“It was generally accepted that our fate is hidden in the stars. But now we know exactly that it is written in our genes.”
This phrase of Watson’s expresses in a concise and aphoristic way the truth of science in relation to the biochemistry of the body, and its significance for “how it works” and “where it is going.” Even more so, when the one who utters it has something as great as the “discovery” of the double helix structure of DNA written in his biography. The modern biotechnological conception of the body and its specifications, and its undisputed success, is based mainly on the technical capabilities of representing/visualizing molecular and cellular structures. The goal, which sometimes seems to be achieved and sometimes not, concerns the ability to intervene in the internal cellular mechanisms of protein production.
The representations / visualizations (such as chromosomes, the double helix, and the mapping of the human genome) are often (and arbitrarily) identified with the revelation of causality for what happens inside the human body as mechanisms, as well as for anything that arises or is interpreted as an external expression of these mechanisms.
Can such a perception that says “our fate is written in our genes” continue its ideological and practical applications undisturbed in areas such as education or learning in general?
Let us consider on the right (ideological) end of the spectrum a view that would support that everything is written in the genes that are inherited, while the influence of the social environment, and of experiences (including education), would rather quickly encounter the wall and the boundaries set by genetic specifications. On the other side of the spectrum, the reasonable left-wing answer (despite any particular disagreements) should be sought in views such as that of John Locke’s Tabula Rasa and adopt the view that it is the influence of the environment and experiences, hence also education, that shapes personality and its development, and perhaps conclude by declaring the importance of equality of opportunity. In between these two poles, a multitude of different philosophical / sociological / psychological views and research concerning the percentages of influence of biological or social factors could flourish (and this is indeed what happens!). And while the truth-that-is-always-somewhere-in-the-middle comes as a redeeming answer (representative of generalized apathy), social Darwinism, as the dominant ideology, still holds strong, confirming that such dilemmas are answered most confidently by those who pose them.
Please excuse us for not dealing with the refutation of this dualism and its inherently deceptive positioning, but rather only examining some of its potential extensions or/and supersessions from the side of the techno-sciences of capital, at least in relation to issues of learning.
In response to Watson’s phrase, Fernardo Vidal, examining the “Historical Considerations of the mind and the self”, states:
“If everything goes according to the prophecies, in the 21st century we will not stop being our genes – but we will become our mind.”
And if a university professor, of much smaller scope than Watson, can boldly challenge the truths of the former, this is due to the emergence of neuroscience.
Neuroeducation: Neuroscience in Education
The following excerpt is a translation from the preface of the book “Mind Brain and Education, Essays in Neuroeducation”. This particular book emerged as a result of the work of a related workshop organized in 2003 by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a scientific platform of the Vatican. The views expressed below therefore constitute the final statement of the organizers and describe in characteristic fashion the general trends of what is referred to elsewhere as neuroeducation and elsewhere as educational neuroscience:
“The rapid development of neuroscience, advances in psychology and educational research, and interdisciplinary collaboration between these research fields lead to a better understanding of learning, knowledge, emotions, and consciousness. Education of children, from some perspectives and of adults as well, as it is often applied with traditional methods, should not ignore this progress, even if it is still in early stages. Education is an art that needs to incorporate scientific knowledge about the brain and mind, as well as other perspectives from social, political, and ethical aspects, in order to meet its highly complex goal: namely, the growth of a child into full adulthood as a conscious and educated human being. Considering the profound social changes occurring everywhere in a globalized world and the impact of information technologies on human life, appropriate changes in education can enrich the lives of millions. The workshop on Mind, Brain and Education addressed many aspects of the enormous challenges facing education related to brain development, neuronal plasticity, developmental psychology, language and reading acquisition, and dynamic modeling of learning and development. Discussions at the workshop converged on the following conclusions:
1. The promises of neuroscience and cognitive sciences for a better understanding of the underlying basis of learning are developing rapidly. Interdisciplinary research should include educators and deal with real educational practices.
2. Given the complexity of the issue, special care should be taken to avoid hasty conclusions about education that are driven by superficial treatment of recent findings, such as uncritical claims about ‘Brain-based schools’.
3. Nevertheless, there are areas where knowledge appears sufficiently coherent to support conclusions that have an impact on learning (e.g., sleep needs, numeracy, reading skills, and bilingualism), and these must be taken seriously into account. The relationships between the brain, the mind, consciousness, and the self must be explored sufficiently on an ethical basis so that human dignity is preserved and equality is promoted. Such an approach can offer rich opportunities for expanding the ways in which men and women today represent themselves, as well as for individual development and their potential for achievement.”
“The Educated Brain, Essays in neuroeducation”, Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Social Darwinism and the new eugenics, as an ideology useful for imposing harsh class criteria within educational systems, has been around for more than a century; but the actual eugenic practices that could be applied and stir up the educational market do not seem to have shown sufficient results so far; and ultimately they might seem a bit far-fetched and premature for their immediate commercial exploitation.
While genetic intervention to enhance one or the other learning ability is still in the realm of unfulfilled aspirations of genetic engineering, the invention of increasingly advanced brain imaging techniques (neuroimaging) has already begun to yield tangible results.
Plasticity, at the heart of new learning representations
Neuroscience therefore focuses on using technologies that measure brain activity in real time. Real-time means, to begin with, that potentially any state of mind that could be interpreted as mental/cognitive corresponds to the materiality of the brain’s neural circuits as a background. The claim that this background constitutes or indicates the causality of mental/cognitive states, including emotions, constitutes the fundamental ambition of neuroscience.
The basic structural elements/representations of the neuroscientific description of brain function include understanding the structure and function of brain cells, neurons, and their organizational patterns. The brain is presented as an extremely complex aggregation of neurons that connect with each other in fixed but also continuously changing ways, and in this way produce our thoughts, sensations, emotions, and behaviors. Neurons together with supportive cellular tissues form the nervous system, which consists of billions of cells and trillions of connections between them. The representations and descriptions of neuroscience have in reality changed or aim to change the way we perceive the functioning of such an internal system.
The so far techno-scientific perception of the mind as the general director of the body, located at the top of the hierarchy of its governance, set the limits of full brain development until the end of adolescence, and subsequently it was believed that the mind could function as a very complex genetically programmed computer. The neuroscientific description of the brain, as it emerges from neuroimaging studies in various age groups, comes to debunk this view as a myth. In contrast to the perception of the mind as a stable unit that possesses more or less a predetermined set of characteristics, neuroscientists introduced the term “plasticity” as the general concept that describes the processes of reorganization in brain tissues. The mechanical-theoretical analogy attributed to the brain is that of a complex, dynamic, developing system that works by utilizing the interconnections between its individual regions.
“Plasticity” means that neurons, through various processes, can form and also transform the brain; for example, by replacing dead neurons with new ones that can serve new functions, or even by altering (strengthening or weakening) the connections in already existing neurons, thus creating new associations. It is these processes that are attempted to be correlated with learning capabilities and skill development. In contrast to the rigidity of the genetically programmed brain that develops until the end of adolescence, the notion of plasticity in brain cellular structures may seem progressive. It acknowledges the importance of the social environment, emotions, and experiences from the outset, and while not disregarding the significance of genes, it claims that the evolutionary feature imparted by genes to the human brain is precisely this: its plasticity.
Could some benevolent dreamer claim that this scientific truth (let us accept it as such for the sake of the example) could serve as a banner for a progressive scientific approach to educational processes, where no person, regardless of age, gender, nationality, or class origin, should be considered incapable of learning, improvement, and evolution into an educated and conscious human being? Could, in this way, the popularization of such a scientific fact constitute a scientific-objective argument on the part of opposition to exclusions and discriminations among learners? We will leave this question temporarily unanswered, even though, even “intuitively”1, the objections are reasonable.
Sublimation and other scientific demons
Could these mental/psychological processes related to learning, on the other hand, be generally abstract or exclusively the subject of discussions and disagreements between the branches of philosophy, psychology, and the pedagogical/educational departments of universities? Or, putting the question differently, how is it possible for opinions of the type “we are our minds” to have the power to attain the status of axioms?
