What Should We Do with Our Brain?

by Catherine Malabou, Sebastian Rand (Translator), Marc Jeannerod (Introduction)

Recent neuroscience, in replacing the old model of the brain as a single centralized source of control, has emphasized 'plasticity,' the quality by which our brains develop and change throughout the course of our lives. Our brains exist as historical products, developing in interaction with themselves and with their surroundings. Hence there is a thin line between the organization of the nervous system and the political and social organization that both conditions and is conditioned by human experience. Looking carefully at contemporary neuroscience, it is hard not to notice that the new way of talking about the brain mirrors the management discourse of the neo-liberal capitalist world in which we now live, with its talk of decentralization, networks, and flexibility. Consciously or unconsciously, science cannot but echo the world in which it takes place. In the neo-liberal world, 'plasticity' can be equated with 'flexibility'—a term that has become a buzzword in economics and management theory. The plastic brain would thus represent just another style of power, which, although less centralized, is still a means of control. In this book, Catherine Malabou develops a second, more radical meaning for plasticity. Not only does plasticity allow our brains to adapt to existing circumstances, it opens a margin of freedom to intervene, to change those very circumstances. Such an understanding opens up a newly transformative aspect of the neurosciences. In insisting on this proximity between the neurosciences and the social sciences, Malabou applies to the brain Marx's well-known phrase about history: people make their own brains, but they do not know it. This book is a summons to such knowledge.

Collection: Perspectives in Continental Philosophy

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Psychology, Neuroscience, Biology, Academic

120 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Catherine Malabou (b. 1959) is a French philosopher. She is a professor of philosophy at The European Graduate School / EGS and professor of modern European philosophy at the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy (CRMEP) at Kingston University, London. She is known for her work on plasticity, a concept she culled from Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, which has proved fertile within contemporary economic, political, and social discourses. Widely regarded as one of the most exciting figures in what has been called “The New French Philosophy,” Malabou’s research and writing covers a range of figures and issues, including the work of Hegel, Freud, Heidegger, and Derrida; the relationship between philosophy, neuroscience, and psychoanalysis; and concepts of essence and difference within feminism.

Born in Sidi Bel Abbès, Algeria, Catherine Malabou began her advanced studies at the Université Paris-Sorbonne before attending the prestigious École normale supérieure de Fontenay-Saint-Cloud, where, in 1994, she submitted her dissertation on G.W.F. Hegel under the direction of Jacques Derrida. Her thesis was published in 1996 under the title L’avenir de Hegel: Plasticité, temporalité, dialectique (The Future of Hegel: Plasticity, Temporality and Dialectic, 2005) with a long preface by Derrida, whom she would later co-author La Contre-allée (1999; Counterpath, 2004). Before arriving at Kingston University, Malabou became assistant professor at the Université Paris Ouest Nanterre in 1995 and, as a frequent lecturer in the USA, has taught at UC Berkeley, The New School in New York City, New York State University at Buffalo, the University of Wisconsin in Madison, UCLA, Johns Hopkins, and, most recently, UC Irvine.

Catherine Malabou’s philosophical work forges new connections and intellectual networks that imaginatively leap across existing synaptic gaps between, for example, continental philosophy and neuroscience; the philosophy of neuroscience and the critique of capitalism; neuroscience and psychoanalysis; and continental and analytic philosophy (notably Kant). As well, her work is explosive and iconoclastic, shattering perceived understandings of Hegel, feminism and gender, and the implications of post-structuralism.

Starting with her 2004 book, Que faire de notre cerveau? (What Should We Do With Our Brain?, 2009), Catherine Malabou has argued passionately and provocatively for a connection between continental philosophy and empirical neuroscience. She centers her argument on a highly original interpretation of the concept of plasticity, an interpretation that she first uncovered in her reading of Hegel’s dialectic. Plasticity refers to the capacity both to receive form and to give form. Although the concept of plasticity is central to neuroscience, Malabou’s work shows that neuroscientists and lay people often misunderstand the basic plasticity of the brain, succumbing to an ideology that focuses solely on its capacity to receive form, that is, the capacity of the brain to be shaped in and through its experience of the world to the exclusion of its creative, form-giving power. In other words, the reigning ideology that governs both the neuroscientific community and the broader culture substitutes flexibility for plasticity, and flexibility, Malabou warns us, “is plasticity minus its genius.” The emphasis on flexibility also fits all too neatly with the demands of capitalism under neoliberalism, which demands efficiency, flexibility, adaptability and versatility as conditions of employability in a post-Fordist economy. The creative, form-giving power of the brain—its genius—consists in its explosive capacity, a capacity that unleashes new possibilities, and herein also lies the capacity for resistance. In her conclusion, Catherine Malabou writes: “To ask ‘What should we do with our brain?’ is above all to visualize the possibility of saying no to an afflicting economic, political, and mediatic culture that celebrate

Reviews

[Yules]

The answer is: overthrow capitalism.

