Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:50:07.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embodied Knowing, Judgment, and the Limits of Neurobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2013

Linda M. G. Zerilli
Linda M. G. Zerilli*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My response to John Hibbing raises questions about the nature of judgment implied in the biology and politics agenda that he would have us adopt. Although rightly critical of overly rationalist and cognitivist models, the neurobiological turn casts action and judgment as the mere effects of already primed dispositions, for which the giving of reasons is little more than window-dressing on what was going to happen in any case. Furthermore, the reductively biological picture of human beings that emerges in Hibbing's account is hard to square with democratic conceptions of politics that emphasize the capacity for freedom and association with others. Finally, I worry that Hibbing's unapologetic embrace of scientism remains entangled in the fraught history of deterministic explanatory models and American social science.

Type
Reflection Response
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 512 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balaban, Evan. 2001. “Behavior Genetics: Galen's Prophecy or Malpighi's Legacy?” In Thinking about Evolution: Philosophical and Political Perspectives, ed. Singh, R. S., Krimbas, C. B., Paul, D. B., and Beatty, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Clive. 2008. “Political Affects in Public Space: Normative Blind Spots in Non-Representational Ontologies.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33: 186–200.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William. 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William. 2005. “The Media and Think Tank Politics.” Theory and Event 8(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. 2005. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Ann. 2012. Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frost, Samantha. 2012. “Body, Cause, Politics: Considering the Turn to Biology in Feminist Theory.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2007. “Are We Losing Our Minds? Cognitive Science and the Study of Politics.” Political Theory 35(6): 704–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnell, John G. 2012. “Unpacking Emotional Baggage in Political Inquiry.” In Essays on Neuroscience and Political Theory: Thinking the Body Politic, ed. Vander Valk, Frank. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. 2010. Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2000. The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2010. The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard. 2000. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard. 2001. It Ain't Necessarily So: The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leys, Ruth. 2011. “The Turn to Affect: A Critique.” Critical Inquiry 37(3): 434–72.Google Scholar
Masumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 2011. “Receptivity and Judgment.” Ethics and Global Politics 4(4): 231–54.Google Scholar
Panagia, Davide. 2009. The Political Life of Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Protevi, John. 2009. Political Affect: Connecting the Social and the Somatic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Shouse, Eric. 2005. “Feeling, Emotion, Affect.” M/C Journal 8 journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/03-shouses.php.Google Scholar
Thiele, Leslie Paul. 2006. The Heart of Judgment: Practical Wisdom, Neuroscience, and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar