@article{ref1,
title="Neurohistory is bunk? The not-so-deep history of the postclassical mind",
journal="Isis; an international review devoted to the history of science and its cultural influences",
year="2014",
author="Stadler, Max",
volume="105",
number="1",
pages="133-144",
abstract="The proliferation of late of disciplines beginning in &quot;neuro&quot;--neuroeconomics, neuroaesthetics, neuro-literary criticism, and so on--while welcomed in some quarters, has drawn a great deal of critical commentary as well. It is perhaps natural that scholars in the humanities, especially, tend to find these &quot;neuro&quot;-prefixes irritating. But by no means all of them: there are those humanists (evidently) who discern in this trend a healthy development that has the potential of &quot;revitalizing&quot; the notoriously bookish humanities. Neurohistory (or &quot;deep&quot; history) is a case in point, typically being dismissed (if registered at all) by historians while finding more sympathetic consideration elsewhere. While it sides with the former position, this essay attempts to develop a more complex picture. It will suggest that defiant humanists may underestimate the extent to which they are already participating in a culture profoundly tuned toward a quasi-naturalistic construction of the mind/brain as an embodied, situated, and distributed thing. The roots of this construction will be traced into the popular, academic, and technological discourses that began to surround the &quot;user&quot; in the 1980s, with special emphasis on the concomitant assault on &quot;cognitivism.&quot; What is more, the very same story--insofar as it demonstrates the complicity of the &quot;postclassical&quot; mind with our own man-made and &quot;digital&quot; age--will serve to complicate the neuro-optimists' vision of human nature exposed by a new kind of science.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0021-1753",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}