[Philippe · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this incisive essay Catherine Malabou reflects on the implications of a new brain view on our world view. The neurosciences are revealing an image of the brain that is far removed from the machine metaphors that have guided our understanding of selfhood for ages. Our brain is an evolving network that connects neuronal spaces with multiple and malleable functionalities. It is plastic and continues to develop and heal itself throughout our lifespan. But these important discoveries do not seem to have affected our shared understanding of ourselves. They have not disclosed new ways for living and new ways to be happy. In short the neuronal revolution has not liberated us. Quite the opposite phenomenon seems to be taking place. Malabou sees in this new image of the decentralized, adaptive brain a template for the neuronal ideology that propels forward contemporary global capitalism. Organizations have to become flexible and innovative to survive. Old hierarchies are shed to make way for networked forms of self-organization. For workers this absence of hierarchy and the necessity of being mobile and adaptable are the source of new anxieties. The workplace has turned into the antechamber of nervous depression. This ideological norm of flexibility steers us toward sickness and has to be resisted.

Malabou sees the locus of resistance in some sort of brain literacy. All of us need to reflect on the question What should we do with our brain? This reflection „should allow us to understand why, given that the brain is plastic, free, we are always and everywhere in chains”. Malabou’s pedagogic project hinges on the conceptual distinction between plasticity and flexibility. The former is situated between two extremes: the taking on of form and the annihilation of form. Plastic material can be sculpted, but it can also detonate. From this tension between formation and disappearance of form emerges a new concept of adaptive selfhood. By the way, there is a striking correspondence between Malabou’s concept of an adaptive selfhood that maintains this homeostasis between forces of formation and annihilation and the identity function in Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model.

With her analysis the author also seeks to critically question a naive materialism that sees an uninterrupted causal chain from the neuronal to the mental. Because behind this harmonious conception sits a Darwinist stereotype of a successful personality. For Malabou the transition from biology to consciousness supposes friction and resistance: „there is not simple and limpid continuity from the one to the other, but rather transformation of the one into the other out of their mutual conflict (…) Only an ontological explosion could permit the transition from one order to another (…) The neuronal and the mental resist each other and themselves, and it is because of this that they can be linked to one another.” This image of coherence despite conflict and incommensurability is the cornerstone of a worldview in which true freedom exists.

This short book is thought-provoking and well written. Recommended.

[Mikael Hall · Rating 3 out of 5]

I sin bok Vad ska vi göra med vår hjärna? tar Malabou utgångspunkt i den senare tidens forskning om hjärnan och framförallt tanken om hjärnans plasticitet. Vad hon undersöker är de filosofiska och politiska implikationerna vi måste identifiera med bakgrund i denna nya syn på hjärnan. Då vi numera förstår hjärnan som något som förändras, byggs och bildas kan vi säga att hjärnan är historisk och därmed skilja oss från en tidigare mekanistisk syn på hjärnan som en maskin. Hjärnan formas och formar, likt ett plastiskt material är den följsam och smidig, men inte oändligt polymorf. Just att plasticitet inte ska förstås som en oändlig formbarhet är viktigt för Malabou som vill särskilja tanken om den plastiska hjärnan från en tanke om oändlig flexibilitet. Denna distinktion är intressant och viktig samtidigt uppfattar jag hennes implikationer som ganska vaga och ointressanta. Det var snarare den relativt lättillgängliga introduktionen till samtida neurovetenskap som gjorde att jag fastnade. Tanken om hjärnan som historisk och som formbar och formande. Tidigare klara gränser som det mellan det tänkta och det fysiska visar sig vara flytande och suddiga då hjärnan inte kan förstås som en maskin utan just som något som faktiskt “dialektiskt” samverkar med vårt sinne. Med detta i bakhuvudet blir det också intressant att titta på trauman och psykisk ohälsa som något just materiellt, kopplat till hjärnas fysiska sammansättning. Detta klargör också för mig varför det kan vara så oerhört svårt att komma vidare eftersom det som krävs är det fysisk-psykiska arbetet att skapa nya neurala kopplingar och band.

[Samira · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the author writes: This book is for everyone and this question is for everyone too. She provocatively shows how the neuroscience fails to explains the transmission from signal to meaning despite all its developments. We still don't know how a singular self is constituted out of a universal self with transmission of synapses.

Pointing to how these sciences neglect plasticity, in the sense that it can not only receive form, it can also give form. But what about the annihilation of all forms? what about resilience to take form? Elasticity, or bending is what is mainly talked about, not only in brain functioning, but also in Education. I can't stop thinking of education in terms of forming and how we educators forget the explosive plasticity. What we mean by Bildung is mostly to form oneself, as opposed to say no to all forms.

