In the last few decades, neuroscientific language and knowledge have diffused into diverse contexts, such as childcare, marketing, public policy, and health care (Pykett 2015; Thornton 2011). This has created a phenomenon of brain culture, “in which knowledge, images and representations of the brain shape our cultural identities and societies” (Pykett 2015, p.1). Recently, brain culture has expanded to issues related to work as management of “the disobedient brain” (Guyard and Kaun 2018). There, neurosciences are harnessed to enhance productivity, integrating brain culture into a governing rationale of work in Scandinavia, including Finland (Guyard and Kaun 2018; Valovirta and Mannevuo 2022). For instance, newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, based on an interview with psychologist and brain researcher Mona Moisala, cautions readers about the loss of concentration at work and instructs them to aim for uninterrupted working time, because in that way, “neural connections can be strengthened” to enable sustained concentration at work (Vasama 2020). In this article, we inquire about what kind of labouring subject is constructed when neuroscientific insight is used to recognize and respond to problems of working life, which is increasingly based on harnessing the cognitive resources of workers (see Moulier-Boutang 2011).

The media, often in a voice of expert authority, influences what and how things are perceived as problems and thus something to be reflected upon and responded to (Bacchi 2009; du Plessis 2021). Our data consist of 45 media texts, in which experts instruct readers to correct and optimize working by utilizing knowledge of the brain. Reflecting on the cultural shift towards a more individualized understanding of health and the expansion of brain culture in the latter part of 2010’s, we chose texts published online between 2018 and 2020. The internet has become an important source of science and health information for lay audience (Brossard 2013; European Commission 2014; Lewis 2006) and a media environment where commercial interests become enmeshed with different forms of health authority (Rose 2007, pp. 126–128, 141–144). To account for this diverse media landscape and its varied cultural agendas, the present study investigates knowledge about the working brain as represented on websites of a variety of institutional actors, such as universities, news outlets, and enterprises.

The diffusion of neuroscientific knowledge into multiple areas of life and culture has created and sustained a form of self-understanding based on the congruence between the self and the biological brain, illustrated by concepts such as “neurochemical selves” (Rose 2003), “brainhood” (Vidal 2009), “cerebral subject” (Ortega and Vidal 2007) and “neurologic subjectivity” (Pickersgill et al 2011). The subject of the brain culture is not universal, however; instead, it is shaped in particular contexts with specific cultural implications and power relations that often reflect individualist neoliberal ideals (Thornton 2011). It is not an objective representation of reality but instead constituted within discourses and practices of brain culture in a way that limits and opens up possibilities for action and thought and, respectively, has governing functions (see Bacchi 2016; Miller and Rose 1990). In this article, we use the term neurobiologized labouring subject to refer to neurobiologically understood subjectivity in the context of working life as it is constructed in text. Using this term, we aim to pay attention to the neurobiologization that happens in media where workers are represented, understood, and encouraged to be acted upon, as being defined by their brains. Brain discourse then makes working people a subject of intervention, as it reflects both the desire to optimize the neural resource (Pykett 2015) and the global concern over the well-being of the working population (World Health Organization 2022). Our central argument is that neurobiologizing the labouring subject produces working subjectivity in a way that renders problematic one’s relationship to work and requires constant effort in terms of protection and optimization.

Despite the significance of this phenomenon as well as the growing body of social scientific research about neurosciences in general, there is little critical research about neuroscientific knowledge in the context of work. This article will fill this gap by critically analyzing neuroscientific understanding of work from the complementary theoretical perspectives of cognitive capitalism and governmentality. Whereas the governmentality perspective illuminates the role of neuroscientific knowledge in the production of subjectivity, theorization of cognitive capitalism allows us to situate it in the context of work as a key site for managing subjectivity (see Rose 2007; Vercellone and Giuliani 2019). According to the theory of cognitive capitalism, contemporary, “immaterial, intellectual, and communicational” work is based on tacit knowledge that is integral to workers’ brains and bodies (Vercellone and Giuliani 2019, pp. 24–25). This kind of work is often done outside of the official workplace or working hours, making it difficult to control based on traditional measuring units (Moulier-Boutang 2011). In these circumstances, external control of work and workers is replaced by control of subjectivities (Vercellone and Giuliani 2019, p. 25). We argue that neurobiologizing the labouring subject functions as a technique for this kind of control, as it naturalizes and depoliticizes problematic features of cognitive capitalism, such as the temporal and spatial diffusion of work as well as the dissolution of work and the worker, while also providing tools to manage them on individual and organizational levels (see Morini 2007; Moulier-Boutang 2011).

Drawing from these theoretical perspectives, we inquire into how the problems of work are constructed when they are articulated with neuroscientific concepts in public discourse. How, in turn, are their solutions constructed? And finally, what kind of labouring subject is formed when neuroscientific research and knowledge of the brain is employed to solve the problems of working life? This article is structured as follows. We start by linking the perspectives of cognitive capitalism, governmentality, and brain discourse. We then present our data, method, and the analysis, where we illustrate the role of neurosciences in the media discussion about work and working subjects. We present that in brain culture, the labouring subject is neurobiologized by problematizing the relationship between contemporary work and the brain, and then positioning the labouring subject as responsible for regulating this disharmony. Finally, we discuss our findings by considering how neuroscientific understanding of work intensifies and naturalizes features of cognitive capitalism, such as internalization of control. We conclude by presenting our main contributions: demonstrating how the neurobiologized labouring subject is produced as a function of both cognitive capitalism and knowledge of the brain, showing how the brain discourse manifests in the discussion about work in Finland, and highlighting the importance of developing nuanced understanding of the uses of the brain discourse as it enters new domains and is taken up by different actors.

Research on the societal significance of neurosciences has focussed mostly on the domains of parenthood, social policy, healthcare, and education (see e.g. Barnett et al 2020; Broer et al 2020; Busso and Pollack 2015; Chen 2021; Goldfarb 2015; Lowe et al 2015) as well as on laypeople’s, professionals’, and clinical populations’ conceptions of neurosciences and the brain (e.g. Fraser et al 2018; Pickersgill et al 2015; Valtonen et al 2021). Media coverage of neurosciences has been analysed generally (O´Connor et al 2012; van Atteveldt et al 2014) as well as in terms of gender (O´Connor and Joffe 2014a), ageing (Lawless and Augoustinos 2017), child development (O´Connor and Joffe 2013b), brain training (Pickersgill et al 2017), neuroenhancement (Forlini and Racine 2009; Partridge et al 2011), and brain plasticity (Pitts-Taylor 2010). Moreover, research has focussed on representations of neurotechnologies in the media (Racine et al 2010; Whiteley 2012). In recent years, two studies have explored the integration of neuroscience into managerial practices in Scandinavia. Elina Valovirta and Mona Mannevuo (2022) critique the way in which ‘neuromanagement’ medicalizes academic workers instead of offering structural solutions to the difficulties of academic work. Taking a similarly critical stance, Carina Guyard and Anne Kaun (2018) analyse how neuroscientific ideas are integrated into the managerial practices of a Scandinavian telecommunication firm, concluding that neuroscience-inspired management positions the individual as the core of the problems of increased technology use. These studies indicate that in the Nordic countries especially, the brain culture has an individualizing influence on working life. The varied ways in which the culture manifests in Finland and in the media discussion about work are yet an unexplored topic.