These issues are not new at all. The various positions and opinions regarding the soul and the body, cognition and consciousness can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, pass through the various doctrines of Christianity concerning divine mediation and the unity of soul and body, be separated again by Cartesian dualism, be treated as two well-regulated and synchronized clocks in predetermined harmony by Leibniz, be considered unified or interacting substances, have this interaction examined phenomenologically by the empiricist psychologists of the 18th century, in the 19th century seek the location of possible connections of this union and/or interaction in the brain and nerves from the most reified (and certainly reactionary-fascist) phrenology/craniology, and somewhat later begin to gradually analyze the development of concepts as a result of processed sensory impressions.2
During the 1970s, cognitive psychology as a new scientific field/area had to draw upon a legacy that, apart from the early cognitive views of Gestalt theory and Piagetian perspectives that were juxtaposed with behaviorism, included a wide range of techno-scientific analogies that no longer referred to the issue of the mind-body dualism, but to the processes and mechanisms of knowledge acquisition. Mechanical analogies referring to Wiener’s anti-aircraft systems and feedback mechanisms, Shannon’s information theory, the Turing machine…
The adoption of the concept of cognitive feedback mechanisms provided a unified theoretical framework for interpreting psychological phenomena and functions based on information processing. From the 1970s through the 1980s, a process was completed that reduced Psychology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Neurology, and Artificial Intelligence to a single Cognitive Science.
The field of neuroscience, according to many, aspires to, while according to others threatens to become yet another step toward the completion of this reductionism. We will not delve into the disagreements among academics who perhaps compete with each other also for very personal reasons. However, we will insist on the fact that this ambition of neuroscience to serve as the scientific basis, the mechanical foundation underlying the views of many scientific fields, also constitutes part of the paradigm shift in the search for causal relationships, which should be linked to techno-scientific imaging/visualizations of the human body as the sole true proof of the existence or non-existence of underlying mechanisms and their expressions.
The dynamic emergence of the aforementioned trends does not mean that in the future we will be talking about a unified science that will replace all previous fields that have dealt or are dealing with theories of knowledge. Moreover, their contribution to the ideological and disciplinary role of the educational system cannot be overlooked. However, recognizing a necessary bridging and grounding of the more theoretical and hypothetical conclusions of neuroscience on a solid pragmatic-mechanistic foundation can also determine the renewal of the ideological role of any overarching perspectives, since these will have to adjust their “magnitude” and “weight” according to the specifications of the bridge of neuroimaging machines in order to prove their scientific validity.
The emphasis placed on brain imaging techniques and measurements of its activity, in the technology that is, that accompanies the neurosciences, attempts to incorporate within these devices, the philosophical discussions of many centuries regarding the soul, the body, the mind and human life in general. The metaphysical character of these discussions/disagreements is transferred into the interior of the mystified neuroimaging machines. This mystification consists, on the one hand, in their arbitrary use as means that produce the authority of objectifying an internal mechanism as the basic substratum of the self, of behavior, of the senses and of emotions and, on the other hand, in the perception of the machine as the necessary bridge that can and must exist in order to ground the theoretical philosophical/psychological/sociological views (along with their metaphysics) in the reality of neuronal circuits.
Where do they mark? In the mind!
Perhaps the most important element of adopting the neuroscience substrate is that accepting this mechanistic conception, which is interrelated with the existence of corresponding imaging mechanisms, provides at least two possibilities: continuous monitoring and measurement of characteristics that could previously be described only qualitatively. Moreover, it offers the possibility of intervening in the bodily mechanisms considered underlying these characteristics—adding or removing elements to alter or “optimize” the constituent parts of these mechanisms using chemical, magnetic, or electrical/electronic means. Additionally, research concerning learning mechanisms at the neuronal level is already contributing to the dynamic development of neural information machines based on the architecture of artificial neural networks (ANNs). Conversely, the selection or definition of the significance of individual “brain mechanisms” cannot but take into account their utility both in creating new machines and in facilitating human-machine interfacing.
