This book argues that neuroscience , evolutionary psychology , and behavioral economics often function as a political ideology masquerading as a new science. In looking at works by Antonio Damasio , Steven Pinker , Richard Thaler , Cas Sunstein , and John Tooby , I offer a close reading of the new brain sciences, and by turning to the works of Freud and Lacan , I offer a counter-discourse to these new emerging sciences. We shall see that an unintentional political manipulation of scientific thinking serves to repress the psychoanalytic conception of the unconscious and sexuality as it reinforces neoliberalism and promotes the drugging of discontent.
Psychoanalysis helps us to understand how instincts are replaced by drives, why humans are not dominated by evolution, why people participate in their own self-destruction , how the mental can disrupt the physical, and why the evolutionary goal of biological survival is often subverted. Although it would be wrong to reject the importance of biology and evolution for human beings, it is equally wrong to believe that we are determined solely by biological forces derived from natural selection. Unfortunately, powerful interests in the world want to convince people that genes and neurotransmitters shape who we are, and so the only solution to many of our psychological and social problems is some form of prescribed medication.1
As I will argue in Chap. 2, neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio return compulsively to the idea that human beings are shaped by inherited instinctual structures centered on promoting self-survival and self-regulation.2 Even when these scientists allow for environmental influence (nurture) through the theories of neuroplasticity and epigenesis, they often rely on an underlying naturalization of political ideologies. For instance, Damasio’s focus on self-regulation and self-survival can be shown to be driven by the political belief in the primacy of self-interested individuals and economic competition.3 Since genetic evolution depends on mutations, random recombinations, and changing environmental systems, the myth that we are driven by biology and selfish genes to only look out for ourselves and the people who are closest to us can be read as a naturalized political ideology.4 Here we see how seemingly objective and neutral scientific findings are shaped by particular social and political values and beliefs.
One of the main ways that science is influenced by ideology is through the use of particular words and metaphors. For example, when scientists discuss “cellular machinery” or the idea that the brain is an “information-processing machine,” the human mind and body is transformed into a machine or computer.5 Scientists may say that these are just symbolic terms or convenient placeholders, but as psychoanalysis shows, the choice of words and metaphors does affect how people think and feel about scientific theories.6 In fact, the very term “selfish gene” pushes people to conceive of genetics as a process privileging the isolated, greedy individual.7 Although scientists want to hold on to the idea that language is a transparent medium that does not affect the neutrality of scientific research, psychoanalysis helps us to see how unconscious symbolic associations affect scientists and the receivers of scientific knowledge. Therefore, in order to trace the ways particular uses of language affect science and the communication of scientific ideas, I will focus closely on reading the words and metaphors of contemporary brain scientists . One of my goals here is to show the importance of the humanities and psychoanalysis in enhancing our understanding of science and contemporary political ideology.
By paying close attention to the words and arguments of particular theorists, I hope to provide an example of the close reading of scientific texts. This process requires an extensive use of direct quotations so that it is clear that the analysis is derived from the actual words of the source. Moreover, I often examine the rhetoric of the texts from a psychoanalytic and political perspective, which challenges the supposed neutrality of science and other academic disciplines. However, instead of psychoanalyzing the authors, my goal is to provide an analytic account of the social and subjective motivations behind particular shared concepts and theories. Although it may appear that I am attacking these theorists for their destructive intentions, my desire is to explore the ways that ideology shapes unconscious representations. I thus turn to psychoanalysis not only to provide an alternative discourse but to use psychoanalysis as a method of interpretation.
I also want to stress that I do not provide a comprehensive survey of the new brain sciences and psychoanalysis. In contrast to this usual academic process, I focus on close readings of specific texts and theorists, and I point in the notes to other examples of the general argument. In the case of my use of psychoanalysis, I concentrate on employing fundamental concepts and theories derived from Freud and Lacan , and I avoid spending much time in examining the internal debates within the field. At all times, I seek to determine what psychoanalysis can bring specifically to the discussion that other disciplines cannot provide. From my perspective, it is the key concepts of the unconscious , drives, transference, and the super-ego that establish psychoanalysis as a coherent and separate discourse.
Although much ink has been spilled on the question of whether psychoanalysis is a science or not, I argue that psychoanalysis presents a radical questioning of scientific theory and practice from within science itself. In looking at the language and rhetoric of scientific discourse, I highlight the limits of empirical research, and I question the ability of science to be produced and communicated in a value-free way, and by returning to the subjectivity of the scientists , I hope to unveil the ideology of what I call “neuroliberalism.”
What few people have noticed is that the new discourses of neuroscience , evolutionary psychology , and behavioral economics are not simply promoting a particular set of theories, but they are also actively trying to undermine other discourses and disciplines. As I show in Chap. 3, in order to affirm the non-conscious nature of most brain activities, genetic processes, and mental functions, these new sciences often have to debase and attack the social sciences, the humanities, and psychoanalysis.8 From the perspective of many evolutionary psychologists , they are doing real research based on real facts, while the other academic disciplines are simply making things up and doing unnecessary work. Not only does someone like Steven Pinker feel that most academic disciplines are wrong and silly because they do not affirm biological determinism, he also thinks they are dangerous.9 What is ironic is that at the same moment that Pinker denies the importance of culture and language in shaping human...