She instead suggests an ontological explosion that allows transmission to a different order. "From time to time we should allow ourselves to explode."

what I mostly like is the chapter on the brain, where she demonstrates the language of neuroscience is not actually neutral, rather it reflects the political dominance of the society we are living in. The brain works as a network as much as the companies and corporations do.

[Elizabeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am reading 20 years after the publication of this work of Continental philosophy, but I feel I have timed it right for my own brain. Last summer, my reading on AI and teaching with screens took me back into neuroscience and I was struck— really floored— by taking into myself the idea that the brain continues changing and being formed throughout life. So, this summer I finally got to this book that takes that idea deeper and dialectical and then out into the world. That is, the brain is forever PLASTIC, which means both formation and explosion. It’s not flexible— it’s not JUST adapting, nor is it only resisting. It is all of this, and the transitions matter to our ideology. But so what? Malabou asks what it matters in ourselves or our world. It means we can understand our world and ourselves not as machines (as we continue to do) but as electrochemical reactions as waves and surfers— as resistance and explosion. She wants these ideas to give us the strength to both see our world for the moving thing it is but to understand and then act to resist that which would hurt and freeze us.

At least, I think that is what is going on. I would love to talk about this book.

[draxtor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this in a day and need to reread. Really really important stuff!
TL'DR? The brain is ours, it has a story, it can make a story, it is NOT just programmed neurons that are only FLEXIBLE for the purpose of adjusting to more efficient exploitation in our capitalists hellhole but is indeed a thing of wonderous PLASTICITY where improvising, creating, creative destruction can be and SHOULD BE excersized until the VERY LAST DAY we breathe on this earth.
Ironically I was accompanying my 83-year old dad to a doctor who specializes in cognitive issues and early dementia cases.
I showed her the book cover and she rolled her eyes.
When I talked about my opinion that my dad would benefit from reading a book every once in a while rather than watching TV every day, she turned to him and said: "Ohh your son is quite demanding is he not?"
Now granted: maybe this was an ice breaker, tongue in cheek but are we not living in a world where reading ONE BOOK every once in a while is TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR?
What does this doc want? My dad to be "flexible" to accept a bit of decline as long as the TV schedule is nice and juicy and always on?
Sigh .... I think we should - like Catherine Malabou with this thesis - demand MUCH MUCH MORE from life!

[woxerelex · Rating 2 out of 5]

просто помню что ехал в старую Ладогу 4 часа на электричке и решил прочитать давно купленную книжку от vac с красивой обложкой
вот вообще не был готов в тот момент к птичьему языку, просто поплавился в руках с книжкой, вообще не помню, наверно, что-то про то, что капитализм плохо))

[Roger Whitson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is my first reading of Malabou, and I have to say that I was a bit disappointed. First of all, I feel she caricatures Bergson - who I feel would be more of an ally to the insights of neuroplasticity than she admits in the book. I also don't know what Darwinian neuroscientists she's critiquing in the book, but the short gloss she gives of natural selection is also quite superficial. To be sure, some people interpret natural selection as "the best," but more nuanced interpretations show how it is basically the reaction of biology to the actions of the organism in the environment. Her short description of neural connections as either growing or withering based upon which actions were performed would seem to accord with that description.

Finally, I have to say that Malabou's interest in "explosion" seems quite aligned with the ideology of today. It's like we're caught in a binary of just submitting to the demands to be flexible, or we cease to be flexible and resist "explosively" the oppressions that are put upon us. But this binary is itself a product of the time we live in. She makes a feeble argument that "some explosions are not in fact terrorist - explosions of rage for example" - apparently saying that her own appeal to explosiveness isn't embedded in the same logic. But that seems disingenuous.

I loved Malabou's argument that plasticity involves something more than flexibility, and to misrecognize this means that we simply submit to the ideology of precarious labor. I find that to add a political dimension to other books in the philosophy of mind - those of Francisco Varela and Andy Clark. Yet I have to say that I find Varela, Clark, and Evan Thompson's analysis of the actual neurobiology to be more detailed, nuanced, and compelling. Perhaps her other books are better.

[Steen Ledet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Astonishing, provocative book about our contemporary (neoliberal?) era.

[Tuomas Aitonurmi]

Pidän Malaboun tekstiä haastavana. Joudun tarkistamaan monien sanojen merkityksiä. Jotkin jätän laiskuuttani tai väsyneisyyttäni tarkistamatta, ja vain oletan pienellä päättelyllä, mitä hän on ehkä tarkoittanut. Tämä on varmasti ollut melkoinen teksti suomentaa.

Jos ajatus harhailee ja päätyy lukemaan sivua eteenpäin sellaisessa tilanteessa, kun havahtuu, ei välttämättä ole mitään käsitystä, mitä sivulla on sanottu. On palattava ja oltava tarkempi. Malaboun teksti opettaa läsnäoloa lukemisen äärellä – siinä hänen omaa antiaan aivojen toiminnalle, mikäli tällaista puolta itsessään haluaa harjoittaa. Ainakin näin kävi minulle lukijana, jolle aivotutkimus ja filosofia eivät ole varsinaisesti jokapäiväistä tekstisisältöä. Vähintään puolet tekstistä menee ohi, yli ja ympäri, mutta päätän hyväksyä tilanteen. Jatkan sinnikkäästi – sitäkin haluan opettaa aivoilleni.

