The object of neuroscience and literary studies (original) (raw)

The epistemological and ideological stakes of literary Darwinism

« The Epistemological and Ideological Stakes of Literary Darwinism” in du Crest, A., Valković, M., Ariew, A., Desmond, H., Huneman, P., Reydon, T.A.C. (éd.), Springer, Synthese Library, vol 478, 2023. Proposing to produce "new humanities," the literary Darwinists affirm the failure of the humanities in the face of modern scientific demands. Literary Darwinism promises to naturalize literary aesthetic practices, both poetry and narrative. It justifies the human need to produce fiction and proposes to interpret its contents. By confronting cultural studies head-on, as well as previous paradigms, from psychoanalysis to historicism, evolutionary theorists have opposed postures defending the insularity of art and the differential character of artistic practices. Such a position has been exposed to virulent criticisms (reductionism, conservatism, utilitarianism, essentialism, scientism, etc.) to which I would like to return, as they seem to me to hinder a serene examination of the disciplinary proposals put forward, in all their richness and epistemological ambitions.

A literary neuroscience study on animality and interdisciplinary research

There are three basic mimetic representations that can be applied to the production and absorption of all forms of art. The first is biological: when we experience sensation because of external input from the bottom up (ie, light, touch, sound) or from the top down (ie, visualizations, imaginations, epiphanies), we are gathering experience and observation that becomes the inspiration for art. The production of art is a second representation, while absorption of art creates a third representation in the audience. There is a divide between the second and third representations that is the concern of the artist: what changes in the interpretation between artist and audience? Ezra Pound wrote, “by good art… I mean the art that is most precise” (Coffman 128). “Good” art is determined by the precision with which the artist intuits this divide. The artist must create their art to allow for both intentional communication of meaning and for the ambiguity that characterizes the sublime. Research in cognitive neuroscience and psychology inform this divide, giving us new understanding of how humanity experiences art and what that means for our relations to things and life. Mirror neurons famously activate “not only when a grasping action is selected and performed, but also when that action is passively viewed” (381). That is, seeing is itself mediated by feeling. Art is effective because of the brain’s ability to perform this kind of synesthetic function. When we read a novel or look at a painting, we are engaging our sensory systems in a way that is as real as when we actually see the world or perform actions. For example, Lacey et al found that the “textural metaphors (such as “a slimy man” or “a rough day”) activated the somatosensory cortex in the parietal operculum… which were previously shown to be texture selective” (417). That is, the comprehension of textural metaphor involves its representation in our tactile sense areas in the brain. How does this work in literature?