Neuroanthropology: What It Is And How It Is Researched
To acquire precise knowledge about human beings, it is unavoidable to adopt a multifaceted vision, which brings together in its lap the various disciplines whose purpose is to describe what underlies their complex reality. From neuroscience to anthropology, they all have the ability to provide answers to the eternal questions that our very curious species has asked about itself.
Despite this, a notable independence has traditionally been maintained between them, as if they were not needed to advance their fundamental objective. All of this meant that perspectives of greater integration, more in line with the phenomenon that was sought to be unraveled, were not deployed, and that mistrust even arose between them.
In recent times, however, the need to establish alliances based on multidisciplinarity is completely undeniable. It is from them that the theoretical and practical heritage has been spreading and expanding, and with it all scientific development. Joining forces has never been as important as it is today, in societies as vast and unfathomable as the ones we live in.
In this article we will discuss in detail the characteristics of neuroanthropology, a theoretical framework and a method in which the humanistic and the empirical converge From all of this an epistemology emerges that motivates the congruent orchestration of what is known about the brain and cultural relations.
Neuroanthropology is born from the confluence and harmony between ways of understanding the human fact, which in the past were antagonistic or independent: neurosciences (including neurology or psychology) and anthropology. Such a novel discipline, which was conceived and officially emerged in the first years of this century, makes culture the gravitational axis around which its action revolves. To do this, it would have neuroscience as its main ally, since it would be through its consensus and research evidence that it could extend its horizon beyond the traditional limits that have “bound it.”
One of the principles of neuroanthropology, from which its existence is justified, is the analogy between psychology and culture Although neurological bases are usually recognized for the first of them without any hint of doubt (such as the mental and emotional aspects being built in the brain), this is not the case in the second case. The objective would be to break with this biased vision of the scope of cultural influences, and to also assume in them the ability to modulate the structure and functions of an organ that governs processes fundamental to its dynamics and understanding.
The perspective of neuroanthropology points out that Culture is an explanatory element of human behavior as powerful (or even more) as biological needs And the network of meanings common to every human community depends on it, as well as the way in which the links that could manifest within it are regulated. It is undeniable, therefore, that culture has a powerful psychological component, and that as it has extensive neurological roots, culture itself must also have them at least to a certain degree.
This reasoning has served to shape its essential theoretical justification, and it also has deep empirical evidence. And it is known that Culture participates in some way in the very complex process of maturation of the central nervous system, including both its functions and its structure. There are many studies that have demonstrated the role of everything cultural in perception (orientation of attentional resources in complex environments), social processing (“subjective” assessment of the behaviors of others), emotional experience (affective reactions to particular events), language (system through which communication is established between two individuals) and the attribution process for causes and effects; all of them related to specific areas of the brain.
From all this it can be deduced that the cultural and social, foundations of anthropology, are important to understand our species. What current science indicates is that both are potentially explanatory variables for the “differential” patterns of brain activation that have been evidenced when comparing subjects belonging to different human groups, which translates into disparate experiences between them. Neuroanthropology would seek to offer the answer to an unresolved question during decades of neuroscientific study: Where are the shared meanings located at a brain level and how do the mechanisms involved evolve?
Below we will elaborate on the objectives and method of this humanistic neuroscience, which is progressively being recognized as more important within the multiplicity of disciplines whose purpose is to unravel the mystery of man.
Objectives of your research
The main objective of this neuroanthropology is to describe transcultural and intercultural regularities (between cultures or within the same community), to identify possible differences between two groups that could be attributable to the tacit effect of symbols and shared rules. That is why it resorts to both cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs: with the former, potential divergences would be found at a single moment in time between two groups, and with the latter, their own evolution over time in a single community would be evident (a due to environmental or relational changes that may have occurred).
For the study of what has come to be called “cultural brain”, the latter would be more relevant, since they would allow us to make an analysis of the neuroanatomical covariation linked to the basic processes of social learning and the experiences shared by groups of human beings involved in their study. This mixture of sciences and knowledge, impossible to conceive just a few years ago, is the foundation of neuroanthropology as it is defined today.
In addition to this great purpose, neuroanthropology also aims to achieve a series of specific objectives. The first one looks for a definition of the correlations between the cognitive-behavioral base changes that are associated with cultural aspects and the function or structure of the nervous system objectified by neuroimaging techniques. After that, statistical procedures would have to be used to trace how one and the other interact. Finally, longitudinal studies would be planned through which to explore “live” how this relationship unfolds in the very environment where the subjects live (ecological validity).
In summary, neuroanthropology describes human behaviors that are displayed within a cultural framework (as basic elements of coexistence), and attempts to associate them with the brain substrates that could serve as physical support.
Once this analysis has been carried out, we would proceed to compare what is known in one town with what happens in others, in a search for universal or specific keys that can correspond to the social aspects of all of them. It is also intended delimit the mechanisms of brain change linked to diversity within the same human group, or caused by environmental/interpersonal fluctuations in which they have been able to participate. The independent variable in this case is, therefore, the culture itself.
Methods of this field of science
The method of neuroanthropology is humanistic, but it amalgamates resources common to empiricist science. Therefore, it combines the ethnography of social anthropology (which involves “immersing” oneself in the communities that are being investigated, assuming their way of life during the period required by the project) and laboratory analysis, where the independent variable. In this case, First, a field study would be carried out (to collect data) and then quantitative experiments could be designed always respecting the ethical standards on the preservation of societies.
This way of proceeding, which involves a series of two relatively independent phases (qualitative and quantitative), is called neuroethnography. With its application, the necessary sensitivity towards the object of the analysis is preserved, which is none other than the social life of individuals and the symbols they display to understand the world around them, and the way in which which the brain may be involved in these dynamics. Participant observation would have to be combined with knowledge from neurosciences, and would require a multidisciplinary approach (very diverse teams of professionals).
To cite an example, recent studies from this perspective have tried to explore how love is expressed at a neurological level, according to different cultures. The conclusions on this matter suggest that all cultures in which human beings participate have a word in the linguistic heritage to indicate this feeling, but not only that: they also A similar neurological response is seen in subjects from completely different backgrounds (activation of the reward circuit, insula and globus pallidus). Although there are nuances when it comes to interpersonal relationships, the evidence indicates that love (as such) has deep “roots” in the nervous system, and that we all experience it equally.
Many studies have emerged in order to determine other social constructs, such as violence or authority, which explore not only the obvious behavioral differences (which until now were the main object of anthropology), but also whether such phenomena can be be operationalized organically.
There are studies that investigate neural variables within the same society, following cultural consensus as a paradigm. In this case the objective is to explore the degree of cohesion of certain ideas and customs among the members of a group, to locate in their brain which structures are responsible for guaranteeing the permanence of cultural baggage.
In short, it is a method that must have the necessary technical knowledge and personal expertise. The latter is essential in the time to solve the well-known “two worlds problem” This conflict, which is usually considered a “source of bias” of the observer about what is observed, implies the corruption of the information collected by researchers due to preconceived ideas coming from their own cultural origin. Therefore, every neuroethnographic view implies a naked prism, always pregnant with amazement when discovering a diverse and rich planet.