By constituting ways of understanding reality, the media actively produces subjects as changing discursive constructions (Gill 2007, p. 12). However, the media does not straightforwardly transmit neuroscience-based self-conceptions into the audience, but instead, people’s social positions as well as their existing conceptions about the issue play a role in engaging with the discourse (O´Connor and Joffe 2014b; Skeggs and Wood 2012). Even though the aim of this article is not to evaluate the accuracy of neuroscientific claims, the ongoing discussion about the validity of neuroscientific findings and their representations in the media establishes the field as a ground for multiple negotiations. Media coverage of neurosciences has been criticized for exaggerating the significance of scientific findings (Racine et al 2010; van Atteveldt et al 2014). The hype around neuroenhancement has been shown to partly result from overly enthusiastic academic literature (Partridge et al 2011), and neuroscientific research in general is subject to an ongoing discussion about replicability (e.g. Barch and Pagliaccio 2017; Huber et al 2019). Perhaps paradoxically, the media’s enthusiastic stance on brain knowledge may be partly explained by the apparent scientific legitimacy and rhetorical power of neuroscientific explanations (Fernandez-Duque et al 2015; O´Connor et al 2012; Weisberg et al 2008). While carrying an aura of scientific objectivity, neuroscientific framings in media contain implicit value choices, such as neglection of structural, cultural, and political dimensions that may impact the examined phenomena (O´Connor and Joffe 2013b) and legitimation of certain political and disciplinary agendas (Whiteley 2012). This study contributes to the body of research on brain culture by analyzing the application of neuroscience to the morally charged domain of working life, where neurosciences are used to both accentuate and critique its existing values.

The expanding interest in neurosciences in culture may be partly explained by its relation to the nature of contemporary work. In cognitive capitalism, work is often based on processing knowledge instead of material goods, and accordingly, productive labour can be “characterized as the inventive activity of brains operating with computers that are mobilized in active networks” (Moulier-Boutang 2011, p. 163). Whereas the birth of industrial wage labour led to scientific rationalization of the body and its working capacity, the rise of knowledge work has coincided with the bourgeoning interest in the study of the brain (Padios 2017) and the control of the worker’s subjectivity (Vercellone and Giuliani 2019, p. 25). The relationship between the changes in capitalist production and the diffusion of neuroscientific language into the culture is bidirectional: neurosciences have been employed to naturalize the current form of capitalism; at the same time, neuroscientific insight has been saturated with neoliberal capitalist ideas (Malabou 2008; Pitts-Taylor 2010).

There is also resonance between ideas developed in the brain sciences and the ways capitalism has transformed in the last decades from industrial to immaterial production, as both have moved from the language of rigid hierarchies to emphasizing flexible network structures (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Malabou 2008). The idea of brain plasticity, in turn, is mobilized to construct an ideal adaptable neoliberal subject suited for precarious conditions (Pitts-Taylor 2010). Finland’s labour market is characterized by advanced digital economy and service sector (European Commission 2022; Statistics Finland 2022), making it an exemplary case of cognitive capitalism. Symptomatic of the neoliberalization of the Finnish market regime, stakeholders such as a trade union, public health authority, and civic organization can share similar strategies of appealing to individualized ideal of well-being (Jauho and Helén, 2023; Kuokkanen et al 2020). While the Finnish economy relies on the cognitive capacities of its workers, the neuroscientific field itself has been regarded as a driver for economic growth in Finland (Finnish Government 2020; Korpi et al 2020; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, n.d.). Emblematic of this expectation of economic growth is the establishment of Neurocenter Finland, a neuroscience research network of Finnish universities aiming to foster collaboration between academic and commercial actors and to promote “competitiveness in neuroscience expertise and commercial success” (Neurocenter Finland, n.d.). Neurocenter Finland was launched in 2020 as part of the Finnish government’s Health Sector Growth Strategy, a policy framework that aims to lead Finland into “an internationally renowned top player in business in the health sector” (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, n.d.). Heta Tarkkala et al (2019) argue that in Finland, the Health Sector Growth Strategy represents a broader change in the sociotechnical imaginary of personalized medicine where expectations of business opportunities and international investments replace advances in medical science and health care. Altogether, understanding the neurobiologized labouring subject can shed light on some general underlying tensions of cognitive capitalism because of this close relationship between production of subjectivities and capitalist production as well as the resonance between vocabularies of the current form of capitalism and neurosciences (see Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, pp. 104, 118–119; Lazzarato 1996; Thornton 2011, pp. 62–63).

According to Nikolas Rose (2007), relating to oneself as a neurochemical self means understanding one’s self, mood, behaviour, and experience in terms of neurobiology, as well as managing and adjusting them by the means afforded by neurobiological terms. The neurochemical discourse arguably establishes a distinct, new kind of de-psychologized subject, characterized by biological language and flattened-out psyche (Rose 2007). Drawing from the Foucauldian governmentality perspective, Davi Johnson Thornton (2011) and Victoria Pitts-Taylor (2010) argue that popularized neuroscientific discourse encourages subjectivity that is individualized and engaged in working on the self as the means to attain success and health. According to Thornton (2011), equating the human subjectivity with the biological brain subjects the individual to the logic of economical calculation, where the morally valuable life is focussed on maximizing and optimizing brain health and, consequently, productivity (see also Pykett 2015). Pitts-Taylor (2010) emphasizes the congruence between the neoliberal ideal of flexibility and the view of the healthy brain as plastic and adaptable. Brain-health advice operates as “micro-political technologies of health”, where taking care of one’s brain and cultivating the neuronal self become moral obligations of a responsible citizen (Pitts-Taylor 2010, pp. 646–649). Guyard and Kaun (2018) have complemented this focus on optimization by noting that neuroscience-inspired managerial practices conceptualize the brain as irrational and primitive, which extends the governance from rational self-management to the realm of irrationality and emotionality.

In cognitive capitalism, the health of national economies is substantially defined by the quality of populations and their human capital (Moulier-Boutang 2011, p. 57). Optimization and self-management are then not the only practices reformulated in terms of neurosciences, as neuroscientific knowledge is employed to articulate concerns over mental and brain health of the working population in general and its economic implications (see e.g. Millei and Joronen 2016; Rose and Abi-Rached 2013, p. 14; World Health Organization 2022). Mental health problems associated with work are now recognized as issues to be resolved in multiple levels from organizational policies to interventions targeted to individuals. For example, the Optimizing brain health across the life course position paper by the World Health Organization (2022, p. xii) frames problems of brain health in terms of posing “significant risks not only to the individual’s overall health and well-being but also global development and productivity”. Interest in the labouring brain can then be regarded as one manifestation of a process where silenced experiences of exhaustion at work are made visible and then, subjected to governing practices (Gill and Donaghue 2016; Väänänen et al 2019). Reflecting the neoliberal ideology of the Finnish job market, individual responsibility to manage work-related mental health issues is usually emphasized in public discussion over structural solutions (Kuokkanen et al 2020).

