Today, neuroscience is undoubtedly at the focus of close public attention and interest. It is associated with the greatest hopes, but also arouses the innermost fears. Neuroscience has become a challenge not only for practical fields such as medicine or pharmacology but for all of the human sciences. Representatives of leading trends in social sciences and humanities have entered the discussion about the possible benefits and threats related to the rapid growth of knowledge in neuroscience. The neuro-turn has become a conceptual framework in which the neuro-centric style of thinking sets the regimen of truth. The article presents a cartography of the space of epistemological solutions proposed by social theory and philosophy in response to the active expansion of neuroscience. Above all, the article explicates the internal mechanics of the critical program - which is based on the logic of "strong explanation" - symmetrically implemented both by critical social theory and neuroscientists. Within the framework of post-critical approaches making a case for replacing the logic of exposure with other epistemological strategies, alternatives to "barbaric criticism" in sociology and philosophy are proposed. In particular, we consider Wittgensteinian sociology which implements a methodology of clarification of the conceptual confusions that arise in neuroscience studies, as well as B. Latour's actor-network theory and K. Barad's agential realism proposing to abandon, on principled grounds, basic binary oppositions such as culture/nature, social/biological, and cerebral/symbolic in favour of the notions of "network" and "onto-epistemological entanglement".

his article is devoted to a critical analysis of neuropsychoanalysis, an interdisciplinary field that emerged at the end of the 20th century and set itself the task of combining neuroscience with the psychoanalytic approach. The author draws attention to the conceptual gaps of this ambitious undertaking. The main gap is argued to be the insufficient attention paid to the psychophysical problem (or mind-body problem), which ends up overlooking the fundamental difference between brain and psychic / mental reality, and attempts to derive the principles of functioning of the latter from the observations of brain activity. This, in turn, leads to further problems: the problem of translation and search for a correspondence between psychoanalytic theory based on a thick observation of the subject's mental activity and the conceptual tools of neurosciences. What percentage of loss of meaning in this translation can be recognized as acceptable and what remains of psychoanalysis as a result of such a procedure? Another problem is related to the intersubjective symbolic nature of human desire, which cannot be deduced from observations of brain physiology. Finally, the author draws attention to the fact that neurosciences - and neuropsychoanalysis is no exception here - are already initially interwoven into social and cultural space, making them easy victims of contemporary- sometimes implicit - ideological attitudes. The article concludes with a call for greater reflexivity regarding neuropsychoanalysis on the part of both interested parties - psychoanalysts and neuroscientists.

The paper examines Nikolas Rose's conception of the neuroscientific revolution in psychiatry. It has been repeatedly stated that the advances in neuroscience led to the radical transformation of psychiatry and that they will lead to further changes in mental health. Regardless of whether this transformation is considered as change for the better or for the worse, it is described as a radical move towards a completely new way of understanding and treating mental disorders. Rose's conception is remarkable since it focuses not only on the very transformation of psychiatry, but also on the discourse of radical shift, on hopes, expectations and evaluations of these changes. This paper examines and summarizes key ideas of how the discourse of radical shift - which in fact refers to the future - influences the way psychiatry evolves. The author demonstrates that this discourse is controversial, since it is based on an ambivalent concept of the future. On the one hand, the neuroscientific revolution in psychiatry is said to establish a predictable, calculable and thus governable future in the field of mental health. On the other hand, the expected radical revolution in methods of treating and preventing mental disorders is considered as inconceivable from today's perspective. Yet, the latter is the condition of the former. This paradox forms an integral part of recent discussions on the neuroscientific revolution in psychiatry.

With the discovery of the possibility of neurobiologically and genetically interpreting the actions of a moral agent, the issue of the status of morality returned to applied ethics with renewed vigor. The biotechnological understanding of society as a whole has been a long-running trend in technoscience and can be considered as a transgression of (bio-) technologies into the sphere of ethics. The essence of the conflict between bio-conservative ethics and techno-oriented utilitarians lies in the plane of violation of the fundamental value of autonomy (J. Harris) and the destruction of the principle of solidarity and equality (A. Buchanan). Supporters of techno-determined moral action as conditions for the expansion of technology into the field of morality put forward the predictability of consequences as a condition for the legitimation of technology (N. Agar), the need to prevent maximum harm (J. Savulescu, I. Persson) and the right to an autonomous choice of a biotechnological regulation of morality (V. Rakic). At the center of the discussion is the problem of the good, for the practical solution of which moral outsourcing mechanisms have already been envisaged (e.g. the service of triage officers in disaster medicine, extended informed consent for biobanks). The article compares moral action as a choice, moral action as a coercion and moral action as outsourcing, and determines the place of the neurobiological interpretation of good and moral action within the theoretical understanding of a moral act in applied ethics. In particular, the role of a cognitive act in the context of a moral act is examined, the problem of deferred risks and their regulation when making a moral decision is analyzed. It is concluded that one of the manifestations of the impact of (bio) technology on a person is the complicacy and transformation of moral decision-making models, in connection with which the universal methods that formulate a moral action (moral act as a choice) can be supplemented by new models that constitute good and moral action.