Pidän teoksen ideasta, siitä että aivotutkimuksen tuloksia yhdistetään filosofiaan.

Niin: mitä tämän kirjan sisällöstä sitten varsinaisesti osaan sanoa. Vedän henkeä ja puristan jotain ulos.

Alun aivotieteen yksityiskohtiin keskittymisestä en oikeasti osaa sanoa juuri mitään, enkä tainnut ymmärtää paljoakaan. En edes poeettisella tasolla sisäistänyt hirveästi, siltä tuntuu, koska teksti kuitenkin ehdottaa itseään ns. tiukkana tietotekstinä.

Toistuva ajatus tekstissä on se, että teemme itse aivojamme. Sitä(kin) plastisuus merkitsee. Ympäristön vaikutusta, siihen mukautumista enemmän tai vähemmän tarkoituksella.

Malabou toistaa moneen kertaan, että aivot eivät ole tietokone, joka on täysin vanhentunut määritelmä tässä yhteydessä.

Malabou kirjoittaa joustavuuden ja plastisuuden erosta. Ensin mainittu ei ole monessakaan tilanteessa lopulta hyvä juttu. Lähdemme helposti joustamaan nykyisin vallitsevan suorituskulutuskilpailun mukana, koska se kannustaa joustavuuteen, tai oikeammin patistaa siihen.

Vastarinnan ja vastustuksen merkitys korostuu myös muutoksen – erityisesti luovan sellaisen – tapahtumisessa. “Joustavuus ei ole luovaa, koska se ei tuo esiin minkäänlaista todellista jännitettä säilymisen ja kehityksen välillä vaan sekoittaa ne toisiinsa puhtaan ja yksinkertaisen imitaation ja suorittamisen logiikan sisällä. Se on vain uusintavaa ja normatiivista.”

Malaboun pääteesiksi näyttää muodostuvan, että välillä on syytä räjähtää raivoon, jotta emme ole vain kapitalismille kuuliaisia työntekijöitä, alati joustavia tämän järjestelmän puitteissa, vaan jotain aivan muuta. Räjähtämisen täsmälliset tavat lukijan on luotava mielessään itse.

Edelleen, kun luen Malaboun lauseita räjähtämisestä, koen jonkinasteista häpeää. Koen yrittäneeni, mutta jokaisen kulman takaa löydän vain uusia epäonnistumisia. Onko tämä sisäistettyä kapitalismin mieltä, yritys säilyttää ”joustavuutensa” pakonomaisesti? En tiedä. Olen ihminen, siksi epäonnistun. Tietysti. On hetkiä jolloin hyväksyn tämän ja hetkiä jolloin moitin itseäni tästä tavalla, joka lannistaa maan rakoon. En tiedä pääsenkö koskaan tästä kehästä irti. Ehkä se, että olen edes yrittänyt kirjoittaa alistavien systeemien kritiikkiä, olen lähtenyt niistä systeemeistä välillä pakoon ja olen yhä valmis toteamaan, että ei koskaan enää – jos vaan mitenkään onnistun pitämään rajoistani kiinni – on jo omanlaistaan räjähtämistä? Riittääkö se?

Tänään voin päättää, että se riittää. Joskus jokin halkeama, jollaisista Malabou kirjoittaa, kenties sysää tekemään muutakin. Ehkä sinä päivänä huudan yleisön edessä megafoniin. Kylväkäämme halkeamaan mahdollisuus.

“Räjähdykset joista on kyse, tarkoittavat tietenkin energeettisiä purkauksia, luovia sykäyksiä, jotka vähitellen muuttavat luonnon vapaudeksi. Näiden räjähtävien syntymien korostaminen tarkoittaa, että emme ole joustavia, koska jokainen identiteetin vaihdos on kriittinen koetus, joka jättää jälkiä, pyyhkii toisia pois, vastustaa omaa koetustaan eikä salli minkäänlaista polymorfismia.”

“Jälkien merkitys voi muuttua.”

[Phillip · Rating 5 out of 5]

I managed to finish Malabou's book while on a plane flight from Europe to the United States. It's short, but pithy. Her main point is to explain three versions of the concept of plasticity, and also to show how the debate over "reductionism" and "anti-reductionism" really misses the point. She goes over some of the latest science on the brain and consciousness. She wants to show that the metaphor of the brain as a computer, machine, or internet hub is inadequate to the task of accurately capturing how consciousness functions, and that plasticity is a much better way to think of the brain.