As seen in the combination of the desire for optimization and worry over health risks, the cultural understanding of the neurobiologized subject is not uniform but instead “the brain is a plural thing” that is “generating many kinds of self-making projects” (Martin 2010, p. 379). As such, it is shaped by cultural agendas and framings of diverse media outlets (O´Connor and Joffe 2014a) and mobilized to serve multiple, sometimes competing interests (Thornton 2011, p. 9). Moreover, neurobiological knowledge does not totally reorganize human subjectivity as it can be selectively adopted, interwoven with existing self-conceptions and used as a flexible discursive resource (Mackenzie and Roberts 2017; O´Connor and Joffe 2013a; Pickersgill et al 2011). Accordingly, our perspective on governmentality approaches the use of neurobiologically informed advice as problematizing activity that encourages self-reflection and potentially contains aspects of normalization and discipline (see du Plessis 2021). The media texts investigated are “practical’ texts”, as “they were designed to be read, learned, reflected upon, and tested out, and they were intended to constitute the eventual framework of everyday conduct” (Foucault 1990, pp. 12–13). Therefore, the function of the practical advice in the media can be regarded as persuasion and education of the public to adopt new ways of understanding the self.

The data consist of 45 media texts that discuss the brain in the context of work. The texts were published in Finnish websites between 2018 and 2020, a period of expanding brain culture and related economic aspirations in Finland. Growth in academic and public interest in the neurosciences in the latter part of 2010s was evident in new neuroscience-focussed international academic programmes (Lehner 2022; Maja 2018), an extensive national public health campaign aiming to improve “brain work” (Kalakoski et al. 2020), and establishment of a national neuroscience network. In 2017, the government of Finland allocated funding to a neuroscience network, launched in 2020, as part of the national health strategy aiming to create business opportunities based on personalized medicine (Korpi et al 2020; Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, n.d.). Finnish media reflects these developments by publishing popularized neuroscience on a regular basis. A brief look into media texts published after the analysed period indicates that the brain discourse has an enduring presence in the Finnish media landscape. The discourse circulates themes explored in the sample of this analysis, such as concentration (Saarinen 2023) and sleep (Vainio 2021). It also makes new phenomena understandable by integrating them into the discourse. This latter tendency is indicated in headlines by the national news network Yle covering remote work during the COVID-2019 pandemic, stating that “For the brain, isolation is a state of deficiency” (Tolkki 2021) and “The brain is again in a new situation now that also work in the office is possible again” (Tauriainen 2021).

The texts were first collected in 2021 based on their headlines, using search engine Google and search engines of two major Finnish news providers, Yle and Helsingin Sanomat, and later, the final corpus was selected by reading the texts in detail. Yleisradio Oy (Yle) is a public service media company whose duties to support democracy and culture are based on the Finnish legislation (Act on the Finnish Broadcasting Company 1380/1993). Helsingin Sanomat, a newspaper owned by Sanoma Media Finland, is the largest newspaper in Finland by circulation (Media Audit Finland 2023). The final corpus of texts was selected based on the following criteria. First, they were published in institutional settings that communicate expert knowledge to a common audience, such as university websites, trade union magazines and websites of nongovernmental organizations focussing on brain health. Second, texts that mainly focus on brain diseases and injuries were excluded. Third, the tone of the texts is educative; they are written in a way that enables the readers to reflect and act on their own lives.

Specific objectives for the data selection were variation and saturation. Variation was ensured by including both commercial and noncommercial texts, multiple genres such as interviews and infomercials, and a wide variety of different publishers. Selecting 45 texts was enough to reach considerable data saturation while also enabling detailed close reading integral to discourse analytic methodology. The saturation was indicated by similar themes and problematizations occurring repeatedly in the sample. The texts included in the final sample that do not appear in the References are listed in Appendix One. The expertise was defined based on the positioning of the advice in the texts as expert advice. The expert voice was present in texts in two ways: some texts were written by brain professionals themselves, but mostly experts were interviewed or otherwise referenced in the media, for example by referencing books written by brain researchers. In these instances, the expert voice is filtered through journalistic choices. Constructing the expert position is an important topic, as governing typically happens through the expert voice (Bacchi 2009, 2016). However, more precise analysis of this theme is beyond the scope of this article.

The data were analysed by the first author by close reading the texts as well as using a variety of discourse analysis, the analysis of problematizations as explicated from Michel Foucault’s (1983, 1990) concept by Erik du Plessis and Carol Bacchi. The study of problematizations is concerned about “how and why certain things, conducts, phenomena, processes, become a problem” (Foucault 1983, p. 224) and how texts construe problems in specific ways, in other words, “render complex relational phenomena problematic (as “problems”), in the process producing them as “objects” (Bacchi 2012, p. 4). Analytically, problematizations are divided into various elements constructed in the discourse: there is the general form of problematization that makes possible different specific problems and “cuts across” them (du Plessis 2021, pp. 37–38). The general problematization then encompasses various specific concrete problems, the suggested ideal conditions, and the responses as a means to attain these ideal conditions (du Plessis 2021). Without strictly following the methodological approach suggested by Carol Bacchi, our analysis is informed by the way she (2009, 2016) highlights the special status of expert theories and practices in problematizing certain issues and thus framing them as territory of governance. Moreover, we pay attention to the ways problematizations constitute subjects—such as the neurobiologized labouring subject—with certain qualities and morality (see Bacchi 2016). Finally, the analysis draws from theories of governmentality and cognitive capitalism to situate the problematizations into the power relations and the social context in which they operate. The term brain discourse is understood here as the general use of brain-related and neuroscientific language and knowledge in construing phenomena that encompasses various specific formulations of problems and their responses.

The analysis began by identifying how work, workers, and their brains are characterized and depicted in the texts. A systematic problematization analysis was conducted after that by identifying how the problem was formulated in each text, and then constituting the general form of problematization and the problem representations. Two problem representations and responses were identified together with one general ideal condition. Subjectivity constructed in the texts was analysed by focussing on the labouring subject with its qualities and moral responsibilities, emphasizing the use of brain-related vocabulary. Finally, a holistic understanding of the functions of neuroscientific knowledge in construing problems of working life was formed based on the preceding analysis. The analysis concentrates on frequent themes and patterns in the data with examples of specific iterations for nuance.

The analysis begins with the themes and problematizations that are constructed in media texts, where neuroscientific insight is applied to issues of work, followed by the analysis of suggested responses. Exploring neurobiologization of the labouring subject is a common thread that runs through the analysis.

