Abstract
The present chapter aims (a) to emphasize two points made abundantly clear by contemporary social cognitive and affective neuroscientists and (b) to note the philosophical nature of those points. These are (a) that all mental processes are brain processes and (b) that since all humans belong to several social systems, their mental life can only be understood by social psychology. Lastly, I propose that the main difference between the classical and the contemporary phases of that science is that, whereas the former sought to describe the psychosocial realm, nowadays we also wish to understand it—by unveiling its underlying mechanisms, such as the negative effect of social exclusion on neuroimmune processes. This more ambitious goal suggests merging biopsychology with the social sciences instead of either isolating the former or attempting to reduce it to either zoology or sociology. Such a call for merger should discourage all talk about neuropolitics and the like, for social science is about social systems, not isolated individuals, whereas psychology, whether individual or social, is about socially embedded individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aronson E. The social animal. New York: Worth/Freeman; 2011.
Trigger BG. Sociocultural evolution. Malden: Blackwell; 1998.
Richerson PJ, Boyd R. Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
Bowles S, Gintis H. A cooperative species. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2011.
Marmot MG, Rose G, Shipley MJ, Hamilton PJ. Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32:244–9.
Wilkinson R, Pickett K. The spirit level: why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin Books; 2010.
Ibáñez A, Hesse E, Manes M, GarcĂa AM. Freeing free will: a neuroscientific perspective. Appendix 1. In: Bunge M, editor. Doing science in the light of philosophy. Singapore: World Scientific Publications; 2017.
Lieberman MD. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:259–89.
Singer T. The past, present and future of social neuroscience: a European perspective. NeuroImage. 2012;61:437–49.
Bunge M. Matter and mind (Boston studies in the philosophy of science). New York: Springer; 2010.
Israel J. Revolutionary ideas: an intellectual history of the French revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2014.
Bunge M. The mind-body problem. Oxford: Pergamon; 1980.
Liu B, Huberman AD, Scanziani M. Cortico-fugal output from visual cortex promotes plasticity of innate motor behavior. Nature. 2017;538:383–7.
Matthews GA, Nieh EH, Vander Weele CM, Wildes CP, Ungless MA, Tye KM. Dorsal raphe dopamine neurons represent the experience of social isolation. Cell. 2016;164(4):617–31.
Bickart KC, Wright CI, Dautoff RJ, Dickerson BC, Feldman Barrett L. Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nat Neurosci. 2011;14:163–6.
Dunbar RI. The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Ann Hum Biol. 2009;36:562–72.
Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169–92.
Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci. 1978;1(4):515–26.
Preston SD, de Waal FBM. Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci. 2002;25:1–71.
Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67:371–8.
Bunge M. The sociology-philosophy connection. Brunswick: Transaction Publishers; 1999. Reissued in paperback, 2012
Oliver M. Understanding disability. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1996.
Anastasiou D, Kauffman JM. The social model of disability. J Med Philos. 2013;38:441–59.
Lévy-Bruhl L. La mentalité primitive. Paris: Flammarion; 2010.
Pievani T. Evoluti e abbandonati. Torino: Einaudi; 2014.
Paul GS. Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies. J Religion Soc. 2005;7:1–17.
Cravioto J, Delecardie ER, Birch HG. Nutrition, growth and neurointegrative development. Pediatrics. 1966;38:319–72.
Navarro V, Muntaner C, editors. The financial and economic crises and their impact on health and social well-being. Amityville: Baywood; 2014.
Krupeneye C, Kano F, Hirata S, Call J, Tomasello M. Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science. 2016;354:110–3.
Pinker S. The better angels of our nature. New York: Penguin; 2011.
Fry DP, Söderberg P. Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science. 2013;341:270–2.
Bunge M. Emergence and convergence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2003.
Acknowledgments
I thank AgustĂn Ibáñez (INECO) for his critical remarks, as well as VerĂłnica Bunge Vivier (EcologĂa, Conaycit, MĂ©xico DF), Iris Mauss (Psychology, UCA, Berkeley), and Ignacio Morgado (Neurobiology, Universidad AutĂłnoma de Barcelona), for helping with the references.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bunge, M. (2017). The Self-Domesticated Animal and Its Study. In: Ibáñez, A., Sedeño, L., GarcĂa, A. (eds) Neuroscience and Social Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68421-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68420-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68421-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)