[Gareth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant take on the plasticity of the brain and how the ability of our brains to receive form, but also to structure form, can lead to a dialectic of constancy v creation. Within this resistance is needed to provoke the power of developing forces. A great read, especially for anyone who has read Ravaisson's Of Habit, as it gives a scientific explanation as to how some of his ideas could manifest themselves.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall quite good, if also at times quite French. The brain as a self's history is a nice image that gets articulated in ways that made me need to look out my window a few times, and the jumps from the mirco-cellular to the macro-political are well-motivated (it's not just an instructive homology, but the two are mutually grounding in a materialist history of knowledge) so that the imperceptible biological functions take on a real, obvious importance. The vulgarization of plasticity as flexibility (or adaptability), and the amenability of this to accommodating, rather than transforming situations is especially helpful for developing political psychologies. Worth reading, and I'd recommend it.

In the end, though, it fails to deliver on its promise: what should we do with our brain? If Malabou wanted to just raise the question and let it stand, that might've been fine, but the given answer falls short: we should become aware of our brain and what it can plasticly do. We're left, after concretely hearing about the biological mechanisms and political stakes of neuronal plasticity, with a question of similar concreteness: What are the strategies and techniques of plasticity? Like, what should I actually do with my brain?

That's the point where I think Malabou's refusal of psychoanalysis runs into trouble. To her credit, the bridge between biological and analytic thinking isn't an easy one; Malabou isn't even particularly antagonistic here, since authors before her (I'm looking at you, Laplanche) have staked their whole system on a declared refusal to ascribe anything psychological to the biological, so in some sense she takes them at their word, clears the brush and moves on. But psychonalysis lets us get more strategic. The image of the brain as a self's history is anticipated by Freud in places like The Interpretation of Dreams and "Notes on the Writing Pad" where the psyche is significantly produced through experiences and impressions. Partisans of plastic neurobiology (I generalize here since I won't claim to anticipate Malabou's position) might bristle at Freud's insistence on the permanence of memory traces, especially in the latter work, but even there he credits them as "not unalterable." By the time of "Constructions in Analysis," Freud will explicitly cast the work of psychoanalysis as disassembling old structures of thought and assembling new ones in their place. This is the work of plastic brains! The therapeutic tradition offers a rich field of how brains come into play and what is to be done with them, such as in how they condition our social, artistic and ethical encounters in the works of Judith Butler and Laura Mulvey. The neurobiology Malabou expounds and popularizes isn't some radical departure from the psychoanalytic tradition, but a view of what was already present therein, just now from the bottom up. To be sure, a new angle makes certain aspects foregrounded (memory traces now have priority over drives; the couch and classroom are no longer exclusively privileged sites for brain-changing) or altogether finally visible (cellular mechanisms), and clearing the brush might've been necessary (we no longer need Laplanche's anti-biology to ground anti-essentialisms, and this gets us started on working there), but the book doesn't have the legs to run on its own without the psychoanalytic tradition, and likewise a lot of the book's most productive points come as commentary on, not refusal of, psychoanalysis. In short, the book is less pathbreaking and individual than it claims, but no less important.

[Catalin · Rating 5 out of 5]

În această carte, Catherine urmărește implicațiile descoperirilor neuroștiințelor și modul în care acestea se răsfrâng în discursul capitalist. Ea face o distincție clară între un subiect plastic și unul flexibil (așa cum este văzut astăzi în societatea postcapitalistă). Subiectul plastic, care este deschis spre a lua forme noi (păstrând totuși o urmă a formei vechi), este însoțit și de o posibilitate de explozie (caracteristică materialelor plastice). Spre deosebire de acesta, subiectul flexibil – capabil să-și modifice forma la nesfârșit, fără a păstra o memorie a formei trecute – reprezentănd ideologia contemporană prin excelență.

Odată cu căderea patriarhatului (adică a unei ierarhii fixe), noile descoperiri din neuroștiințe – precum faptul că creierul este format din rețele neuronale care comunică între ele – au fost transferate în mediul social și corporatist, ducând la propagarea unei oboseli cronice, precum burnout-ul. Subiectul, pus în fața unei incertitudini cu privire la viitorul său (care depinde de cât de flexibil este în mediul socio-economic), ajunge să sufere de o maladie contemporană: anxietate, depresie, burnout.

Un alt punct esențial, din punctul meu de vedere, în analiza lui Catherine, este desuetudinea egalității dintre creier și mașină (calculator) în mediile științifice. Totuși, această asociere falsă – care compară funcționarea creierului cu o mașinărie de procesare impersonală a informației – este încă în uz în discursul non-academic. Acest lucru duce la o confuzie ontologică: ideea că mediul în care creierul se manifestă, crește și se dezvoltă ar fi neesențial pentru evoluția sa, lucru dovedit fals de noile descoperiri științifice.

