Anthropology
Open Access

Different Decolonization Techniques and Anthropological Perspectives

Steve Woolgar^{* *}Correspondence: Steve Woolgar, Department of Surgery, Kampala International University, Western Campus, Ishaka, Bushenyi, Uganda, Email:

Author info »

Description

Over the course of at least 30 years, the image of the brain has become more and more prominent in science and culture, and there are currently few signs that this trend is going away.

Neurosciences have become a significant component of the psychological sciences in light of the advancement of sophisticated neuro technologies, most notably the visualisations made possible by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) brain scanning. Neuroscience research effort, funding, and resources have increased during the years 1990 to 2000. One example is the National Science Foundation's (NSF) goal of "Understanding the Brain," which includes a multi-year activity that includes NSF's participation in the "Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neuro technologies" (BRAIN) initiative as we speak. The European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme for the Human Brain Project is one European project that is comparable.

The role of the brain in popular culture and social, political, and academic discourse is also becoming more established. In these contexts, the brain is frequently regarded as the recognised seat of cognition, knowledge, and emotion, and the prefix "Neuro" is used to redesignate a variety of disciplines and activities. For example, we have seen the emergence of fields like neuroeconomics, neuro politics, and even apps for brain training are very popular. The idea that certain food and drink items might improve the healthy functioning of the brain is supported by a wide range of contemporary consumer products. For example, one company sells versions that promise to improve a variety of life problems and activities, such as fitness, sleep, and more. According to three studies, "humans are not brains; but, we do have brains. And it is in this way—that our brains not only shape our selves but also those who inhabit them—that neuroscientific claims are altering ideas about what it is to be a person and how to go about becoming oneself. As a result, the development of the brain is considered to have far-reaching effects and to have raised important issues regarding how we perceive humans. In this essay, we investigate if, as asserted by neuro marketers who research consumer preferences, the brain supplants the person as the presumptive source of human behaviour. What effects does this assertion have on how neuro marketing research is conducted? The focus of behavioural explanations on the brain rather than the individual suggests a change in how accountability is understood. We contend that additional granularities are required in order to address these challenges. We must carefully examine how claims regarding the alleged transfer of information from the person to the brain map onto or originate from actual instances of the brain. We primarily concentrate on researching changes in accountability between the person and the brain in order to look into this. Our research is based on a multi-sited ethnography of how the consumer brain is being experimentally articulated in the expanding field of neuromarketing. Additionally, "one embodiment of a new neuroculture" is neuromarketing. Those involved in the area refer to neuromarketing as a "hybrid field" that aims to apply a variety of neuro scientific theories and methodologies to comprehend consumer behaviour.

This typically entails the use of biometric techniques, brain imaging, scanning, or other brain activity measurement technology to record consumer brain responses to marketing stimuli. In order to generate consumer insights that are more accurate than those produced by other techniques like surveys and focus groups, proponents of consumer neuroscience (as researchers in academia, mostly in marketing, refer to the field) and neuromarketing (the term frequently used by market research professionals and in the media) promise the use of neuroscientific and biometric technologies.

Companies that engage in neuromarketing set themselves apart from typical market research, which primarily relies on questionnaires or focus groups to obtain consumer insights, by characterising consumers as being unable to explain their buying behaviour. Similar to this, academic researchers in consumer neuroscience highlight the distinctive insights neurotechnologies offer in comparison to other approaches. In other words, both parties assert that biometric and neuroscientific measurements allow for the determination and even forecasting of objective and According to these two groups, understanding customers' brains is the key to comprehending their behaviour as consumers. We contend that this shift toward "brain-based" explanations of human behaviour (in the area of consumption) is indicative of a broader trend to attribute explanations of human behaviour to what are frequently referred to as "hard sciences" (e.g. biology, neuroscience, data science). Our paper emphasises that the adoption and use of cutting-edge technical artefacts and/or methods that are thought of as neutral underpins the explanatory power of these ostensibly more objective sciences and approaches. Despite the fact that this point of view is hotly discussed in sociology, anthropology, Science and Technology Studies (STS), and other fields and there has been little interdisciplinary or public discussion on this.