Conclusion

This chapter examines two critical environments that will shape the reception of the arguments in this book: first, the so-called neurological turn in the humanities and social sciences; second, the reparative turn in the critical humanities. Using the example of the neurotransmitter GABA, this conclusion places the arguments of the book in relation to both skepticism and enthusiasm about the role of neuroscientific data in the humanities. The conclusion also reexamines Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s influential call for reparative reading, arguing that a more complex account of the relation between paranoia and reparation is needed to understand the character of contemporary feminist politics