Catherine pune în evidență trecerea de la biologic (creier, rețele neuronale) la psihic, subliniind că această tranziție este esențială pentru înțelegerea implicațiilor ontologice ale lumii în care trăim. Majoritatea oamenilor de știință de astăzi interpretează această trecere prin prisma unui determinism biologic – adică ideea că configurațiile neuronale produc realitatea psihică –, o explicație superficială și reductionistă în privința modului în care subiectul trăiește această realitate. Catherine arată că biologicul are un moment în care se anulează pe sine (fără a dispărea cu totul, el rămânând prezent cu influențele sale), dar evidențiază că biologicul și psihicul nu vorbesc aceeași limbă. Saltul de la unul la celălalt se face doar printr-o „explozie” ontologică. Nu există o continuitate simplă și lină între cele două: transformarea biologicului în psihic implică o transgresare, o negare a primului.

[Troy S · Rating 5 out of 5]

the formation of each identity is a kind of resilience, in other words, a kind of contradictory construction and effacement of forms. In excluding all negativity from their discourse, in chasing away every conflictual consideration on the transition from the neuronal to the mental, certain neuroscientists cannot, most of the time, escape the confines of a well-meaning conception of successful personality, "harmless and mature." But we have no use for harmony and maturity if they only serve to make us 'scrappers' or 'prodigal elders.' Creating resistance to neuronal ideology is what our brain wants, and what we want for it.

I'm awfully afraid to write this, as any form of my own interpretation will come from a place far from the world of neuroscience, but Malabou is certainly doing philosophy here. Personality, identity and even language seem to form after these synaptic explosions. The polymorphic neurological deus-ex-machina of sorts (Malabou would HATE that I wrote that) of plasticity reforms the brain with the new information, connecting the strands of information and ideas together into one. This is why our first memory is often a trauma, this is the first explosion that takes place in the brain that sends the synapses a-sparkin'. From there, plasticity makes up for the damage, and collects everything new that the brain has to deal with, i.e., the trauma, and integrates it into one whole- identity. In a way, its like identity is just our brains compensating for us all sustaining damage, and we're all running around trying to make up for it. Its like that Shel Silverstein book about the missing piece.

This book is pretty righteous too, with Malabou inserting a lot of right-on socio-political takes. She also, thank god, debunks the bullshit "the brain is like a computer/telephone system/internet" metaphor. This kind of technomorphism only serves the purposes of our fucking bosses to make us better workers.

There was clearly a lot Malabou wanted to say that she chose not to, and I'm very interested in finding out what she left out in the future.

[Jarmo Larsen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Boken starter med et langt, innviklet, komplisert og kjedelig forord. Et eksempel er fra s.20 i boken: "Senere endte dekonstruksjonens etsende kraft og for eksempel det deleuzianske paradigmet 'rhizom' med å bli assimilert av kapitalismens nye organisering , som har inkorporert både oppløsning av nærvær, nomadisme og deterritorialisering som sin mulighetsbetingelse". Forstå den som forstå vil, men hjernen min hang ikke helt med. Forordet er også langt i forhold til bokens lengde og jeg holdt på å gi opp under lesingen av det.

Jeg ble allikevel litt lettet etter at boken startet på ånkli, men lettelsens øyeblikk varte ikke så veldig lenge, selvom det var noe lettere å henge med, og forfatteren kom med noen interessante sammenligninger og forklarte hjernens forskjellige plastisitetsområder, og hvorfor de tidligere forklaringene om at hjernen er å sammenligne med en maskin, ikke er gode nok.

Boken har mye fokus på de politiske aspektene ved hjernen, kapitalismen og samfunnets påvirkning på hjernens plastisitet, og han sammenligner hjernen med hvordan et samfunn ofte er satt sammen. Her er det noen elementer som er noe enklere å forstå, men mellom de bedre slagene er det mange innviklede formuleringer, med endel vanskelige og sære ord og uttrykk, samt et filosofisk anlagt språk som ikke er helt min greie. Det at dette også er en slags vitenskapsfilosofisk bok om hjernen, som i tilegg er oversatt på norsk fra fransk, sier jo sitt. Dette vil si at store deler av boken ble lest uten skikkelig engasjement og konsentrasjon, men førte heller til at jeg datt litt for ofte ut av sammenhengene for at dette skulle regnes som en god og givende bok om hjernen for meg. Men noen av lyspunkene over gjorde at jeg ikke gav helt opp, men klarte lese denne helt ut til "the bitter end".

[A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ensinnäkin on todettava, että suomennos on todella vaikeaselkoinen. Johtuuko se siitä että alkuperäinen ranskankielinen teoskin on mahdollisesti vaikeaselkoinen, sitä en tiedä, mutta en olisi jaksanut sinnitellä loppuun asti jollei aihe olisi niin kiehtova. Malabou yhdistää neurotieteitä, filosofiaa ja kapitalismikritiikkiä ja teoksen todellinen nimi voisikin olla sivun 39 kysymys "mitä on tehtävä, jotta aivotietoisuus ei yksinkertaisesti ja tarkalleen ole vain sama asia kuin kapitalismin henki?" Monet teoksessa esitetyt ajatukset ovat jännittäviä, mutta kaikkia Malaboun johtopäätöksiä en osaa tulkita niiden vaikeaselkoisuuden vuoksi.

