Neuroanthropology: what is it and how is it researched?

This scientific discipline combines aspects of neuroscience and anthropology.

In order to acquire a precise knowledge of the human being, it is essential to adopt a multifaceted vision that brings together the various disciplines whose purpose is to describe what underlies the complex reality of the human being. From neuroscience to anthropology, they all have the capacity to provide answers to the eternal questions that our curious species has formulated about itself.

Despite this, traditionally there has been a remarkable independence between them, as if they did not need each other to advance in their fundamental objective. All of this meant that perspectives of greater integration, more in line with the phenomenon they were trying to unravel, were not deployed, and even led to mistrust between them.

In recent times, however, the need to establish alliances based on multidisciplinarity is undeniable. It is on the basis of these alliances that theoretical and practical knowledge has been extending 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 deal in detail with the characteristics of neuroanthropology, a theoretical framework and a method in which the humanistic and the empirical converge.. From all this emerges an epistemology that motivates the congruent orchestration of what is known about the brain and about cultural relations.

What is neuroanthropology?

Neuroanthropology was 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 new discipline, which officially emerged in the first years of the present century, makes culture the gravitational axis around which its action revolves. To this end, 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 "restrained" it.

One of the principles of neuroanthropology, on the basis of which its existence is justified, is the analogy between psychology and culture.. While the first of these is usually recognized as having a neurological basis without any hint of doubt (such as the mental and affective are built in the brain), this is not so in the second case. The objective would be to break with this biased view of the scope of cultural influences, and also to assume in them the capacity to modulate the structure and functions of an organ that governs fundamental processes for its dynamics and understanding.

The perspective of neuroanthropology points out that culture is as powerful (or even more powerful) an explanatory element of human behavior as Biological needs..... The network of meanings common to all human collectivity depends on it, as well as the way in which the bonds that could be manifested within it are regulated. It is undeniable, therefore, that culture has a powerful psychological component, and that since it has extensive neurological roots, culture itself must also have them at least to some degree.

This reasoning has served to shape its essential theoretical justification, and it also has profound empirical evidence. 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.including both its functions and its structure. Many studies have demonstrated the role of the cultural in perception (orientation of attentional resources in complex environments), social processing (subjective evaluation of the behavior 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 which are related to specific areas of the brain.

From all this it can be deduced that the cultural and social, the foundations of anthropology, are important for understanding 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, resulting in disparate experiences among them. Neuroanthropology would seek to provide the answer to a question unresolved during decades of neuroscientific study: Where are shared meanings located at a cerebral level and how do the mechanisms involved evolve?

In the following, we will elaborate on the objectives and method of this humanistic neuroscience, which is progressively gaining more and more importance within the multiplicity of disciplines whose aim is to unravel the mystery of man.

Research objectives

The main objective of this neuroanthropology is to describe cross-cultural and intercultural regularities (between cultures or within the same community), in order to identify eventual differences between two groups that could be attributable to the tacit effect of symbols and shared rules. This is why he resorts to both cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs: the former would reveal potential divergences at a single point in time between two groups, and the latter would reveal their own evolution over time in a single community (as a result of environmental or relational changes that may have occurred).

For the study of what has come to be called the "cultural brain", the latter would be of greater relevance, since they would allow for an analysis of covariation between the two groups. analysis of the neuroanatomical covariation linked to the basic processes of social learning and to the experiences shared by the groups of human beings involved in their study. of human beings involved in their study. This mixture of sciences and knowledge, impossible to conceive only a few years ago, is the foundation of neuroanthropology as it is defined today.

In addition to this broad purpose, neuroanthropology also aims to achieve a number of specific objectives. The first seeks to the existing correlations between cognitive-behavioral changes associated with cultural aspects and the function or structure of the nervous system as objectified by neuroimaging techniques. system as objectified by neuroimaging techniques. After that, statistical procedures should be used to trace how they interact with each other. Finally, longitudinal studies would be projected through which to explore "live" how this relationship unfolds in the very environment where the subjects live (ecological validity).

In short, neuroanthropology describes the human behaviors that unfold within a cultural framework (as basic elements of coexistence), and attempts to associate them with the brain substrates that could serve as their 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 may correspond to the social aspects of all of them. It is also intended to to delimit the mechanisms of cerebral change linked to diversity within the same human group, or originated by environmental/interpersonal fluctuations in which they may have participated. in which they may have participated. The independent variable in this case is, therefore, culture itself.

Methods of this field of science

The method of neuroanthropology is humanistic, but amalgamates resources common to empiricist science. Therefore, it combines the ethnography of social anthropology (which implies "immersing" oneself in the communities being investigated, assuming their way of life during the period required by the project) and laboratory analysis, where the independent variable is manipulated. 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 norms of the project.The ethical rules on the preservation of societies would always be respected.

This approach, which involves a series of two relatively independent phases (qualitative and quantitative), is called neuroethnography. The application of this approach preserves the necessary sensitivity to the object of analysis, which is none other than the social life of individuals and the symbology they use to understand the world around them, and determines how the brain may be involved in these dynamics. Participant observation would have to be combined with neuroscientific knowledge, and would require a multidisciplinary approach (teams of very diverse professionals).

To cite one example, recent studies from this perspective have sought to explore how love is expressed neurologically, according to different cultures. The conclusions on this subject suggest that all cultures in which human beings participate have a word in their linguistic heritage to denote this feeling, but not only that: they also have a word to denote the feeling of love, but also a word to denote the feeling of love. a similar neurological response is observed in subjects from totally different backgrounds (activation of the reward circuit, insula and globus pallidus). (activation of the reward circuit, insula and globus pallidus). Although there are nuances in interpersonal relationships, the evidence suggests that love (as such) has a deep "root" in the nervous system, and that we all experience it equally.

Many studies have emerged to determine other social constructs, such as violence or authority, exploring not only the obvious behavioral differences (which until now were the main focus of anthropology), but also whether such phenomena can be operationalized organically.

There are studies that investigate neural variables within the same society, following the paradigm of cultural consensus. In this case, the objective is to explore the degree of cohesion of certain ideas and customs among the members of a group, in order to locate in their brains the structures responsible for guaranteeing the permanence of the cultural baggage.

In short, it is a method that must have the necessary technical knowledge and personal expertise. The latter is essential when it comes to solving the well-known "problem of the two worlds".. This conflict, which is often considered as a "source of bias" of the observer on the observed, involves the corruption of the information collected by researchers due to preconceived ideas coming from their own cultural background. Therefore, any neuroethnographic gaze implies a naked prism, always pregnant with wonder at discovering a diverse and rich planet.

Bibliographical references:

• Dominguez, J.,Turner, R., Lewis, E. and Egan, G. (2009). Neuroanthropology: A Humanistic Science for the Study of the Culture–Brain Nexus. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 5, 138-47.
• Roepstorff, A. y Frith, C. (2012). Neuroanthropology or Simply Anthropology? Going Experimental as Method, as Object of Study, and as Research Aesthetic. Anthropological Theory, 12(1), 101-111.