a thing as “neurologisation” (spawning a neuro-culture and a neuro-subject) does this then not warrant a closer critical-philosophical scrutiny of the neurological turn in Academia (affecting thoroughly and even revolutionizing the humanities) and how it interacts with processes in culture and subjectivity?
In this respect, the [...]