More specifically, regarding the adoption of neuroscience in the educational system as we know it, on the one hand, its mass character certainly provides the possibility of using quite large and diverse samples for study.3 On the other hand, the conditions under which research on learning mechanisms is conducted involve keeping a critical variable constantly controlled: the content of learning is predefined from the outset.4
With the already recognized objectivity of neuroimaging machines as a given, the characterization and designation of perceptual data as myths is a fundamental and recurring element among those who advocate the use of neuroscience data in education. As examples, the criticality of the first years of life up to 3 years, the existence of absolutely critical periods for brain development in children, the 10% and the hidden potential of the remaining unused percentage of the brain, the existence of left-brained or right-brained people (depending on the use of brain hemispheres), and the brain differences between men and women are some of these myths that are widely sold and bought either as ideology or as brain-enhancing (video) games and educational programs. In reality, the existence and spread of these “myths” is not at all separate from the historical course of neuroscience. Without having exactly this historical journey in mind in all its extent, we can point out that the experiments that have been conducted for more than four decades behind the closed doors of laboratories certainly played a role in the leakage and prevalence of one or another popular perception through the media. The refutation of such myths, which are characterized as neuromyths, constitutes one of the basic chapters of the relevant edition of the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation of the OECD, from which a series of other points and excerpts presented subsequently also originate.5
Through the debunking of myths, the “new truths” certainly emerge, perhaps until they too are overturned. We will not refer to the “discoveries” of neuroscience, as we would really have to delve very deeply into the bibliography in order to not present some myth here as well. We will limit ourselves to the summary presentation of the research findings so far, organized into as general categories as possible:
- The study of brain development from the prenatal stage through to adulthood and aging
- The impact of the environment on the learning brain (sleep, nutrition, social interaction, emotional regulation, attention and its disruption, physical exercise, music, motivation, play and videogames)
- Literacy and the mind (related to language – reading and writing)
- Numbers and the mind.
While most critical reviews of neuroscience and its relationship to education focus on the risks of old and new neuromyths, and advocate for using only the safer conclusions from neuroscience, the emergence of neuroethics as the counterpart to bioethics arises as the necessary tendency to restrain the “ill-conceived” that may appear. Conversely, the “ill-conceived” often seem to constitute pious wishes for the authorities, as the possibility of creating neurobiological product markets within or alongside the official education market promises a new field of profitability.
More specifically, the sale of Prozac-type products by prescription and the documentation of corresponding neuroimaging or even further, the use of implants inside the brain will probably not delay to come out of the laboratories for mass use. If the bourgeois desire of the family who wants their child-to-be-the-best is not enough for the commercial success of these products in the “white” market or in the “black”, it is not difficult to imagine various other more coercive ways. The recommendation for further examinations regarding a learning difficulty could perhaps be made together with the grading card, at least for “difficulties” that are already recognized by most as brain problems, such as dyslexia or the so-called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-ADHD). The enhancement of memory and attention with drug treatment either by doctor’s prescription or through online purchases is already a reality and for now seems to mainly concern students who, under pressure conditions, try with nails and teeth (and pills!) to increase their performance in exams and assignment submissions.6
The deployment of neuroimaging tools, initially for the diagnosis and characterization of the so-called 3-D (dyslexia – dyscalculia – dementia), as well as sleep and attention “disorders,” did not occur in a vacuum.
For example, presenting dyslexia as a brain problem, searching for and confirming its causality on images of specific areas of the brain that should function in a specific way (but don’t…) included and includes the de facto acceptance that the problem lies in the individual and not (let’s say) in the educational system, no matter how often specialists claim the opposite. The identification of the causes of dyslexia in specific areas of the auditory and visual cortex that exhibit atypical, i.e. non-normal characteristics, is now detected from a very young age and interventions are naturally proposed; the earlier the better.
According to the suggestions and expectations of educational neuroscientists, educational practices need to change. But not because (let’s say) it is extremely violent and unreasonable to have six-year-old children sit at desks and force them to shout TU-A-TA collectively, pretending they are reading, or to compel them to repeat the phrase “A, here is a duck with a cloth” accompanied by an outdated – and as unreasonable as the phrase itself – illustration7. But because educational practices must definitely be individually adapted to the impaired brain in order to restore it to its proper functioning. The potential interventions included in the repertoire of contemporary techno-scientific practices certainly concern not only the change of educational practices but also a range of other interventions in the chemistry, and/or the electromagnetic characteristics of the cerebral cortex.
Following the characterization of dyslexia as a brain problem, a second neologism characterizes difficulty in mathematical calculations as dyscalculia (dysarithmetria), a field where research based on neuroimaging is still in a relatively early stage. However, given the importance of numbers for the operation of information machines, this appears to be another dynamic field of intervention aimed at “decoding” these functions, possibly for translating them into usable input data for information machines.
Regarding language (and again) a large part of the research also concerns neuroimaging related to learning a second or third foreign language. Here the issue is not some problem but the optimization capabilities of brain functions that multilingual learning can offer and the most suitable age for learning them.