Problematics of the working brain

In many professions, working conditions have become more restless and short-sighted. Working in open-plan offices, increasing hurry, constant interruptions, and intensely keeping track on various communication channels make work fragmented. The brain is in constant fire alarm mode. (Airola 2018)^Footnote1

As demonstrated in the quote from the Finnish Brain Association’s magazine, the central theme of the texts is transformation of work from being physically demanding to being psychosocially and cognitively demanding. In the texts, the transformation is represented as a shift from work done by the body to work done by the brain, and as general increase of demands of work, characterized by accelerated hurry, for example. The texts formulate the general form of problematization as follows: contemporary work, conceptualized in some texts as “brain work” (e.g. Rydman 2020), burdens the brain. The awkward fit between the human brain and work is then recognized as a cause of decrease in productivity and health as interwoven phenomena.

The ideal labouring subject is constructed by centring the brain: a healthy brain works well, whereas a burdened brain compromises workplace safety and efficiency. The mentioned resulting health problems include difficulties with concentration, memory, and sleeping (e.g. Salumäki 2018). Consequences at the workplace include weakening efficiency, increasing number of mistakes, diminishing creativity, and safety risks (e.g. Kujala 2020; Riihimäki 2019). The lead paragraph in a special magazine of workplace well-being, Työ Terveys Turvallisuus, a partner of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, addresses “us” workers, stating that “If the working environment is restless, efficiency suffers a loss, and the probability of mistakes increases. No matter how much we would want, the human brain does not bend to do many tasks simultaneously” (Kujala 2020). Based on the sample, health organizations, namely the Finnish Brain Association and the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, have harnessed the brain discourse to address issues of working life.

Represented ideal conditions such as the brain’s ability to perform, concentration, and sense of control (e.g. Kujala 2020; Marchetti 2019; Salonen 2018) can be generally understood as avoiding brain health risks. Some texts represent more ambitious ideals such as getting “the most out of one’s brain” (Airola 2018) or reaching a flow-state while working (e.g. LähiTapiola 2019). Worker well-being, working efficiency, and employer profit are generally represented as one unified ideal condition, reflecting the ideal of harmony between interests that is recognized as a feature of the emphasis of middle-class ideals in the Finnish media (Varje and Väänänen 2016). The universality of this problematic may point towards this cultural hegemony, but also towards characteristics of the problematic itself. It seems to be flexible enough to allow diffusion across the media landscape and diverse objectives, such as public health initiatives, journalism, and marketing. Hence, the brain problematic is employed by companies operating on the issues of working life, such as a construction company YIT (2020) and an employment agency Duunitori (Mäkelä, 2018a, 2018b), as well as trade unions Super (2019) and JHL (2019), in their public communication efforts.

There is variation in the emphasis on either individual or societal causes of the problem. Some texts attribute it to bad working or lifestyle habits, such as negative thinking or neglecting recovery (e.g. Metso 2020; Tiainen 2018), positioning the labouring subject as responsible for the burden. However, societal factors, such as cognitive demands of contemporary work (e.g. Karjalainen 2018), are brought out as well. Work is represented as busy, hectic, fragmented, and short-sighted (e.g. Airola 2018; Aukee 2020; Jouslehto 2019). Multitasking and constant interruptions are highlighted as problematic characteristics, along with notions of background noise and data flood (e.g. Airola 2018; Rydman 2020; Turunen 2018). High demands on a worker’s memory, learning, and decision making, as well as the use of digital devices, are brought out as increasing the cognitive demands of work (e.g. Jouslehto 2019; Kononen 2019; Kujala 2020; Super 2019). Based on his research about a neuroscience-inspired parenting practice in Taiwan, Chen (2021) argues that the global neuroculture has taken root there because existing anxieties regarding parenting have made people receptive to it. Similarly, the brain discourse speaks to the intensification of work in Finland and other European countries (Adăscăliței et al 2021; Minkkinen et al 2019). Accelerated societal and economic changes have resulted in increased time pressures and demands for independent decision making at work (Kubicek et al 2015). This societal development manifests in the psychological level as well, as it has been associated with a risk of burnout (Minkkinen et al 2019). It seems that the brain discourse speaks to the anxieties regarding these developments, making them comprehensible on a biological level.

Some journalistic texts present an alarmist tone, stating in their headlines, for example, that contemporary work is “toxic to the brain” (Puurunen 2019a) or “breaking us” (Vasama 2020). These headlines from Yle and Helsingin Sanomat are typical examples of the news media aiming to grasp the attention of readers with negative sentimental headlines in a competitive online news environment (Kuiken et al 2017; Xu et al 2023). Some texts, such as the headline in a private employment agency’s web magazine, address the worker at risk directly, asking “Is your brain in danger of overheating?” (Mäkelä, 2018b). The negative tone on the brain problematic may partly result from both commercial and noncommercial actors constructing it while striving to grasp reader’s attention in an online environment. The general form of problematization is elaborated further by identifying more subtle layers of the mismatch between the brain and work. Here, the perceived incompatibility is crystallized in two problem representations. The first is based on the idea of a brain that is plastic, reactive, and in a constant state of transformation. The second representation is based on the stable, unchanging capacities of the human brain shaped by evolution. Most texts construct the brain problematic around either or both of these problem representations.

Problem 1: The perils of brain plasticity in stressful conditions

Neuroplasticity refers to the brain’s potential to adaptive and maladaptive changes, such as reorganization of neural connections as a response to new stimuli (Nudo 2006). The first problem representation highlights the vulnerability of the plastic and reactive brain to change for worse in stressful working life. Generally, the texts note that for many, contemporary work has caused a state of inefficiency for their brains. Texts frequently claim that multitasking and excessive use of digital devices have damaged the brain’s capacity for long-term focus, labelled as attention deficit trait (ADT) in some texts. In the following quote from Helsingin Sanomat, labouring subjects are rendered responsible as causing themselves ADT:

Brain researcher Minna Huotilainen^Footnote2 is troubled by Finnish working life because it is often just skipping from one thing to another and constant interruptions. …

When a person has, for years, tried to do many things simultaneously at work, skipped proper breaks, and failed to rest enough during free time, they cause themself a state where the brain is not working normally anymore.

There is a name for that state also. It is ADT (attention deficit trait). A person suffering from it has weak concentration. They, among other things, are more susceptible to react to various interruptions, such as phone notifications and message signals.^Footnote3 (Tiainen 2018)

Metaphorical language is used to illustrate the consequences of work, described as “permanent fire alarm of the brain” (Puurunen 2019a) and “overheating” (Mäkelä, 2018b). Newspaper Aamulehti addresses the feeling of an overburdened brain with a similar metaphor: “The head feels like bursting with things, but the mind is blank. ADT in human is like a fire alarm one can’t switch off “(Salonen 2018). The texts merge the heat-related metaphors with explicitly neurobiological language to vividly depict both rapid reactions and long-term structural changes of the brain. The texts illustrate how chronic stress may change brain structures or functioning of neurotransmitters—the amygdala “swells up” (Puustinen 2019) and the prefrontal cortex might “thin down” (Vasama 2020). The following quote from Moisala’s interview in Helsingin Sanomat depicts the transformation process by combining biological and metaphorical language:

When at a meeting, one starts to browse emails or write messages, the prefrontal cortex of the brain is working franticly. At the same time, concentration becomes gradually fragile.

