In Search of Lost Culture: From Neuroimaging via Critical Neuroscience to Cultural Neuroscience – and back to Critique. The availability of new technologies for visualizing brain activity generated great expectations to identify the centers responsible for human action and behavior and to “reduce” all mental processes to neuronal states. Some scientists even called society to adapt to the new insights from brain research by giving up outdated concepts of autonomy and free will. This project spurred harsh critiques from philosophy, sociology, and cultural studies, diagnosing the rise of a new phrenology. A critical neuroscience group took up these criticisms and pledged for a more nuanced reflection about the political, historical and ethical contexts and implications of current neuroscience and argued for an integration of societal concerns into the research agenda – rather similar to the agenda for responsible research of the EU. With the development of more sophisticated visualization strategies, new sub‐disciplines emerged, integrating sociocultural aspects into neuroimaging. Social and cultural neuroscience replaced overstated reductionist claims without leaving the overarching naturalist epistemology, but extending the ontological realm. New research objects such as empathy, religion or ‘Western’ vs. ‘East‐Asian’ attitudes of thinking started to populate the research domain. Especially cultural neuroscience was widely celebrated as new scientific bridge across the nature‐culture gulf. A closer look, however, reveals that this claim and the popular success of cultural neuroscience are based on a decisive lack of conceptual clarity. ‘Culture’ functions as fuzzy denominator for a broad range of social phenomena with unknown links to neurophysiological processes but visualized as brain states. Instead of implementing more reflexive forms of research, cultural neuroscience stabilizes problematic stereotypes and racist attitudes by an expansion of neuro‐culture. In light of this deflation of interdisciplinary cooperation a more radical critique of this ideology seems in place.

中文翻译：

---

Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Kultur: Vom Neuroimaging über Critical Neuroscience zu Culture Neuroscience - und zurück zur Kritik

寻找失落的文化：从神经影像学、批判性神经科学到文化神经科学——再回到批判性。用于可视化大脑活动的新技术的可用性产生了巨大的期望，即确定负责人类行为和行为的中心，并将所有心理过程“减少”到神经元状态。一些科学家甚至呼吁社会通过放弃过时的自主和自由意志概念来适应大脑研究的新见解。这个项目引发了哲学、社会学和文化研究的严厉批评，诊断了新骨相学的兴起。一个批判性的神经科学小组接受了这些批评，并承诺对政治、历史和伦理背景以及当前神经科学的影响，并主张将社会关注纳入研究议程——与欧盟负责任的研究议程非常相似。随着更复杂的可视化策略的发展，出现了新的子学科，将社会文化方面整合到神经影像学中。社会和文化神经科学取代了夸大的还原论主张，而没有离开总体自然主义认识论，而是扩展了本体论领域。新的研究对象，例如同理心、宗教或“西方”与“东亚”的思维态度开始占据研究领域。特别是文化神经科学被广泛认为是跨越自然文化鸿沟的新科学桥梁。然而仔细一看，揭示了这一主张和文化神经科学的流行成功是基于概念清晰度的决定性缺乏。“文化”作为广泛的社会现象的模糊分母，其与神经生理过程的联系未知，但被可视化为大脑状态。文化神经科学并没有实施更多的反思形式的研究，而是通过扩展神经文化来稳定有问题的刻板印象和种族主义态度。鉴于跨学科合作的萎缩，似乎对这种意识形态进行了更激进的批评。文化神经科学并没有实施更多的反思形式的研究，而是通过扩展神经文化来稳定有问题的刻板印象和种族主义态度。鉴于跨学科合作的萎缩，似乎对这种意识形态进行了更激进的批评。文化神经科学并没有实施更多的反思形式的研究，而是通过扩展神经文化来稳定有问题的刻板印象和种族主义态度。鉴于跨学科合作的萎缩，似乎对这种意识形态进行了更激进的批评。