Referring to cases of “optimization”, we should also mention some more advanced versions. And here is where emerging neuroethics will have to set the terms and conditions for the proper use of any results. For example, while the use of implants that replace the loss of a sense and convert environmental sensory light, chemical or mechanical input into electrical signals that can be understood by the nervous system is favored for cases of individuals with disabilities – despite any side effects – the use of robotic structures that can be remotely controlled by electrodes implanted in the brain is presented as something different. We translate from the relevant neuroethics chapter of the OECD edition:
“In some studies, robotic structures can be remotely controlled by the mind: this way, rats have been able to direct robotic arms that gave them water; monkeys gained the ability to move the cursor on the screen to a specific target without any physical contact; even people with paralysis due to locked-in syndrome (LIS) have been trained to use a cursor so they can write on a computer screen using only their brain activity. To achieve these results, first the brain activity had to be recorded; subsequently, a computer connected to a manipulator arm was programmed in such a way that brain recordings could be matched to the ‘desire for movement’ and activate motion. The benefits of developing these studies are obvious for people with disabilities (quadriplegics, for example), who can thus control machines remotely. Their use in different contexts, for different purposes, however, is more than obvious that it should be closely monitored and controlled.”8
Plasticity, the individual and lifelong learning: a new paradigm of appreciation
The expected expansion of the pathologization-biologization-medicalization of difficulties in reading, writing and arithmetic (too old-fashioned!) to even more areas and aspects of learning9, in reality has another side as well; the definition of the normal or at least the expectation for its achievement.
However, in the promising field of neuroscience, normality, the average, and expected uniform behavior may cease to constitute the classic cudgel of discipline. While the enforcement of uniformity, often through physical violence, has been and remains a traditional characteristic of the mass education system, and has rightly been a subject of intense criticism, the trend toward individualization, as a broader direction of contemporary capitalist relations of exploitation, seems to better align with the aims of educational authorities and others.
We present here an excerpt (again) from the relevant OECD edition under the title: “More personalised assessment to improve learning, not to select and exclude” (transl: More personalised assessment to improve learning, not for selection and exclusion):
“The capabilities of brain imaging techniques could have very far-reaching consequences for education, as well as raise critical ethical issues. Knowledge about how the brain functions, as well as how aptitude and specific abilities are reflected in brain structures and processes, can be applied at the systemic level, critically examining conventional educational regulations and practices to question whether they are organized for optimal learning. Many conventional forms of assessment, where success can be boosted through grade inflation, have proven to be brain-unfriendly and are accompanied by low levels of learning retention.
But beyond these general findings, the results of neuroscience can also ultimately be applied to individual learners to explore issues such as the actual understanding of specific material or related to levels of motivation or anxiety. With proper use, this individual focus can add powerful diagnostic tools to the formative assessment and personalized learning process.
This relates to the aspiration that exists in a number of countries for greater personalization of curricula and educational practices. Neuroimaging potentially offers a powerful additional mechanism upon which personalization can be based. At the same time, brain studies show that individual characteristics fall short of being predetermined – there is continuous interaction between genetic functions, experience, and plasticity, such that the perception of what determines an individual’s abilities should be approached with considerable caution.
On the other hand, such individual applications of neuroimaging can also lead to even more powerful mechanisms for selection or exclusion than those already existing. A biological biography would be exposed to profound risks, while it could potentially be attractive to users such as universities or employers. It would be a misuse of the valuable tools of neuroimaging if these were developed in a negative way to reject students or candidates in fields that do not demonstrate sufficient learning ability or potential (especially since brain plasticity shows how open the capacity for learning is to development). An overly “scientific” perception of education used for selecting both students and teachers would be anathema to many.”
If in several countries the personalization of curricula and educational practices is pursued, this is but another acknowledgment that the obsolete mass-production educational system should follow the fragmented and already personalized labor market, at least in one respect: emphasizing individual biography and the personal accumulation of knowledge, skills, and competencies as capital. Such capital could become tradable and assessed in any form; even through neurobiographical means. For this to happen, it is necessary that the social construction of the individual knowledge-capital holder already exists and prevails to a sufficient degree. This figure would require no neuroethics to indicate right or wrong, they would already be prepared for various things. And if we are not mistaken, this figure already exists and is in the majority.
And if this is not enough to convince someone that neuroscience in education is mobilized around broader and more central directions and imperatives of capital, there is also another point: lifelong learning.