As a result, even such a thing can happen where one has constant difficulties concentrating on anything. …

When the brain becomes overburdened, the brain regions responsible for complex operations work hard. For example, the regions responsible for vigilance and control are as if they were on fire.

If this kind of stress continues for a long time, it shows in the brain also. Threat-perceiving amygdala can start to grow, little by little. For this reason, one gets stressed more easily increasingly over time. Simultaneously, the prefrontal cortex can thin down, and it is not able to regulate stress anymore. (Hallamaa 2019)

Referring to the plastic brain seems to avoid solely blaming the individual worker. By presenting a universal claim that contemporary work is detrimental to the brain, texts identify and normalize shared experiences of burnout and difficulties with concentration. However, normalization is accompanied by responsibilization where workers are advised to work on themselves to counteract this effect, elaborated in the following chapters. This combination is not exclusive to the problem representation of plasticity, as the second version seems to follow a similar logic of normalizing commonly experienced problems while simultaneously responsibilizing the labouring subject.

Problem 2: The working brain constrained by evolution

The second problem representation is constructed around capacities of the brain shaped by evolution. According to the representation, human potential and qualities are located in the brain, which is depicted as universal and inflexible, and as such, unable to respond to the rising demands of knowledge-intensive work. Some of the texts explicitly state that evolution of the brain has fallen behind societal development. For example, Huotilainen is referenced in the construction company YIT’s magazine (2020) stating that “The human brain does not evolve at the same pace as the environment, culture, or technology, rather, it has been optimized to circumstances 10 000 years ago”. According to this rationale, the “hunter-gatherer brain” (e.g. Mansikka 2018) does not fit with the contemporary work that is characterized by chronic stress and high cognitive load. In some texts, evolution is not explicitly mentioned, but instead, they reference “species-specific” (Hynynen 2019) features or “normal” (Karjalainen 2018) limits of cognition in a way that implies the brain’s inherent biological capacities. In the following quote from an article in Helsingin Sanomat, based on Huotilainen’s interview and a Finnish popularized neuroscience book by Huotilainen and brain researcher Katri Saarikivi, the problem is constructed by comparing the past to the present:

As our ancestors were gathering food, at the same time, their brains processed unconsciously information from the perimeters of the field of vision and the auditory system. … A person had the courage to immerse oneself into one’s job trusting that the brain will alarm if something surprising happens. In contemporary work, however, constant interruptions are a big problem. (Lehtonen 2018)

As a recurring theme, the texts represent a brain that is evolved to react to short-term, high-impact stressors, such as predators, and thus ends up in a state of “fight-or-flight” in a working environment that is full of stressful stimuli, such as emails (e.g. LähiTapiola 2019). In this state, the brain is not working efficiently, as described in Huotilainen’s interview in Työ Terveys Turvallisuus:

If an employee is constantly exposed to environmental sensory stimuli and has to repeatedly compromise concentration, the stone-age interpretation system of our brains prepares for potential threats and makes the person walk on eggshells. Then action is directed to fight-or-flight mode.

Then, the working memory is impatient, which leads to quick—and not always the best—decisions. Hurried decisions are based on the first impression, not on knowledge and learning. (Kujala 2020)

While essentializing the labouring subject to universal biology, the diagnosis seems to serve a normalizing function by locating the limitations of the brain outside of individual control. Moreover, the problem representation unravels naturalized features of contemporary work, as the biological reality of the brain is contrasted to the contractual reality of working life. In the following quote from Helsingin Sanomat, the eight-hour workday is compared to the life of hunter-gatherers:

The life of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors, focused on basic needs. One had to find nourishment and stay safe from dangers such as predators.

Regarding surviving, it was important that when gathering food, our ancestors’ brains processed messages coming from the peripheral vision and the auditory sense. Diverging perception got them to become alert, stop working, and protect themselves from possible threat.

Now only few have work that concentrates on meeting the most essential basic needs. … Yet, workers of the information society still have hunter-gatherer brains. They do not work optimally regarding contemporary working life, says Moisala.

First, our brains have not been designed to process complicated information, solve problems, and make decisions for eight hours a day. … (Vasama 2020)

In some texts, the limits of the brain capacity are depicted as invisible and elusive, implying that recognizing them and managing work based on them requires special effort and expertise. The brain as a domain of special expertise, outside the subjective experience of the self, establishes “an epistemic asymmetry” (Lawless and Augoustinos 2017, p. 72) between experts and their audience, especially workers. In a quote from a blog on the website of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, the elusiveness of “brain work” is compared to uncomplicated physical work:

The limits related to muscle work are often evident to us, so both the work and the work equipment can be designed considering the human physiology and anatomy. …

The limits of doing brain work are often blurrier because they are not visible on the outside. How much and how fast can a forestry worker reliably take details into account when classifying trees? (Valtonen 2018)

Here, the problem diagnosis intersects with the analysis of cognitive capitalism, where work done by brains is characterized as limitless and unpredictable, and thus as resisting traditional means of codification and control (Moulier-Boutang 2011). In our data, both iterations of the general problematization identify the awkward fit between the requirements of contemporary work and the brain as the root cause of a variety of problems that burden the individual as well as their employer. According to the problematization, in the absence of correct understanding about the human brain, both the worker and the working organization are represented as falling short of their full potential. Expert voice, then, holds moral authority to problematize aspects of everyday life in ways that lay the grounds for specific responses as techniques for neurobiologizing the labouring subject.

Techniques for neurobiologizing the labouring subject

The first problem representation, emphasizing brain plasticity and reactivity, positions the labouring subject and the organization as responsible for remedying the problematic situation and protecting the brain from further damage. The subject is advised, for example, to strengthen neural connections (Vasama 2020) or to follow a “training program” (Hallamaa 2019) to enhance the brain’s functioning. The second problem representation, emphasizing unchanging brain capacity, positions the labouring subject and the organization as responsible for creating appropriate working conditions for the brain, for example, by following the principles of “brain ergonomics” (e.g. Mäkelä, 2018b) and certain lifestyle principles. The brain discourse forms specific rationales for these normative claims. The suggested responses, enabled by the problematization, operate then as techniques for cultivating the neurobiologized labouring subject.

