Brain Technologies of the Self Brenninkmeijer, Jonna Monique
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Groningen Brain technologies of the self Brenninkmeijer, Jonna Monique IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2013 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Brenninkmeijer, J. M. (2013). Brain technologies of the self: how working on the self by working on the brain constitutes a new way of being oneself. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 28-09-2021 Brain Technologies of the Self How working on the self by working on the brain constitutes a new way of being oneself © 2013 Jonna Brenninkmeijer Publication of this dissertation was made possible with the financial support of the University of Groningen and the Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology, and Modern Culture (WTMC). Cover and layout : Marc Woldering Printing : Ridderprint, Ridderkerk RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN Brain Technologies of the Self How working on the self by working on the brain constitutes a new way of being oneself Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. E. Sterken, in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 15 april 2013 om 16.15 uur door Jonna Monique Brenninkmeijer geboren op 28 december 1977 te Groningen Promotor: Prof. dr. G.C.G. Dehue Copromotor: Dr. M. Derksen Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. A. Mol Prof. dr. A. Pickering Prof. dr. ir. P.P.C.C. Verbeek ISBN: 978-90-367-6099-7 Contents Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Brain devices and the marvel 15 Chapter 2 Taking care of one’s brain 43 Intermezzo From self to others to agents 73 Chapter 3 Neurofeedback as a dance of agency 81 Chapter 4 Genealogy of the extended self 105 Chapter 5 Reflection and conclusion 135 Bibliography 147 Summary 165 Samenvatting 171 Dankwoord (Acknowledgements) 179 Appendix: Users 183 Appendix: Pictures 185 Endnotes 187 Introduction “People, come on, start influencing your brain.” That idea is very marketable, it sells very well. In our culture and society it is a digestible concept. When people have a problem, they desperately want to recover and are prepared to try anything. And on the internet you are bombarded with options. (12) This citation is a self-critical and reflexive phrase from a person (“user 12”) who tried multiple brain enhancers to solve his problems, especially concentration problems. He started with brain wave meditation, used several pharmaceuticals, tried various (brain) therapies and bought some technical devices and computer games in order to manipulate his brain. Some of these devices had some effects, in the sense that they temporarily ‘cleared his mind’, and others had no result at all. Hence, this person is quite skeptical about certain brain devices and therapies, but this does not restrain him from trying other brain therapies. He is critical about some brain enhancing practitioners and manufacturers, but he is also convinced of the need and possibility to change his brain. One might wonder where this idea to change the brain comes from, and for what reason people keep on trying the recipe – even if they do not notice any immediate effect. The explanation of user 12 is clear: on the Internet you are ‘bombarded’ with options. The message to take care of your brain is indeed widespread on the Internet and in other media. ‘You think what you eat’ warns a newspaper headline. ‘Fool your brain’ reads the heading of a news-item about dieting. ‘Reclaim your brain’ orders an advertisement for brain games. ‘Are your neurotransmitters out of balance?’ asks a website for mood and energy 7 Introduction management for women. ‘Do you think this guy can be his real self with such a brain?’ inquires the medical director of a brain clinic while he points at an awful looking brain-picture (SPECT) in an Internet-commercial.1 The same doctor contributes more creative phrases: ‘A lot of people think that mood problems are all in their head, that these are psychological problems. But they are not: they are brain problems.’ Spreading the message that people should work on their brains is not only a commercial trend, but also a serious quest of neuroscientific associations that for example organize ‘brain awareness weeks’ to make people more alert on their brains’ capacities and how these can be to improved.2 Such brain awareness campaigns followed a scientific development in which many problems that were formerly called ‘mental’ or ‘social’, such Figure 1. Logo of the Dana as depression, anxiety, hyperactivity or learning Foundation disabilities, were reconceptualized as brain disorders (Conrad & Potter, 2000; Lane, 2006; Rose, 2007). The causes and solutions of these problems altered with the concepts: from life events to brain disturbance and from psychotherapy to brain interference (Clarke, Mamo, Fishman, Shim, & Fosket, 2003; Rose, 2007). These scientific developments, combined with a political drive to increase health and happiness in the population, multiplied the attention to the brain.3 These transformations were preceded by a shift in thought style regarding the brain. A few decades ago, the idea emerged that the brain was plastic and malleable, instead of stable and immutable as most neurologists thought before (Rubin, 2009). This change in perspective brought the promise of brain intervention as therapeutic intervention rapidly into action, since the brain was no longer seen as an organ that determined behavior, but also as an organ that could be trained or enhanced to change this behavior (Rubin, 2009). Moreover, the idea of a plastic brain transformed several academic disciplines because many researchers started 8 Introduction to focus on the flexible neuro-part of their work and formed new sub-disciplines, such as neuropsychology, neuropolitics or neuro-economy, often subsumed under the name of ‘neuroscience’. In other words, the shift in thought style in neurology from a brain that was static to a brain that was plastic gave rise to contemporary neuroscience. (Abi-Rached & Rose, 2010; Pitts-Taylor, 2010). As a consequence of these neuroscientific developments, people are increasingly taught that not only the cause of their behavior, but also the solution for their problems is located in their brains, and hence they are more and more inclined to work on their brains to become better, happier, more peaceful, or smarter. Although user 12 might be more fanatic or experimental than others in his quest to improve his brain, he is not an exception. Many people nowadays try to manipulate their brains by using techniques varying from pharmaceuticals, to special diets or nutrition, games, or technical devices (e.g. Pitts-Taylor, 2010; Thornton, 2011). On the Internet, or in special ‘brain clinics’, several devices are obtainable that promise to improve people’s brains and make them happier, healthier or more successful. Light and sound machines, for instance, promise to switch someone’s brain state into meditation, hallucination or concentration (e.g. Heller, 1991). Neurofeedback is promoted to cure people from disorders like Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) or to improve their performance in music or sports (e.g. S. Johnson, 2004a; Mattin, 2006; Roberts, 2006). And devices that produce electric or magnetic current are said to recover people from their depressions, anxieties, physical pain or sleeping problems (e.g. Harvey, 2004; Naish, 2007).4 Brains and selves Working on the brain to improve oneself brings an ontological difficulty. As the presented media quotes demonstrated, the brain seems to be turned into an entity that can be changed and fooled, whereas it can also be out of balance, disorder your mood, and keep you away from being your real self. That is, the brain has a 9 Introduction passive and an active function. This raises the question of who or what responds to these actions of the brain. Listening to media quotes, neuroscientists, or brain device users immediately gives the answer: you, or the self, is the respondent of the brain. People work on their brains because they want to improve themselves. This, however, requires a distinction between the self and the brain, because the self tries to regulate the brain. While the self is reduced to the brain, it simultaneously is the operator of this brain. To state this more clearly: you have to take care of your brain, while your brain takes care of you. I argue that this ontological distinction between one’s self and one’s brain should not be considered as a Cartesian distinction between something material (the brain) and something ‘non-material’ (the mind). But the monistic view, generally stated as ‘the mind is what the brain does’ (c.f. Churchland, 1986; Rose, 2007, pp. 192, 198), does not suit either because it veils the ambiguity between the brain and the self. In this dissertation, I examine how people handle this ambiguity. I analyze how working on the brain operates on the self by studying people who seem to be convinced that their selves are (or are in) their brains, since they have decided to change themselves by manipulating their brains.