Kirjassa mennään melko teknisiin ja yksityiskohtaisiin aivotoiminnan seikkoihin. Olen itse lukenut hieman neuropsykologiaa, joten en osaa sanoa miten paljon noista osioista saa irti jos ei ole perehtynyt aiheeseen edes pintapuolisesti.

Liitän vielä lainauksen helppolukuisemmasta kohdasta:
"Ihmiset tekevät omat aivonsa, mutta eivät tiedä tekevänsä niin. Olemme täysin tietämättömiä aivojen plastisuudesta. Sen sijaan tiedämme paljon tietystä työn järjestämisen tavasta - osa-aikaisuus, pätkäsopimukset, absoluuttisen liikkuvuuden ja sopeutuvuuden vaatimus, luovuuden vaatimus...[...] Tiedämme oikein hyvin, että notkeuden menetys merkitsee täydellistä syrjään joutumista. Onko oikeastaan kovin suurta eroa sen mielikuvan välillä, joka meillä on työttömästä, ja sen, joka meillä on Alzheimerin tautia sairastavasta?" (S. 37-38)

[Ali Jones Alkazemi · Rating 3 out of 5]

In diesem kurzen Buch wünscht Catherine Malabou über den Begriff der Plastizität zu sprechen. Der Begriff der Plastizität bezeichnet eine Form, der gleichzeitig sich selbst zerstört und erzeugt. Dass ein Ding plastisch ist, heißt, sowohl formbar als formend zu sein. Das Gehirn ist ein solches Ding, das schöpft, aber auch das Resultat diese Schöpfung ist. In diese Weise sind wir frei, unserer Unfreiheit zu wählen. Das ist nicht nur in eine metaphorische oder philosophische Weise gemeint, sondern auch streng wissenschaftlich: Unser Gehirn ist sowohl eines Schöpfenden als Geschaffene. „Es ist also festzuhalten, dass die Plastizität zwischen zwei Extremen angesiedelt ist: zum einen die sinnlich wahrnehmbare Gestalt der Formbildung (Skulptur oder Gegenstände aus Plastik), zum anderen die Vernichtung jeglicher Form (Explosion).“

Malabou will mit dieser Dialektik zwischen Schöpfung und Zerstörung ein emanzipatorisches Potenzial für uns öffnen. Wir sind freier, als wir uns vorstellen können. „Wie erleben heute die neuronale Befreiung, und wir wissen es nicht. Eine Instanz in uns gibt dem Code einen Sinn, und wir wissen es nicht. Der Unterschied zwischen Gehirn und Psyche verringert sich beträchtlich, und wir wissen es nicht.“ Ich finde diese Kombination der neurowissenschaftlichen Strenge und des hegelianischen Einflusses sehr wichtig und wie eine ordentliche Gesellschaftskritik durchgeführt. Einfach geschrieben und engagierend!

[Niloufar Mazinani · Rating 5 out of 5]

مالابو با مفهوم پلاستیسیته و ازین‌رو با اشاره به شباهتی که میان ساختار
مغز و اجتماع وجود دارد، به نقد اجتماع (به خصوص نئولیبرالیسم) می‌پردازد. پلاستیک (نرمش‌پذیری)، هم یعنی نرم و دارای قابلیت شکل دادن بخود(یعنی آزادی) و هم خاصیت غیر قابل برگشت‌پذیری دارد(یعنی جبر).

انعطاف‌پذیری(flexibility) یک انفعال است؛ یعنی سازگاری بدون تغییر خود یا ساختار. در مقابل پلاستیک، هم میتواند خودش و هم ساختارهای جدید بسازد اما بازار نئولیبرال مسئولیتِ مشكلِ درونِ ساختارِ خود را بر دوش نیروی کار انداخته، چرا که آنها باید خود را مدام به‌روز کنند وگرنه به راحتی از سیستم حذف میشوند.
پلاستیک مثل یک سکه است که دو رو دارد و روی دیگر آن تسلیم است که سیستم بر این وجه تمرکز دارد، فرد مدام به روز میشود و تغییر میکند اما توان مقاومت در مقابل سیستم را از دست میدهد.
قدرت، همانند مغز ویژگی پلاستیک دارد- شبکه‌ای و پراکنده و بدون یک مرکز فرماندهی(فوکویی). به همین دلیل است که مالابو میگوید شاید دیگر نتوان با یک انقلاب کلاسیک قدرت مرکز را از بین برد زیرا قدرت در همه‌جا پخش شده‌ است.
در نتیجه هویت ثابتی هم وجود ندارد. یعنی «من تغییر میکنم؛ پس هستم!»
ساختارهای اجتماعی نیز ثابت نیستند و به سمت جهانی‌شدن میروند؛ هم امکان رهایی و هم امکان از دست دادن هویت وجود دارد.
اگرچه، هم نرمش‌پذیری و هم انعطاف‌پذیری برای سازگاری لازم‌اند اما
از پلاستیسیته باید به عنوان ابزاری برای تغییر بنیادین، واقعی و انتقادی استفاده کرد.

[Badem · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Sahi yersizyurtsuzlaşma ile yerinden-edilme arasındaki sınır nereden geçiyor? Peki göçebelik ile uyum sağlama arasındaki sınır? Mevcudiyetin yapısökümüne uğratılması ile şirketlerde merkezin veya başın (amirin) bulunmayışı arasındaki sınır? İşte plastikiyet ve esneklik arasındaki zorunlu ama çizilmesi olanaksız sınır da tam olarak aynı muğlaklıktan müzdarip." (s.15)

"Beyni değiştirirseniz özneyi de değiştirebilirsiniz." s. 8
"Eleştirel olmak, kendi kendini icat etmek, kendi kendini biçimlendirmek" s. 11

"Bir benlik icadı ile yeni bir dünya ve düşünme biçimi yaratma çağrısına ihanet ediyor gibi görünmüş olmalı. Kimi yerde, aslında esnekliğin başka bir biçimi olarak yani mücadele ettiğini iddia ettiği ideolojinin bizzat dışavurumu olarak, her şeyi yutan "obur bir canavar" olarak görülmüştür. " s. 14

[Nick LeBlanc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Early in college I had a professor say that reading theory was like experiencing someone describing something with language that has never been described before. When you position any difficult theoretical reading in this way, it’s easier to feel okay about walking away from something you have read four times and wound up more confused than you were when you began. He was teaching us Introductory Philosophy, but I believe this perspective is true for any discipline. It is also true for this book. In it, Malabou explores the relationships between neuroscience/psychology/socialist theory. She explains that the current (written in 2008) understanding of the structure of the brain/mind is directly linked to the structure of the neoliberal world through which this understanding was developed. She then goes to argue that this perspective is most likely wrong and that the plasticity of our mind and the way it is constructed is much more akin to the way Marx talks about history: history creates and influences itself (through the self reflexive actions and reactions of humanity) but does not know it. She explains that if we acknowledge this physiology of our mind, we can take this understanding into the real world and our mind and history can influence each other and foster a new type of change and actualization. Though the ideas are good, this can be a frustrating book to read, I suspect there is a poor translation (which is never helpful for dense theoretical reading). Unless you have some experience reading this type of work and have a personal interest in neuroscience/bio psychology/socialist theory, this book is not for you. When the ideas behind the text revealed themselves to me, I enjoyed this book, though it was not lost on me that the thesis was very abstract and hard to pin down. I’d wonder how well it would hold up under more intense academic scrutiny—even if I found myself agreeing with it more often than not.
-
-
tl;dr—not for casual readers, but an interesting read with some cool ideas for those who have read real theory before.

[marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

well that was awesome. dense, theoretical and hard to grapple with at times, it felt like something that has existed in the back of my mind in form of an incomprehensible blob has finally come into focus. especially loved how this book tackles depression and anxiety and formation of identity. go brain!!!

[Jenny Webb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malabou writes clearly as she engages with the topic of how the brain should be thought. She argues against older models of various information networks and instead develops an intriguing model of plasticity to explain brain functioning. A good introduction to her work / style.

[Philip Mlonyeni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Veldig bitter over at jeg ikke fikk med meg Cathrine når hun var i Oslo i fjor (eller var det forrigfjor?) på Blå. Veldig dyktig filosof, veldig god til å formidle, og veldig viktige tanker, definitivt en å fortsette å følge med på

[Evan Lehman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is beyond brilliant. Her desire to rebuild the dialogue of plasticity is essential for undoing the damage of Neoliberalism. The resistance that our brains need is what is so readily absent in our lives which thus makes us miserable.

[Steven Krawczyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun, short, exciting revival of Hegel's ideas about subjectivity in the context of neuroscience. The emphasis on plasticity is great, and Malabou highlights interesting points of tension and conflict to be resolved through taking responsibility for our brains.

[Mete · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zorlayıcı, ufuk açıcı, düşündürücü ve ziyadesiyle zorlayıcı. İnce oluşu kandırmasın...

[catherine ♡ · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's always interesting (and a little scary) to think about how unreliable our brains actually are.

[stretch]

read for class! pretty interesting, kinda dense

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kiinnostava kirja, mutta aika moni asia jäi roikkumaan ilmaan, lähtien aivojen plastisuuden ja työelämän tai yhteiskunnan toiminnan yhteydestä.