Reflections on Neurofeminism and Intersectionality Using Insights From Psychology.

Annie Duchesne,Anelis Kaiser Trujillo

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.684412

Abstract

Intersectionality contends that sex/gender is constituted of and with other social categories, and that the social structures giving rise to inequality should be addressed in research. This is a powerful and important perspective from which to investigate the processes and consequences of social group memberships, one which has been overlooked by most neuroscientific research. In particular, neurofeminism, a field of critical neuroscience that challenges neuroscientific assumptions, methods and interpretations of data that reinforce sexism, has ignored intersectionality to date. In contrast, research in the field of psychology has been engaging with intersectionality for more than a decade. In reflecting on how intersectionality has advanced feminist research in psychology, this paper provides a critical analysis of potential novel research avenues for neurofeminism. We identify three main research themes guided by intersectionality. The first theme involves research centered on understanding the socio-structural causes of health inequalities experienced by individuals with intersecting marginalized social identities; the second concerns research addressing the psychological processing of social group memberships that underlies the enactment of systemic discriminatory practices; and the third theme comprises intersectionality research that aims to challenge psychological epistemology. Drawing parallels between the fields of psychology and neuroscience, we explore the potential benefits and risks of advancing an intersectionality-informed neurofeminism.

Highlights

Neurofeminism is the feminist practice and criticism of neuroscience
To date, intersectionality remains largely overlooked in the design, analysis, and interpretation of sex/gender-related neuroscientific research. As this special topic aims to advance the development of critical investigative approaches in sex/gender and the brain that are grounded in plurality, we explore whether and how intersectionality can provide novel research avenues for neuroscience, and in particular, for neurofeminism
With regard to theme one, which described intersectionalityinformed research on health inequality, we identify the following main areas for advancement: First, neurofeminism will benefit from shifting focus to engage in neuroscientific research that is systems-centered, wherein oppressive social structures impacting inequalities in sex/gender-related brain health are modeled and tested

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Neurofeminism is the feminist practice and criticism of neuroscience. Neurofeminists challenge research practices, including assumptions, methods, and interpretations of data that reinforce sexism by treating neuroscientific knowledge as acultural, apolitical, and sexually dichotomic (Kuria and Hess, 2011; Bluhm et al, 2012; Schmitz and Hoppner, 2014). They do not interrogate this finding any further; in this regard, they sidestep the question of whether these subjective stereotypes are “fixed” at the level of the brain or whether they can be changed, and instead suggest that future studies should aim to manipulate participant’s social stereotype in order to improve causal inference They do not discuss how socio-structural power dynamics may influence the development of stereotypical social categorization, thereby treating each of the categories as “neutral.” As a result, even when adopting an explicit focus on the contributions of subjective social-conceptual knowledge to processing of social categories, research that aims to localize distinct patterns of neural activity related to intersectional categories in the brain runs the risk of inadvertently biologically essentializing these categories, in a more multifaceted, “intersectional” manner than arises from the “traditionally” separated social categories. These avenues of promoting an awareness as to the situated nature of scientific knowledge and the plurality of knowledge holders open up numerous avenues of future direction for the field of neuroscience

LIMITATIONS

Findings

CONCLUSION