The article tells about a relatively young field of science called cultural neuroscience. Begley argues that depending on the cultural context in which an individual developed, the brain fires different areas and functions in response to the same stimuli. In particular, the author emphasizes that these differences are observed between representatives of cultures of individualism and collectivism. Begley points out that the brains of Eastern cultures are more responsive to the background and contextual stimuli, while those of Western cultures are more focused on individual objects. Additionally, cultural neuroscience has established that even numerical operations are not universal across cultures. Finally, Begley asks the important question of whether these differences can identify deeper anthropological patterns. Thus, the author of the article doubts that cultural neuroscience adds new knowledge to what is already known in the field of anthropology. The article presents convincing arguments about the inability of cultural neuroscience to expand scientific knowledge.
Cultural and Historical Contexts
The cultural and historical context may give certain ideas for the interpretation of this article. It should be noted that the first publication of this material occurred in 2010. The active growth of the Chinese economy within the framework of the non-Western model has identified the possibility of the existence of another path for the development of society. Around that period, the active rise of the Chinese economy began (Jenrins, 2018). At this point, the general public has begun to realize that the Eastern ideology and way of life not only exists, but also has significant success. This aspect of the cultural and historical context contributes to the development of cultural neuroscience to explore potential anthropologically based differences in human brains.
Author’s Arguments
The main evidence of the author’s doubts about the necessity and value of cultural neuroscience is presented at the end of the article. Begley notes that “it’s well known that East Asian cultures prize the collective over the individual and that Americans do the opposite.” The author further emphasizes that anthropologists had no doubt that these differences do not come from physiological features. This argument sets the main topic of the paper, underlying Begley’s doubts about the value of cultural neuroscience findings. She does not deny the correlations established by scientists but asks a rhetorical question about the possibility of expanding these facts in the future. Begley doubts that the identified associations can lead to the discovery of deeper anthropological patterns.
Even in the earlier lines of his article, the author expresses a certain doubt based on the facts offered. Begley claims that “cultural neuroscience wouldn’t be making waves if it found neurobiological bases only for well-known cultural differences.” The author identifies that this field of science only identified correlations but did not give their explanations. Moreover, these facts are more popular due to the fact that they are less known to both scientists and the general public. Begley emphasizes that cultural neuroscience is more descriptive than it can provide new insights into the anthropological foundations of human and social development.
Literary Elements
The author uses a fairly limited set of literary elements, offering a lot of facts to build arguments. In particular, in the development of the topic, the thesis proposed by Begley. The author argues that cultural neuroscience identifies fundamental differences in the brains of people from different cultures, which is later supported by research evidence. This factor makes the article highly credible, as the arguments are based on existing and proven facts. The author uses a lot of detail, giving numerous associations of culture and brain functions. Together, these two elements create the reader’s ability to trust the author and the arguments offered.
Counterargument
Readers may object that despite the current lack of explanation, cultural neuroscience may be the driver for future research. Begley herself cites at the end of the article the opinion of the psychologist Nalini Ambady, who was actively involved in research, about the prospects for this area. The scientist argues that the findings of cultural neuroscience advance the understanding of the anthropological foundations of the development of culture. However, even the scientist himself points out questions for future research without relying directly on the existing evidence of cultural neuroscience. Ambady suggests that this area can identify more fundamental differences. This cannot be argued, but cultural neuroscience still cannot offer a valid explanation for the differences. Begley emphasizes precisely this aspect that the descriptive nature of this science does not allow it to provide sufficient knowledge for the advancement of anthropological research.
Works Cited
Begley, Sharon. “West Brain, East Brain.” Khaleej Times, 2010, Web.
Jenkins, Rhys. How China is Reshaping the Global Economy: Development Impacts in Africa and Latin America. Oxford University Press, 2018.