The long standing reign of psychology as the privileged partner of education has, arguably, now been superseded by the neurosciences. Given that this helped to drive the emergent field of neuroeducation, it is crucial to ask what changes in education, if anything does in fact change, when the hitherto hegemonic psychologising discourse is substituted for a neurological one. The primary contention of this paper is that with the neuro-turn a process of “neurologisation” has also been initiated, which can be analysed (...) by taking into account its genealogical predecessor, psychologisation. In doing so, I argue, one ultimately discerns a primordial incompatibility between education and neuroscience, one that can be traced back to the fundamental and problematic reflexivity of modern subjectivity itself, which the discipline of psychology was never able to wholly resolve. From here, I proceed with the argument that while the eagerness of the psy-sciences to embrace neuroscience testifies to how much psychology needs neurology, the neurosciences are structurally incapable of disconnecting from the paradigms of the psy-sciences. Following on from this proposition, other strong/weak factors are brought into the equation: strong/weak nature, strong/weak culture, strong/weak subjectivity and, most pertinently, strong/weak education. Finally, the critical question becomes: if education in itself needs to take recourse to both the psy-sciences and the neurosciences, then how can we begin to account for the fact that these sciences invariably end up becoming captured within educational discourses themselves; that is, the fact that teachers, parents, and pupils themselves are taught the key insights of neuropsychology. (shrink)

Parenting books and early childhood policy documents increasingly refer to neuroscience to support their parenting advice. This trend, called ‘neuroparenting’ has been subject to a growing body of sociological and ethical critical examination. The aim of this paper is to review this critical literature on neuroparenting. We identify three main arguments: that there is a gap between neuroscientific findings and neuroparenting advice, that there is an implicit normativity in the translation from neuroscience to practice, and that neuroparenting is a form (...) of neoliberal self-management. We will critically discuss these arguments and make suggestions for ethically responsible forms of neuroparenting that can foster child development but avoid pitfalls. (shrink)

Neuroparenting: Between apocalypse and utopiaNeuroscience increasingly invades all domains of our lives, including the intimate realm of child raising and parenting. The current trend of neuroparenting, that is parenting advice based on neuroscientific research, fits this development. This article analyses this development from an ethical point of view. We will outline the current developments in the domain of neuroparenting with a special focus on the so-called ‘baby brain’ and ‘adolescent brain’. To discuss corresponding promises and perils, we do not only (...) provide an overview of current studies developing ethical arguments, but we will also present several blind spots in that debate. We will conclude with some advice on how to integrate neuroscience findings in parenting practice in the most ethical way and point out limits that ought to be respected. (shrink)