“Neuronal ideology”: grammatical metaphor and the naturalisation of neoliberal subjectivities in neurobiological research papers
-
Alexander Hope
Alexander Hope is currently Profesor Permanente Laboral in language and linguistics at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. He teaches academic writing and language and linguistics for translation in the Department of English Philology. His research revolves around different approaches to questions about metaphor, often mixing philosophical perspectives with in-depth linguistic analyses. He has published a number of articles on philosophical and scientific rhetoric, as well as on classroom interaction and teacher training.
Abstract
This paper analyses the potential neoliberal biases found in one of the most influential theories of consciousness in contemporary neuroscience, the Global Neuronal Workspace hypothesis (GNW). Philosopher Catherine Malabou argues that there is a mirroring between managerial discourse and that of contemporary neurobiology. Surprisingly, there is scant linguistic work on the ideological form of neurobiological discourse. In response, I empirically evaluate a specific aspect of Malabou’s claim by using Michael Halliday’s concept of grammatical metaphor to interrogate the particular form of subjectivity implied by the rhetorical and lexicogrammatical construction of the GNW as a concept. This analysis shows that a particular form of grammatical metaphor, dubbed “circumstantial grammatical metaphor” is key to the construction of the GNW and blurs the distinction between the model and the materiality it models. These grammatical metaphors also appear to be involved in the production of broader conceptual metaphors. The results indicate there is evidence for correlations with what Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello call “the new spirit of capitalism” helping naturalise a reduced form of subjectivity.
About the author
Alexander Hope is currently Profesor Permanente Laboral in language and linguistics at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. He teaches academic writing and language and linguistics for translation in the Department of English Philology. His research revolves around different approaches to questions about metaphor, often mixing philosophical perspectives with in-depth linguistic analyses. He has published a number of articles on philosophical and scientific rhetoric, as well as on classroom interaction and teacher training.
References
Banks, David. 2003. The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. In Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics, vol. 236, 127–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/cilt.236.07banSearch in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 2008. The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 19(6). 783–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095894.Search in Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc & Eve Chiapello. 2007. The new spirit of capitalism. (Trans.) Gregory C. Elliott. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc & Eve Chiapello. 2018. The new spirit of capitalism. (Trans.) Gregory Elliott, New updated edition. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar
Borck, Cornelius. 2011. Toys are us: Models and metaphors in brain research. In Suparna Choudhury & Jan Slaby (eds.), Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience, 111–133. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343359.ch5Search in Google Scholar
Boyle, Clionagh. 2019. The community with the bad brain? – neuroscience as discourse in early childhood intervention. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 27(4). 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1634233.Search in Google Scholar
Broer, Tineke & Martyn Pickersgill. 2015. Targeting brains, producing responsibilities: The use of neuroscience within British social policy. Social Science & Medicine 132. 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.022.Search in Google Scholar
Brookes, Gavin, Kevin Harvey, Neil Chadborn & Tom Dening. 2018. “Our biggest killer”: Multimodal discourse representations of dementia in the British press. Social Semiotics 28(3). 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1345111.Search in Google Scholar
Bryant, Levi, Nick Srnicek & Graham Harman (eds.). 2011. The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism. Melbourne: Re.Press.Search in Google Scholar
Busso, Daniel S. & Courtney Pollack. 2015. No brain left behind: Consequences of neuroscience discourse for education. Learning, Media and Technology 40(2). 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.908908.Search in Google Scholar
Changeux, Jean-Pierre. 2004. The physiology of truth neuroscience and human knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Choudhury, Suparna. 2018. Can neuroscience change our minds? (New human frontiers). Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, Malden, MA: Polity press, 2016, 176 pp.: Book review. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 32(3). maq.12433. NA-NA https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12433.Search in Google Scholar
Choudhury, Suparna & Jan Slaby. 2011. Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343359Search in Google Scholar
Choudhury, Suparna, Ian Gold & Laurence J. Kirmayer. 2010. From brain image to the Bush Doctrine: Critical neuroscience and the political uses of neurotechnology. AJOB Neuroscience 1(2). 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507741003699280.Search in Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas & Lionel Naccache. 2001. Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. Cognition 79(1–2). 1–37.10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00123-2Search in Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, Michel Kerszberg & Jean-Pierre Changeux. 1998. A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95. 14529–14534. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.24.14529.Search in Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Lionel Naccache, Jérôme Sackur & Claire Sergent. 2006. Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: A testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(5). 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007.Search in Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics, 2nd edn. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2008. A brief response to Billig. Discourse & Society 19(6). 843–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095899.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315834368Search in Google Scholar
Ferrante, Oscar, Urszula Gorska-Klimowska, Simon Henin, Rony Hirschhorn, Aya Khalaf, Alex Lepauvre & Ling Liu. 2025. Adversarial testing of global neuronal workspace and integrated information theories of consciousness. Nature. Nature Publishing Group 642(8066). 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08888-1.Search in Google Scholar