Response 1: Brain-healthy behaviour and thinking

The texts construct the brain as a domain of special expertise that the worker should integrate into the experience of the self. Drawing from the construction of the brain as outside lived experience, texts explicitly or implicitly state that acting based on common sense, instead of expert advice, might be detrimental to the brain (e.g. Hallamaa 2019). The uninformed labouring subject is then offered advice for brain-healthy behaviour, as demonstrated in the following quote from the Finnish Brain Association’s magazine:

Work is a stress factor for the brain, but at the same time, inactivity is not beneficial either. It is important to use the brain and even get stressed appropriately, as long as one takes care of the brain’s recovery: rests, exercises, pursues hobbies, as well as eats well and in a balanced way. (Airola 2018)

The brain-healthy lifestyle includes proper nutrition, abstaining from excessive use of mobile technologies, adequate sleep, physical exercise, and hobbies (e.g. Airola 2018; Hallamaa 2019; Jouslehto 2019). Moreover, experts suggest adopting brain-healthy working techniques such as working at home (avoiding interruptions such as co-workers asking for help), checking emails only a few times a day, taking small breaks, doing one thing at a time, prioritizing, and writing work tasks down (e.g. Riihimäki 2019; Sullström, 2019; Vasama 2020). The activities are legitimized by their brain-level effects, such as new neural connections caused by hobbies or enhanced concentration caused by sustained working (LähiTapiola 2019; Vasama 2020). Medical ‘neuroenhancement’ or the use of ‘brain training games’, identified as frequently represented brain-optimization techniques in the media (Forlini and Racine 2009; Partridge et al 2011; Pickersgill et al 2017), are absent from the data. Rather than suggesting novel techniques, the advice reframes a traditional healthy lifestyle and behavioural advice in the language of brain health. Blending healthism as an already long-standing ideology that frames health issues in terms of individual choice (Crawford 1980) with neuroscientific language forms a core element of governmentality that works through the brain discourse.

In addition to these behavioural techniques, texts instruct the worker to cultivate self-reflective, brain-aware subjectivity by doing internal work. The labouring subject is neurobiologized by suggesting techniques that aim to integrate the problematic state of the working brain into everyday experience of the self. The worker is encouraged, for example, to recognize “the threat signs” (Valtavaara 2019) or “when the brain is over-excited” (Hallamaa 2019). Texts offer various conceptual and experiential tools for realizing awareness of the brain. For example, the diagnosis of ADT is not conceptualized as an illness but a tool for a person to “identify one’s condition and change it” (Salonen 2018). Suggested experiential techniques include mindfulness, deep breathing, and self-reflective writing (Hallamaa 2019; Riihimäki 2019). Popularized neuroscience functions to problematize aspects of everyday experience in a personal and intimate way that can be responded to by working with oneself and one’s brain, articulated, for example, as teaching “the brain a new way to be and live” (Tola 2019). Discussing work then becomes a discussion about life and self in general.

Diverging from the therapeutic ethos that emphasizes personal reflective meaning-making around emotions, in the brain discourse, emotions are constructed as biological events whose meaning is the effect they have on the brain and, in this context, on productivity. The worker is advised to train calming down the mind (Riihimäki 2019) and to elicit positive emotions, as demonstrated in the following two quotes from brain researcher Tiina Parviainen’s interview in Yle and a blog in Kaleva newspaper’s website:

Even if work was very stressful, it can be compensated by recovery. The most important things regarding recovery are adequate rest, sleep, and nourishment, but laughing is also a very efficient way to restore the brain.

Laughing is a very holistic whole-body phenomenon that comes about through positive surprise. A reaction starts in the body and that can help to kind of reset the mind, (Puurunen 2019a)

The brain likes to work in a positive atmosphere. (Hartikka and Mustonen 2019a)

In brain culture, positive psychology’s conviction in the mind’s ability to shape one’s life (Cabanas and Illouz 2017) is rearticulated in brain language. However, highlighting the productivity of positive emotions as responses to socializing in the workplace seems more of a recognition of cognitive capitalism’s tendency to capture value from “relational activities” (Fumagalli 2011, p.13) than a straightforward continuum of an individualizing logic of positive psychology. The strategic use of the social embeddedness of the brain is apparent in Saarikivi’s advice in the Yle website: “When a person sees even a glimpse of a smiling face, their cheek muscles get activated.—You relax the most easily near the kind of people who are enjoying themselves and who are cheerful as well as relaxed” (Suominen 2019).

A more individualizing tone is used when the plastic brain is depicted as an ongoing project where every thought leaves a trace on its neurobiology and thus potential for productivity. The ideal neurobiologized labouring subject is aware of how their biology is being reworked, for example, by the words they are using either internally or in conversation, as described in the advice based on Huotilainen’s interview in Yle and neuropsychologist Nina Uusitalo’s interview in the Yhteishyvä web magazine:

The kind of language you use counts. If you constantly talk about being in a hurry, you make your mind believe that you, in fact, are in a hurry all the time. …

Start to consciously talk about how you have time for everything you need. Say aloud, to yourself and others, that you have good concentration. Words “I am” affect us strongly, so choose carefully how you define yourself. (Tola 2019)

The brain learns what one does with it. It learns bad habits as well. If one constantly repeats the thought “it is terrible to go to work” or “the next vacation is still three months away”, the thought gains strength. (Metso 2020)

The rationale of the suggested responses differentiates the neurobiologized labouring subject from the subject of positive psychology (Cabanas and Illouz 2017) or the self-optimizing subject identified in previous studies about brain culture and work (Guyard and Kaun 2018; Pykett 2015, pp. 139–170). The ideal state is more about protecting the vulnerable self from risks than promises of happiness or flourishment. The following quotes from the blog in Kaleva newspaper’s website and the web magazine of the JHL trade union display the motivation constructed around risk and recovery:

Not only work but also daily life can be stressful, and one has to get along with the same brain at work and leisure. The stressed brain gets stuck, creativity gets blocked, and problem-solving ability weakens. Vigilance, concentration, and learning ability are being tested, error-risk increases, burnout impends, and social interaction skills decay. … Recovery during the working day and thereafter is essential. The burdened brain will restore when it is allowed to recover. (Hartikka and Mustonen 2019)

Problems arise if a person does not get to recover and the situation stays on. Then large amounts of stress hormones, especially cortisol, start to secrete in the body. It flushes off the body very slowly, says [doctor of psychology and researcher] Satu Pakarinen.

… High cortisol level is toxic to the brain tissue, especially neurons in the hippocampus, and that weakens memory. …

The adult brain recovers to its original state slowly once we stop multitasking and blundering that belong to our current day-to-day existence, and practice concentration. (Puustinen 2019)

Constant self-management of the risks appears the be a laborious effort as such, which seems to unravel dichotomies between leisure and labour. Work is represented as draining the brain capacity, and leisure should fill it back up or at least avoid further draining (e.g. Salonen 2018). “Taking care of one’s own recovery” (LähiTapiola 2019) is represented, then, as an essential working life skill and a moral principle of a responsible worker. The ideal neurobiologized labouring subject organizes other domains of life around work, as shown in the following quote from Yle:

[Neuropsychologist Teemu] Paajanen encourages versatile use of the brain as well.

