Neuroscience in Psychology Textbooks 47psychology, psychiatry, the neurosciences, and any other connected theory
and practises).
For, as I hope will be clear, as such my critique targets the globalized
Euro-American (neuro)psy-disciplines, in fact, I would argue, there are no
other than the Euro-American ones. Hence, in line with my overall
argument, I do not plead for a “global psychology” to be the alternative,
but, rather, what should be envisioned is a “global non-psychology.” This
should be the decolonizing move to make: not to promote alternative or
indigenous psychologies, but, rather to engage in a global rejection of
psychology, a universal or objective critique of psychologization and its
colonization of minds both in the North and in the South and its mission to
subject everybody to that other basic “one rule to rule them all,” that is,
capitalism.
From here it will be clear that I also reject the possibility of a
decolonized-depsychologized neuroscience. A non-psychology in the end
has nothing to offer to the correlationism of neuroscience. In the end a
critique of the Euro-American neuropsy-disciplines cannot but deconstruct
and empty out the psychologizing categories that tell the human being
what it is in order to control and guide his or her being, colonizing and
making it fit the capitalist modes of production and consumption.
So while the liberal economy presents itself as serving the real needs
of the people, as these allegedly are assessable by the (neuropsy)-sciences,
we should oppose this false universalities with, to use the words of Slavoj
Žižek, the “real people and natural objects on whose productive capacities
and resources capital’s circulation is based and on which it feeds itself like
a gigantic parasite” (Žižek, 2006a, p. 566). And to make sure what the real
people and natural objects are, I argue, should not be regarded in an
essentializing or naturalizing way. In the same way as according to Laclau
‘the people’ should be considered as having no meaning as such as it is the
outcome of the struggle of how and with which signifiers to define ‘the
people’ (the struggle for hegemony) (Laclau, 2005), also what the human
is cannot but be understood as the outcome of a struggle which in the end
is a social and political struggle. Or with Martín-Baró (1994): “truth...can
become a task at hand: not an account of what has been done, but of what