Fine, Cordelia. 2008. Will working mothers’ brains explode? The popular new genre of neurosexism. Neuroethics 1(1). 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-007-9004-2.Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. (Ed.) Donald F Bouchard. (Trans.) Simon, Sherry. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Frank, Roslyn M., René Dirven & Tom Ziemke (eds.). 2008. Sociocultural situatedness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.10.1515/9783110199116Search in Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1995. Congruence and ideology (or language and the myth of power or metaphors we die by or annihilating all that’s made versus green thought). Social Semiotics 5(1). 23–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350339509384441.Search in Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1996. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, or language and the myth of power, or metaphors we die by. Journal of Pragmatics 25(4). 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166-95-00057-7.Search in Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.10.1075/dapsac.23Search in Google Scholar
Goschler, Juliana. 2007. Metaphors in cognitive and neurosciences. Which impact have metaphors on scientific theories and models? Metaphorik. de 12. 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1996. The looping effects of human kinds. In Dan Sperber, David Premack & James Premack Ann (eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.003.0012Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1985. Signification, representation, ideology: althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2(2). 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360070.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education), 76–93. Repr. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. 2004. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education). Repr. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771Search in Google Scholar
Healey, Mark P. & Gerard P. Hodgkinson. 2014. Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational neuroscience: A critical realist alternative. Human Relations 67(7). 765–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714530014.Search in Google Scholar
Hope, Alexander. 2014. The future is plastic: Refiguring Malabou’s plasticity. Journal for Cultural Research 18(4). 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2014.959308.Search in Google Scholar
Jack, Anthony I., Kylie C. Rochford, Jared P. Friedman, Angela M. Passarelli & Richard E. Boyatzis. 2019. Pitfalls in organizational neuroscience: A critical review and suggestions for future research. Organizational Research Methods 22(1). 421–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117708857.Search in Google Scholar
Kazemian, Bahram, Biook Behnam & Naser Ghafoori. 2013. Ideational grammatical metaphor in scientific texts: A hallidayan perspective. International Journal of Linguistics 5. 146. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i4.4192.Search in Google Scholar
Kirmayer, Lawrence J. 2012. The future of critical neuroscience. In Suparna Choudhury & Jan Slaby (eds.), Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience, 367–384. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444343359.ch18Search in Google Scholar
Koller, Veronika & Paul Davidson. 2008. Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society 19(3). 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088963.Search in Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2005. The future of Hegel: Plasticity, temporality and dialectic. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2008. What should we do with our brain? New York: Fordham University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2010. Plasticity at the dusk of writing: Dialectic, destruction, deconstruction. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/mala14524Search in Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2012. The new wounded: From neurosis to brain damage. New York: Fordham University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2016. Before tomorrow: Epigenesis and rationality. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2008. Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying “nominalization”. Discourse & Society 19(6). 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508095895.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Robert Veel (eds.). 1998. Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Martín Rojo, Luisa & Alfonso Del Percio (eds.). 2020. Language and neoliberal governmentality. London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429286711Search in Google Scholar
Mashour, George A., Pieter Roelfsema, Changeux Jean-Pierre & Dehaene Stanislas. 2020. Conscious processing and the global neuronal workspace hypothesis. Neuron 105(5). 776–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.026.Search in Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014. Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes. Functions of Language 21(2). 139–175. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.2.01mat.Search in Google Scholar
McNamara, T. F. 2019. Language and subjectivity (key topics in applied linguistics). Cambridge, United Kingdom New York, USA Port Melbourne, Australia New Delhi, India Singapore: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay. 2003. Intersemiosis in mathematics and science: Grammatical metaphor and semiotic metaphor. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers & Louise Ravelli (eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics, 337–366. Amsterdam: Benjamins Pub. Co.10.1075/cilt.236.18ohaSearch in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay. 2005. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2007. Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml046.Search in Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2018. Posthumanist applied linguistics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315457574Search in Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2020. Critical and posthumanist applied linguistics. ZACCHI, VJ; ROCHA, CH Diversidade e tecnologias no ensino de línguas, 179–198. São Paulo: Blucher Open Access.10.5151/9786555060560-09Search in Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2021. Critical applied linguistics: A critical re-introduction, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9781003090571Search in Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas S. & Joelle M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691149608.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude Elwood & Warren Weaver. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar
Slaby, Jan. 2010. Review: Catherine Malabou (trans. From French by Sebastian Rand) what should we do with our brain? Journal of Consciousness Studies 17(9–10). 235–240.Search in Google Scholar
Weisberg, Deena Skolnick, Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson & Jeremy R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(3). 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20040.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