Copying again from the relevant OECD edition under the title “Brain research provides important neurological evidence to support the broad aim of lifelong learning and confirms the wider benefits of learning, especially for ageing populations” (transl: Brain research provides important neurological evidence to support the broader goal of lifelong learning and confirms the wider benefits of learning, especially for ageing populations):
“One of the most powerful sets of findings related to learning concerns the remarkable properties of brain “plasticity” – its ability to adapt, develop according to the needs experienced and the practice applied, to be able to self-«prune» when certain parts of it become unused – a process that continues throughout life, including even advanced old age much more than was previously believed. The demands placed on the individual and on the learning that he or she receives are the key to plasticity – the more you learn, the more you can learn. Far from supporting concepts that promote age discrimination which claim that education should be limited to young people – but also without ignoring the strong learning capacity of young people – neuroscience has proven that learning is a lifelong process and that the more it continues, the more effective it becomes.
[…] The huge and expensive problems presented by dementia in aging populations can be addressed through neuroscience.
Combinations of improved diagnostic methods, exercise opportunities, appropriate and evidence-based pharmacological treatment, and correct educational interventions can do much to maintain a positive level of functioning and prevent deterioration and decline.”
The personalization of learning, that is, the accumulation of individual cognitive capital and the lifelong dimension of this accumulation, certainly is not some conspiracy of neuroscientists. There is a series of events and real (capitalist) data that advocate for the adoption of these central policies by the bosses.10
In other words, for the enforcement of the necessity of lifelong learning, the fear of dementia or the onset of other neurodegenerative diseases would not be necessary at all. From an ideological point of view, however, the scientific documentation of the necessity and benefits of lifelong learning, including through neuroscience, comes to preemptively cover a potential gap.
The “plasticity” of the brain, which comes to supplement, extend and to some degree to overcome the ideological role of the “influence of genes”, apparently creates a contradiction: the contradiction between the rigidity of genes and the plasticity of the brain. We argue that this contradiction is not posed, nor would it be possible to pose it in a hand-waving manner, not only because the motives for investigating it are top-down defined and deployed. From this perspective (of top-down definitions), this contradiction could perhaps be emphasized as a more “leftist” argument at conferences among specialists of the kind, regarding the significance of their various discoveries.
But by doing so, are we not becoming abstract? We must therefore explain. Both the dyad of plasticity-individualization and the subsequent differential approach to each of the learning subjects, as well as the dyad of plasticity-lifelong learning, could be considered progressive, but only when judged by the criteria of “conservatism” and “progressiveness” of the “old” capitalist model. Uniformity, moreover, and its imposition constituted and continues to constitute not only a fundamental characteristic of the mass educational system, as we noted above, but also a fundamental characteristic of the fascist regimes of the past.
However, the techno-sciences of capital come in a double way to reset the terms of political/ideological dominance in favor of the bosses. These terms, moreover, in one limb of them – the “new”, seem to transcend historical fascism according to Wiener’s visions11, while they come to be imposed as a new (meta-)fascism.
For example, neuroimaging studies involving people with disabilities or neuroimaging studies showing alleged differences between people of different genders, races, or social classes could rely on (and often do in neuroscience studies) the (old) paradigm of defining normality and deviation from it, as a form of irregularity or anomaly, in order to impose hierarchies among learning subjects. At the same time, but not as its opposite (we insist!), the hierarchy in terms of individual cognitive/learning capital and the universal subsumption of knowledge acquisition processes under the lifelong capital, in terms of its market exploitation, constitutes the other side of the same coin, even though it uses the “progressive” concept of plasticity as its background.
Moreover, it does not surprise us that many times the more advanced techno-scientific views of the new paradigm come to invoke the overcoming of an older paradigm of evaluation, characterizing it as “conservative.” “Anti-sexism,” “anti-racism,” or “opposition to age discrimination,” and the supposed need for “smoothing out differences arising from socio-economic background” can be mobilized as arguments from the perspective of the necessity of individualization (for the good of each one separately and in apparent contradiction to the bipolarity of conformity-diversity) only to be reversed again and return to their real capitalist direction as differential racism, sexism, ageism, and overall class-based evaluation, which however is now presented as “natural” evolution (individual success or failure) imposed by the subject’s relentless lifelong adherence to the necessities and evaluations, knowledge and skills, of the market and capitalism in general. As capital violently restructures itself, devaluing and revaluing the working class again and again with the purpose of organizing, disciplining, and exploiting (and) new forms of labor, the tools of this process and the ideology accompanying them also change.