If one is a masseur or an exercise instructor, then reading could be a different kind of brain-activating activity. Whereas if one is an office worker, physical exercise could give the brain something else to think. (Karjalainen 2018)

In some texts, the labour process is located in the automatic unconscious processes of the brain. The time after working hours is framed here as productive by highlighting the brain’s ability to continue working without conscious effort. In a blog post on the Yle website, Huotilainen (2018) writes that, at night, instead of resting, the brain is working to transfer knowledge to long-term memory. If this process gets disrupted, “Finnish working life and the workers themselves pay a high price”. Along the same rationale, Helsingin Sanomat advises readers to aim for peaceful leisure time that allows the creative subconscious to keep on working:

When a person lets their thoughts rest, the so-called default mode network activates in the brain. Even though brain activity might then feel lazy, in reality, thinking just shifts to another, more creative level.

Creative leisure has made our ancestors creative and able to learn new things. Even nowadays, idling is the precondition for innovation. (Lehtonen 2018)

Recalibrating relaxing as a productive activity can be conceptualized as recognition of cognitive capitalism’s tendency to derive value from nervous activities outside of conscious control (see Priest 2018). The boundaries between productive work, reproductive work, and leisure are represented as porous. Some texts highlight the importance of managing this boundary by stopping the brain from thinking work-related thoughts, as it can hinder relaxation or sleep and ultimately, decrease efficiency at work. Suggested techniques include mindfulness and establishing physical distance from work (Marchetti 2019; Metso 2020; Mäkelä 2018b). Texts reconfigure the relationship between work and rest in another way as well: housework is represented as allowing the brain to relax (e.g. Lehtonen 2018; Salonen 2018). In Puurunen’s (2019) interview with two brain researchers in Yle, it is regarded as easy and repetitive activity that does not require much brain capacity: “This kind of simple activity, where the body is working to some degree, and thinking is allowed to be free, and nothing is targeted to the mind, would be beneficial for the brain”. Framing household labour this way seems to contain gendered implications about work traditionally done by women.

Previous studies have noted that neurosciences are used in media and brain culture in general to explain social categories, such as gender, in terms of neurobiological differences (Elman 2014, pp. 131–165; O´Connor and Joffe 2014a). In this sample, the are no explicitly gendered representations of the brain. Instead, the neurobiologized labouring subject is constructed around universalist claims, often implicitly applicable to anyone in the labour market. However, given advice often presupposes specific living conditions and agency, characterized by high autonomy and resources. The implied labouring subject is generally not bound by stressors such as care duties after working hours. Instead, optimal recovery is represented as a result of autonomous, rational choices, as Helsingin Sanomat presents based on an interview with Uusitalo:

If you are, for example, deciding whether to take part in some event or not, you should consider its effects on you particularly: a nice cabin trip with friends can offer joy and enhance social relationships, but at the same time cause fatigue and impede recovery for the next important work project. (Riihimäki 2019)

Similarly, the working hours of the labouring subject are often represented as free and autonomous in concrete examples and advice. Suggestions, such as muting work email notifications and working at home or a café instead of the workplace (Jouslehto 2019; Mäkelä, 2018a; Sullström, 2019), are applicable to predominantly middle-class knowledge work. In the following quote from cognitive ergonomics specialist Teppo Valtonen’s interview in Yle, the labouring subject manages their own work based on brain health principles:

It is worthwhile to search for one’s own rhythm: for one, it is most calming to get the most complicated task out of the way first. For another, the most efficient time is not until afternoon. The time of the day has an impact as well: someone likes coming to the workplace early in the morning, when one can work alone, while another likes to stay at work late in the evening and focus when others have left. (Sullström, 2019)

Neurobiologizing the labouring subject seems to highlight individual aspects of agency while neglecting any possibility of collective action or confronting the problematic working circumstances. However, despite of the implied ideals of harmony and autonomy, the optimal way of working is perhaps paradoxically often depicted as silent resistance to organizational norms. The work organization and its culture are represented as impeding the optimal functioning of the brain, resulting in diminished well-being, efficiency, and creativity (e.g. Tiainen 2018; Valtavaara 2019). To solve this problem, the worker is encouraged to let thoughts wander, work outside of the office, take naps during the working hours, hang around in the office cafeteria, neglect less important work tasks, and ‘steal’ time for prolonged concentration (Aukee 2020; Huotilainen 2018; Lehtonen 2018; LähiTapiola 2019; Tiainen 2018; Valtavaara 2019). Thus, texts represent important productive work as invisible and personal, more amenable to subjective than external management.

Here, we can see the ideal of an entrepreneurial labouring subject who is personally invested in their work, also recognized as the crystallization of the new kind of labourer in the theory of cognitive capitalism (Moulier-Boutang 2011). An independent writer, with “freedom to find one’s own rhythm and style” (Tiainen 2018), is represented as an epitome of this ethos. Another ideal figure is a top-athlete, who takes care of their body like workers should take care of their brains (Metso 2020; YIT 2020). When entrepreneurship is constructed as the way the brain wants to work, the cultural ideals of personal investment and internalized discipline are inscribed into biology. The blog post by Huotilainen (2018) offers an example of this ethos: “Commitment and taking responsibility, functioning teamwork, and good spirit allow the mind and the body to attain the optimal state of working and learning”. When applied to the labouring subject, the brain discourse collides health and productivity while merging neurobiological language with logics of optimization and entrepreneurialism.

Response 2: Brain-friendly work

The individualizing tone is present in a substantial part of the corpus, but it is not all-encompassing. Most of the texts address managers, employers, and other stakeholders as well in the quest for productivity, highlighting shared responsibilities for creating brain-friendly working circumstances. Some texts merge the brain discourse with the discourse of occupational safety, framing the exceeding of the brain’s natural capacity as a safety risk and a source of mistakes (JHL 2019; Kujala 2020; Kuukkanen 2018; Super 2019). The problem representation referring to the stable capacities of the brain is employed here to reason that work itself must be altered as the brain or human cannot be changed (Kivimäki 2020; Valtonen 2018). Some advice is technical, such as offering workers headphones and silent working spaces to allow the brain to focus, as well as providing checklists and other organizing tools for making complex work easier to control (Kuukkanen 2018). Super, a trade union magazine for practical nurses, offers a more holistic perspective, where the neurobiologized labouring subject functions as a rhetorical tool to support the union’s interests:

Prolonged brain strain threatens employee health. At the workplace, that causes dangerous situations. When work efficiency, vigilance, and caution drop, the number of mistakes and occupational accidents increases. In the caring industry, the consequences can be fatal.

Even though human being is adaptable, the brain cannot endure pressure endlessly. The only way to intervene is to check the ways in which the work is done. So thinks … research manager Virpi Kalakoski as well.

One can’t change or fix the human, that is why work must be changed, (Kivimäki 2020)

Other texts are organized around economic rationality, where the brain is understood as a resource that should be utilized to its maximal capacity. The organizational resource for empathy, creativity, and cooperation is named by Saarikivi as “collective intelligence” as well as “shared problem solving”, and work is discussed in a level of collective neural networks by claiming that “one brain is not enough” for solving complex problems (Hagelin 2018). On the pension insurance company Varma’s website, managers willing to improve their organizations are positioned as the target audience. There, Moisala is quoted stating that “Positive emotions activate the brain so that knowledge gets stored better in the memory storage” (Remes 2019). Mandatum, an investment company, shares a similar tone when quoting Huotilainen addressing employers: “Well-rested employees can bring their best competence to the workplace” (Marchetti 2019).

