I'm not going to lie, I thought that the Brennan reading was painful and time consuming. Perhaps it's her fairly dry writing (sadly, Brennan herself died before finishing the editing, so I can forgive this), or her long reaching theories that seem do not always flow together, but I found my eyes straying every time they tried to stay on the page, darting around, looking for something else to do: which was not terribly difficult for them considering that I was reading the text in eBook format on my shiny new computer, custom built with my own hands.
Or maybe this mental wandering was the source of what Brennan calls an issue with "attentive energy(45)." Brennan connects our changing social structures with the "new maladies of the soul(45)" that have, while previously unknown, begun to manifest in significant quantities among our population. She speaks particularly of ADHD, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, and characterizes them as either an absence of energy or an excess of it (45). These new developments are interesting to us as Brennan argues they are not the product of genes or biology, but of our culture and social constructions. This then creates an intriguing divide with Damassio's view of behavior, which brought forth no shortage of intimidating concepts of how our behaviors adhere to a more neurological view. Damasio's approach to intellect and emotions, particularly his view on their division and the ways that they function together, seems somewhat at odds with Brennan's view of a cultural cause in this disorder, and I had to pause and think for a second - is that really the cause?
After all, there is always the possibility that ADHD, FMS and the like were not recorded en masse earlier due to simply being confused for other maladies or ignored altogether. The way in which we treat and raise our children, for example, is vastly different from how they were treated in the past for most of our population. The very concept of children as a blessing and them being a reward of themselves is a relatively new creation that recent (very controversial) studies have proclaimed a coping method for the exorbitant cost of raising a child, where in the past having a child meant a larger labor pool. Similar arguments could be made for CFS and FMS as well, so is it possible for Brennan to have the right effect, but the wrong cause?
On a broader view of the issue, are Brennan's views of energy shaping disorders compatible with the position of Damasio?
I didn't see as much of a contradiction between Brennan and Damasio. I think Damasio is keen on admitting that neuroscience is just one piece to a much larger puzzle, and he states on several occasions that he is not trying to discredit other fields- psychology, the humanities, etc. He seems to be trying to complement other fields as opposed to overshadowing them. I remember thinking that Damasio was remarkably respectful of other fields, in this regard (especially when you consider that people ALWAYS want to explain everything as a caveat of THEIR profession). Of course, they're both somewhat radical theories so its natural that they'd bump heads in a few places.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I think you're on to something with your observation that ADHD, CFS, and Fibromyalgia may very easily have existed for millenia unnoticed. And, admittedly, this would create some problems for Brennan's theory that they arise out of our "lack of outlets" in the modern world.
You bring up an interesting point. Because it is true that we live in very different environment then what our ancestors grew up in. I would not rule out the possibility that ADHD and other disorders were not recognized or confused with other symptoms in the past. But if this were the case, then our generation has taken a complete turnaround. Because now it seems that every small symptom is automatically classified as a specific disorder. It may be that these maladies are products of both cultural and biological components. But then the question arises of which one produced which?
ReplyDeleteI don't really see a contradiction between the two viewpoints, though I might be missing something. Damasio seemed more concerned with the effects changes in the brain had on a personality, whereas it seems like Brennan's "changes" in personality are all caused by external, non-physical stimuli. The only thing is, I don't think that the problems outlined by each author are caused exclusively by physical and environmental factors, exclusively, and that's where I think Brennan's work is going to start getting interesting.
ReplyDeleteSean, I am so relieved to know I was not the only one who found Brennan's ramblings to be "painful" and "long reaching." I think the main differences between she and Damasio are that Damasio stayed within the bounds of his area of expertise (Neuroscience). He demonstrated an understanding that there are many "pieces to the puzzle," as Gordon pointed out in his response, and tried to demonstrate how neuroscience fits in to a much larger picture.
ReplyDeleteI found her discussion on attentive energy, or New Maladies interesting because she doesn't offer any historical context whatsoever, as you point out. Nor does she account for the pharmaceutical/political/economic aspects of these disorders the diagnostic parameters of them, or the debate as to whether some of them exist at all.
I feel that Damasio and Brennan are making similar claims about emotions (or affects), namely that they are necessarily shared and transmitted amongst individuals. Damasio takes a neurological approach to proving this thesis, and he seems to acknowledge that his contribution is just another piece in the larger puzzle. Brennan takes the view that affects are transmitted through unconscious olfaction, and she seems less accepting of competing ideas (she seems to disregard/ignore the contributions of her predecessor, Damasio).
ReplyDeleteWhile I find Brennan’s arguments intriguing, I cannot help but doubt her credibility and question some of her claims. Her assertion that affects carry a smell, for one, seems farfetched.