The definition of “conservative” and “progressive”, of “legitimate” and “illegitimate”, from the side of capital and its ideological hegemony, arrogantly proclaims that all answers have already been given in advance. Whatever side we choose, we are already lost from the start (or from the mind, if you prefer).
The real (theoretical – practical – militant) opposition to the appropriation of knowledge and the ways in which we learn it, requires much more than any philosophical objections regarding the truths of neuroscience and their representations. These are, after all, not used theoretically, but as practical tools for analyzing intellectual labor for the benefit of the bosses. What is still needed in practice is uncompromising opposition to the capitalist imperatives that accompany and promote restructuring—the individualization, lifelong learning, and new forms of imposition of hierarchies that are also achieved through neuroscience. Even more so, it requires the most comprehensive critique directed against the dynamic orientation of capital toward the mechanization of intellectual labor and its (re)production. Otherwise, the phrase “it matters to learn how to learn” will be (for the bosses) something more than a stupid tautology. And that goes double for the “WHAT.”
Program Error
cyborg #02 – 02/2015
- By saying “intuitively”, we mean: taking into account the critiques of the education system as it is now and specifically its ideological/disciplinary/epistemological role that it traditionally occupied in capitalism. However, as even these critiques have become muted and as the traditional institutions of the old welfare state have begun to crumble long ago now threatened with collapse, anything “innovative” can shine in the darkness of the uncertain future promising much… ↩︎
- Such a narrative, besides being incomplete, also implies the natural evolution of scientific views/perceptions and therefore it is not very much to our liking. However, precisely this naturalness of evolution that the history of sciences often implies as a dominant narrative, can itself constitute a catalyst for questioning such a “sacred” axiom. ↩︎
- But is it possible for our children to be “study samples” and not future “beacons of science”! Before you rush to accuse us of cynicism, we suggest you first read one or two publications of large-scale scientific research in schools. We won’t suggest any to you, the internet is full of such publications. And… the cynicism is all theirs! ↩︎
- With one or even more doses of rebellious romanticism we would like to believe that questioning this content as a cerebral (and not only!) process would bring the neuroimaging machines to their technical limits! But for this questioning it is that we will need, for sure, to spit blood. ↩︎
- It is the edition, “Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science”, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2007 ↩︎
- In the Health section of the BBC news website. Under the title “Do cognitive enhancement drugs work?” one can find answers that were given to the question of the title in a survey that was conducted online.
Here we present the answer of a physiological sciences student at Oxford University: “I have taken modafinil several times, mainly for its ability to increase alertness and allow me to stay awake for extended periods of time. I don’t take it very often, but if I want to stay awake for 20 or 30 hours, working on an assignment, it’s very useful”.
It should be noted that this particular substance is prescribed for sleep disorders (apparently for narcolepsy), while others seem to prefer medications prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ↩︎ - As for educational practices, the disagreements seem to have focused, for many years now, on two different methods of teaching language: the whole language method and the analytic-synthetic method. The whole language method advocates learning entire words rather than letters or syllables. In contrast, the analytic-synthetic method focuses on learning individual phonemes. Somewhere in between, some mixed methods are also proposed. This torturous and unreasonable “TOU-A-TA” that we mentioned above corresponds to the analytic-synthetic method, while the equally unreasonable phrase with “papi-me-ena-pani” – a direct copy-paste from the first lesson of the first grade textbook – from what we can understand, tries to propose the whole language method. ↩︎
- Apart from scientific laboratories, strict monitoring and control of such applications could also be applied with military discipline. For more on the subject, one can refer to Sarajevo #83: the mind of destruction. ↩︎
- According to the predictions and risks highlighted by neuroethics, neuroimaging technologies could perhaps in the near future predict or detect even more: lies, fears, intentions, potential “deviant behavior”… ↩︎
- For those who are interested, a series of such data and analyses can be found in the presentation of the event/discussion with the theme “for a cognitive movement” which is included in the publication of the assembly of game over for the “game over festival 2013”. ↩︎
- See excerpts from Wiener’s book “Cybernetics and Society” on pages 16, 18, 20. ↩︎