Advertisement

Upbringing and Neuroscience. Embodied Theory as a Theoretical Bridge Between Cognitive Neuroscience and the Experience of Being a Parent

  • Joyce LeysenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Phänomenologische Erziehungswissenschaft book series (PHE, volume 8)

Schlüsselwörter

Kognitive Neurowissenschaft Neurodiskurs Elternschaft Erziehung Kognition Embodied action Representationalismus Hintergrundwissen Elternfigur 

Abstract

Popularized neurodiscourse sharpens the “scientization of parenting”. It prescribes parents which parenting tasks ought to be done based upon results of neurocognitive research, turning the parental figure into a follower of expert driven neuroguidelines. Neuroparenting is illustrative hereof. Since neuroscientific knowledge has become integral to the ways in which people have come to think of and shape parenting, the question how the increasing presence of popularized neurodiscourse affects parents’ experience in raising their children (Erziehung) seems pressing. Critical arguments have been brought forward from sociological and philosophical points of view. A critical pedagogical stance, however, seems missing. This chapter addresses this lacuna and proposes Embodied Theory to rethink the one-directional relation between cognitive neuroscience and the experience of being a parent, and its assumption of parents’ “unknowing” cognition. In light of the theoretical framework on upbringing by Arendt (1954/2006) and Van Manen (1982), Embodied Theory seems promising. Its conceptualization of cognition holds the possibility to point at the historical, cultural and social embeddedness of parents’ cognition, situating it in a broader know-how context. Secondly, it can bring in parents’ embodied action in lived and meaningful experiences with children. As such, Embodied Theory serves as a reminder of the fact that parents always holistically enact the upbringing of their children, which somehow seems to be forgotten in today’s popularized neurodiscourse.

Keywords

Cognitive neuroscience Neurodiscourse Parenting Upbringing Cognition Embodied action Representationalism Background knowledge Parental figure 

References

  1. Aldrich, Richard. 2013. Neuroscience, education and the evolution of the human brain. History of Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760x.2012.749543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 2006 [1954]. The crisis in education. In Between past and future, 170–193. London: Penguin books.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, Bernadette. 2015. From “somatic scandals” to “a constant potential for violence”? The culture of dissection, brain-based learning, and the rewriting/rewiring of “the child”. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2015.1055394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casper, Stephen T. 2015. Review of Neuro. The new brain sciences and the management of the mind, by Nikolas Rose, and J.M. Abi-Rached. Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences 51: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, Andy. 1997. Being there. Putting mind, world and body back together. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, Mary. 2013. Parenting support: Another gender-related policy illusion in Europe? Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 223–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Vos, Jan. 2016. The metamorphoses of the brain. Neurologisation and its discontents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Feldman, Ruth. 2015. The adaptive human parental brain. Implications for children’s social development. Trends in Neuroscience.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fias, Wim. 2017. The complexity of translating neuroscience to education. The case of number processing. In Constructions of truth in early childhood education, Ed. Michel Vandenbroeck, 68–81. Londen: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francesconi, D., and M. Tarozzi. 2012. Embodied education. A convergence of phenomenological pedagogy and embodiment. Studia Phaenomenologica 12: 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuller, Geraint N. 2012. Neurophilia. A fascination for neurology–a new syndrome. Practical Neurology.  https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2012-000400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S., and D. Zahavi. 2008. The phenomenological mind. An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Jolles, Jelle. 2016. Het tienerbrein. Over de adolescent tussen biologie en omgeving. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, Pilyoung. 2016. Human Maternal Brain Plasticity: Adaptation to Parenting. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lakoff, George, and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Langeveld, Martinus J. 1983 [1945]. Wat is opvoeden? Opvoeding, omgang en milieu. In Beknopte theoretische pedagogiek, 34–47. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
  17. Leidlmair, Karl. 2009. Preface. In After cognitivism. A reassessment of cognitive science and philosophy, Ed. Karl Leidlmair, vii–xiv. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Lutz, A., and E. Thompson. 2003. Neurophenomenology. Integrating subjective experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10: 31–52.Google Scholar
  19. Macvarish, Jan. 2016. Neuroparenting. The expert invasion of family life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. McInerney, Robert G. 2013. Neurophenomenological praxis. Its applications to learning and pedagogy. In Neurophenomenology and its applications to psychology, Ed. Susan Gordon, 25–60. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meloni, M. 2011. Philosophical implications of neuroscience. The space for a critique. Subjectivity 4: 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pickersgill, M. 2013. The social life of the brain. Neuroscience in society. Current sociology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113476464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramaekers, Stefan, and J. Suissa. 2012. The claims of parenting. Reasons, responsibility and society. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose, Nikolas, and J.M. Abi-Rached. 2013. The antisocial brain. In Neuro. The new brain sciences and the management of the mind, 164–198. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rupert, Robert D. 2015. Embodiment, consciousness, and neurophenomenology. Embodied cognitive science puts the (first) person in its place. Journal of Consciousness Studies 22: 148–180.Google Scholar
  26. Smeyers, P. 2016. Neurophilia. Guiding educational research and the educational field? Journal of Philosophy of Education 50: 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, E., A. Lutz, and D. Cosmelli. 2005. Neurophenomenology. An introduction for neurophilosophers. In Cognition and the brain. The philosophy and neuroscience movement, eds. A. Brook and K. Akins, 40–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson, Evan. 2007. The enactive approach. In Mind in life. Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind, 1–66. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thompson, Evan. 2011. Précis of mind in life. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18: 10–22.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, Evan. 2015. Waking, dreaming, being. Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation and philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. van Aalderen, Sandra, N. van Atteveldt, and M. Grol. 2015. Kijken in het brein. Mythen en mogelijkheden. Amsterdam: Querido.Google Scholar
  32. Vandenbroeck, Michel. 2017. Introduction. Constructions of truth in early childhood education. A history of the present abuse of neurosciences. In Constructions of truth in early childhood education, Ed. Michel Vandenbroeck, 1–19. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Van Manen, M. 1982. Phenomenological pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry 12: 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Varela, Francisco. 1996. Neurophenomenology. A methodological remedy to the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3: 330–350.Google Scholar
  35. Varela, Francisco. 1999. Know-how and know-what. The first lecture. In Ethical know-how. Action, wisdom, and cognition, 1–19. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Varela, Francisco, E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. London: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations