Neuropolitics

Neuropolitics

I quite like the idea of neuropolitics, despite its air of science fiction. I don’t like the idea of neuroethics or neurophilosophy or even neuropsychology, but I see a point to couching political discourse in neurological language. What is the unit (the ontology) of political discourse? It goes by various names: men, people, human beings, sentient creatures, individuals, souls, persons, selves. These are not always co-referential or analytically pellucid, but one catches the drift. We are talking about you, me, him, her, they, etc. Can we be more exact, more scientific? Well, a very decent suggestion is that all these, in so far as they impinge on politics, ultimately go back to the brain: for the brain is the organ of the mind, selfhood, character, the psyche—and that is what has ultimate value. We could have a polity composed wholly of disembodied brains, so long as personhood is preserved, but a politics of bodies sans brains is pointless—psychologically null zombies. Political issues concern, in the end, functioning brains (living, feeling brains). So what, you may say, what difference does it make?  What political problems would be solved or mitigated by adopting a neurological perspective? How would our politics be improved by going neuropolitical?

The answer is that brains are detached from the outer shell in which they are housed: they don’t reflect the body or the position of that body in the world. You can’t read off a person’s size, shape, race, nationality, wealth, education, etc. just by perusing their brain. All brains look alike (all human brains). There are no black brains or white brains, no fat brains or thin brains, no beautiful brains or ugly brains—unlike with bodies. The brain is a great equalizer (I am talking about its physical appearance). Thus, no discrimination based on brain appearances is possible: the brain of Marilyn Monroe looks much the same as the brain of Louis Armstrong—nor do they sound any different. It would be hard to be prejudiced in favor of one of them and against the other, based on optical appearances. There would be no color prejudice in a society of brains in vats, or pulchritude prejudice, or weight prejudice. Everyone would be treated equally based on physical appearance; discriminations would have to reflect less palpable features, such as quality of character or mathematical ability. Brains don’t invite irrational groundless discrimination. Behind every face there is a brain just like yours, constituting the essence of the person. We don’t normally think of this in our personal interactions, but it is salutary to remind ourselves of it. Politically, it is the objective truth. Brains are what politics is ultimately all about—the things with rights, obligations, citizenship, equality, authority, moral status. The body politic is a body of brains.

In a way this is unfortunate, because our image of a person is shaped much more by the face than the brain. We don’t even see the brain in the ordinary course of events. Nor is the brain deemed attractive or expressive or relatable. It has no name, no social identity. It would be different if brains were visible and revealing; then their centrality would be evident. Neuropolitics would be the order of the day. Laws would be about them, policies geared to them; they would be the primary units of political discourse. As it is, they don’t even have the benefit of verbal cache—the word brain is not an attractive word. It doesn’t do justice to what it describes. In Latin we have cerebrum, in Greek encephalo (“in-head”), in French le cerveau, in Italian ingegno, in Finnish aivot. There is nothing warm and cuddly about these. We could try calling it the self-hub or the person-crux, but these don’t really cut it; we are stuck with a distinct lack of linguistic glamor. Brains are just not aesthetically pleasing to us. The heart has a much better public image. Perhaps an artist could undertake a series of brain works designed to lift brains to a new plane of visual appeal—introducing us to the brain afresh (“The Brain of Mona Lisa”). We need celebrity brains on magazine covers—brain paparazzi, PR campaigns.

How do animals fare under neuropolitics? I think it is clear that speciesism is fueled by the animal body: their bodies are not like ours (to the naked eye). They are hairy, scaly, feathered, quadrupedal, slimy. But their brains are not that different: when you look at a picture of an animal brain its affinity to the human brain is evident, startlingly so. All brains have much the same basic architecture (not surprising given the facts of evolution). We would not be so inclined to speciesism if we had animal brains constantly in our thoughts: never mind the body, look at the brain! The brain is the seat of the soul, and their brains closely resemble ours. They also differ among themselves to a degree, correlated with their psychological powers; these anatomical differences can be used to justify differential treatment. Apes and lizards are not identical mentally. I think, then, that a brain-centered animal politics will help animals in their quest for political freedom. The brain is always the best measure of a creature’s natural rights, because it is closely correlated with the animal’s mental faculties. The mind is not visible and is hard to detect, but the brain is the concrete symbol of the mind—you can get your teeth into the brain. A politics arranged according to brain structure will be an improvement over our current body-centered approach. Here is my political slogan: Make the World Brainier![1]

[1] To what extent is this essay tongue-in-cheek? Less than you might think. The culture can change. Words matter. Ideology is conceptualization.