This paper focuses on the analysis of contemporary theories of culture and cognition in cultural sociology. It identifies two major research traditions within cognitivist cultural sociology, based on micro-individualist and collectivist modes of sociological explanation respectively. Two prominent theoretical frameworks within the "micro-individualist" tradition are then critically examined: Stephen Vaisey's dual-process models of culture in action and Omar Lizardo's typology of cultural kinds. It is argued that both frameworks, although well-defined and theoretically insightful, are prone to unwarranted microfoundationalist reductionism. The paper then proceeds to evaluate the presuppositions of the explicitly "collectivist" Zeru-bavelian paradigm of cultural sociology, as well as a series of recent contributions to the field by scholars representing the neo-Durkheimian "strong program". Both are argued to contain problematic assumptions about the location and means of transmission of cultural content. It is concluded that neither "micro-individualist" nor "collectivist" theories of culture and cognition can provide an adequate account of how culture and cognition interrelate since both frameworks are based on explicitly reductionist social ontologies. The article then calls for the adoption of Tuukka Kaidesoja's "naturalized critical realist" social ontology that seeks to overcome these philosophical biases. The paper examines two major sources of Kaidesoja's ontological doctrine, namely Mario Bunge's systemic materialist ontology and the "distributed cognition" perspective. The article then seeks to outline a preliminary sketch of an alternative account of culture that involves the generation, transmission, and transformation of representational states across different media within distributed cognitive systems.

The neurodiversity movement has so far been dominated by autistic people who believe their condition is not a disease to be treated and, if possible, cured, but rather a human specificity (like sex or race) that must be equally respected. Very few studies have been conducted to examine the significance of the neurosciences and the cerebralization of autistic culture for promoting these ideas. The article explores the role of the brain and the neurosciences in projects of identity formation as illustrated in the case of the emergence of the neurodiversity movement. The movement is driven by so called high functioning autistic individuals, who argue that autism is not a disease, but a form of human difference. The article examines the development of autistic individuals and autistic socialities as well as social and community networks. It also addresses the emergence of autistic cultures and various issues concerning autistic identities. It shows that the formation of identities is associated with the cerebralization of the condition. Facts about the brain are mobilized to depict autism positively. The move toward neurosciences has to be understood in a wider social context in which a brain-based vocabulary disseminates outside the lab and penetrates different domains of contemporary societies. This vocabulary is taken up by individuals and groups to speak about themselves and their relation with others as well as in their identity claims and fights for rights.

The paper deals with the quandary of the neutrality and transparency of technologies. First, I show how this problem is connected with the image of the opening of 'black boxes' that is pivotal to much of science and technology studies. Second, methodological and socio-political dimensions of the 'black box' metaphor are discussed. Third, I analyze three typical solutions to the problem of the neutrality of technologies outside and inside constructivist technology studies. It is demonstrated that despite their apparent differences, these solutions are similar in their logic of conceptualizing technology as a neutral intermediary. Forth, I look for an alternative to this logic in the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour. Here technologies are conceived in terms of an eventful association of heterogeneous entities irreducible to its conditions of possibility. The construction of technologies is understood as mediation, or as a 'making-do' process where creators are surprised by their creations and vice versa. In Latour's actor-network, technologies are interpreted as opaque and non-neutral entities. Finally, I turn to some object-lessons from smart technologies powered by neural networks to demonstrate that these are empirical vindications of Latour's conception of technical mediation. Particular attention is paid to the opacity and (non)interpretability of machine learning algorithms.

The study of controversies is an important methodological tool for understanding key aspects of scientific activity that are invisible from within the science itself. Following Sarah Whatmore, we argue that controversies are a force field within which there is a redistribution of expertise. As an application of the basic principles of ANT, the mapping of controversies lacks the disadvantages of constructivist and epistemological approaches to science. While preserving the validity of scientific facts, it could demonstrate the practice of finding allies and creating new associations in the process of creating science. The analysis of controversies shows that a key feature of neuroscience today is a theoretical "consensus". The most important principle of this "consensus" is the idea of neuroplasticity - the ability of the brain to be changed as a result of new experiences. The use of mapping methods allows us to show that this agreement hides a complex of controversies that touch on the problem of brain plasticity and theoretical models of behaviors. An attempt to explore these controversies reveals various strategies for finding allies within opposing research programs. These competing trends were divided into two groups: proponents of "universal" plasticity, which presupposes general laws for different structural levels of brain organization, and proponents of multiple plasticity. One of the most important strategies for expanding networks used by participants in the study is to reconstruct the history of their own object, as well as to attract non-specialists to obtain the necessary data for research.