Cover from 'The Mind and the Brain', Schwartz & Begley 2002
For the past few years, cognitive science has become the talk of the academic world in general and economics in particular, spawning the discipline of neuroeconomics. Its popularity derives partly from the novelty of the research, but mostly from the ability to test abstract concepts of feeling and behaviour from a natural scientific point of view, by observing chemical and neurological reactions in the brain. Curiously enough, mainstream sociology has all but ignored the latest developments in this discipline, although it provides the possibility of solving ancient sociological problems and hen-or-egg debates. Furthermore, it lends promise to many exciting future fields and directions of sociology. Cognitive science does not promise to provide the final answer, but it does offer a fuller truth about the social.
The famous anthropologist Clifford Geertz once wrote: “Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he has spun”. The value of neuroscience is to a large part, that it can untangle these webs. It provides a mechanism that is significantly related to but also significantly different from the mechanisms that sociological literature assumes. “The mystery element is gone”, as Stephen Turner puts it in the European Journal of Social Theory.
A few years ago I met Prof. Paul Zak from Claremont Graduate University at a conference at UVA where he explained his findings on the brain substance Oxytocin (OT), which is released when humans interact socially. Zak finds that OT operates by affecting exploitation aversion and trust – not risk aversion. Contrary to the Nash equilibrium of economic theory, which states that the optimal level of trust is zero, Zak discovered that co-operation has a value in itself, and exploitation is bad in itself. Even more importantly, the structures in the brain where OT is activated are situated outside the large frontal cortex, i.e. outside conscious perception, and in primitive parts of the brain, meaning that empathy and more importantly cooperation is an integral part of human nature, and not a social construct. Further studies show that the natural levels of OT present in our brains vary greatly, and may well be determined by our level of social contact in early childhood. By looking into the heads of our social actors, we are essentially opening up the famous black box which exists between individuals and social processes – provided of course that our approach is individualist. We are following in the footsteps of Tocqueville by finding the exact level at which causality occurs.
If human nature has common traits, and certain things are universal, this provides an understanding of social action grounded in specific contexts – which e.g. Durkheim also tried to find when studying magic among primitives. Cognitive neuroscience should not be seen as a replacement to social science – rather it is an interpretative science, which can complement and illuminate our social theories to a new level.
Perhaps the time has come for neurosociology.
- David Pontoppidan
Pingback: three blogs to watch out for « orgtheory.net
David,
I am currently doing research along these lines and I have found opposition both from both communitiesi. I wholeheartedly agree that Cognitive neuroscience “can complement and illuminate our social theories to a new level.”
One issue I have with the disciplines attempting to explain human nature is the notion that if scientists can find universals they are inherently “good”, and if social processes run contrary they are bad. What is natural is not necessarily what is good (which runs into the whole is/ought debate). Also we must embrace the fact that we are in a constant state of change, are nature is evolving albeit at a much slower rate than our culture.
We must also realize that if an actor is compelled (presumably by human nature) to perform an action, they may also feel the action is bad because of social constraints. Socialization may serve to as an over-ride to primitive natural processes, or simply cause an identity crisis!
But I agree that unless we take a more holistic view of the individual we will never “finding the exact level at which causality occurs”
Great post!