Both the rationale of occupational safety and economic success seem to fade the neurobiologized subject itself by centering only the brain as a component of an organizational system that can be managed with expertise. When the brain is constructed as a node in a complicated network of human and nonhuman actors, the neurobiologized labouring subject is framed as a resource to be managed by applying special knowledge, such as cognitive ergonomics, as suggested in Yle:

Everyone covered by occupational healthcare has heard about ergonomics. Like adjusting a chair to the right height, the adjustment should be done to the brain that processes an enormous flood of information during the day. (Karjalainen 2018)

Further means for employers to create the ideal conditions for collective brain capacity seem to follow economic rationality. The responses include establishing independent teams and networks, creating neurodiverse teams, laughing together (for example to activate brain networks related to empathy), providing employees additional days off for recovery, and having walking meetings (e.g. Collin 2018; Huotilainen 2018; Lehtonen 2018; Valtavaara 2019). Congruent with the overarching rationale of the texts, new work culture and “brain-friendly management” are represented as keys to both productivity and well-being (Remes 2019). The following quote from Helsingin Sanomat resembles messages addressed to the worker, making maximizing the brain potential a joint, instead of individual, effort.

The idea of who is the hero on the job is at a turning point. So believes … brain researcher Katri Saarikivi. The more we understand the damage excessive stress causes to the brain, the more we begin appreciating rest—during the workday as well.

It would pay off for the employer to think that the kinds of organizations succeed where people can think properly as well as use their head and work in a way that does not damage brain tissue. (Valtavaara 2019)

Rearticulating previously psychologized phenomena in the language of neurosciences can be seen as a way to further legitimize some experiences and needs of workers, such as the need for silent working spaces and sense of control, which in turn benefit the employer as well. Instances in which brain health and productivity would be in conflict are completely absent from the ways the brain is problematized. Work as negotiation and conflict between diverging interests is then excluded from the domain of brain discourse that is based on the idea that scientific knowledge and expertise are the keys to health and productivity.

In this article, we studied the ways in which neuroscientific knowledge is applied to issues of work. With empirical analysis covering a diverse media landscape, our research fills a gap in literature by showing how the brain discourse produces subjectivity as a function of both neuroscientific knowledge production and capitalist relations. In our data, neurobiologization of the labouring subject emerges from the identified mismatch between the human brain and contemporary work. This is represented as leading to experiences of exhaustion as well as compromising occupational safety and efficiency. As a response, brain experts recommend specific techniques, such as cooperation at the workplace to change working conditions and working on the self to cultivate subjectivity that integrates brain knowledge into the experience of self. The analysis presents in detail how these techniques function to cultivate the neurobiologized labouring subject that bears personal responsibility of well-being and productivity as intertwined phenomena. This imperative is recognized in critical social science research as a feature of precarious working life, where institutional support is replaced by the expectation to work on the self as a route to realize happiness and security (Cabanas and Illouz 2017). Brain discourse seems to further intensify this kind of governance by bringing a novel, rhetorically powerful layer of biological corporeality to it. Moreover, the emphasis on the risk work posits on the working brain further intensifies the moral pressure of self-care present in brain culture (see Pitts-Taylor 2010; p. 646).

According to Foucault (1983, pp. 225–226), problematization appears as an answer to a specific historical context and its elements. As such, it is a response to “something which is real” but without a direct relationship between the representation and represented (Foucault 1983, p. 225). We argue that brain discourse generally recognizes problematic features of cognitive capitalism that have been amplified by the recent developments in working life, namely intensification of work (Kubicek et al 2015). The globally travelling brain culture may have taken root in the Finnish working life precisely because it answers to the existing anxieties regarding increasing demands of work that is based on extracting the cognitive capacities of workers. The brain discourse and the theory of cognitive capitalism emphasize similar themes such as dissolution of work into life and worker subjectivity, production based on cooperation between brains, and the centrality of attention as a cognitive resource in knowledge work (see Morini 2007; Moulier-Boutang 2011; Vercellone and Giuliani 2019). However, in brain discourse, recognizing the problematic nature of these phenomena forms the basis for the moral requirements of a responsible neurobiologized labouring subject. This dynamic is crystallized in the ways the brain discourse constructs normative claims around the diffusion of work.

First, texts suggest that the brain is constantly working to solve problems unconsciously, which makes the work done by the brain temporally and spatially elusive, and thus unbounded by distinctions between work and free time. Second, the texts depict how work itself becomes invisible and inseparable from the labouring subject, seen, for example, in the notion that a worker’s brain can be the most productive when the worker appears as doing nothing. Third, the neurobiologized labouring subject is expected to constantly care for the working capacity of the brain as a kind of reproductive labour. As Thornton (2011, pp. 21–22) has noted, locating the human potential in the brain allows governance to take up all aspects of life, as anything one does, feels, says, or thinks can either enhance or impair the capacity to function as a productive citizen. In the brain discourse, this kind of governance is depicted as a rather straightforward process of cultivating the right kind of feelings, thoughts, and behaviours as moral duties of a labouring subject. This is illustrated as such an intimate process that it seems to require total internalization of governance, and thus willingness to dedicate one’s neurobiological interiority to capitalist production. Priest’s (2018, p. 155) notion that “the resting brain, like the subject of contemporary, or what some call ‘cognitive’ capitalism, is never not working”, manifests here as a practical issue that needs to be self-managed. The brain discourse then functions as a tool to manage the problematics of cognitively challenging work on subjective and organizational levels; whereas, in the theory of cognitive capitalism, these features are associated with a fundamental crisis of work (see Moulier-Boutang 2011).

Following similar logic, the brain discourse seems to address a shared experience of being exhausted by work as a societal problem, but then locates the response on the levels of self and harmonious social relationships. This observation is in alignment with Varje’s and Väänänen’s (2016) claim that the dominant ideology of the Finnish labour market emphasizes middle-class strategy of cooperation as the preferred way to solve problems at work. In a neurobiologized version of this logic, the key to both profit and well-being lies in the working brain. When unifying these ideal conditions, the discourse conceals any contradictions or structural precarity within the capitalist production system and can, congruent with Varje’s and Väänänen’s (2016) observation, create a mismatch between these middle-class ideals and actual experiences of workers. For example, burnout is present in the discourse as depoliticized technical problem that can be solved by applying expert advice. Mannevuo (2020) recognizes similar kind of rationality as having a long history in the Finnish labour policy. After the Second World War, as the Finnish society was rapidly industrialized, many kinds of specialists, such as psychiatrists and management experts, joined the effort to integrate citizens into the new kind of industrial work. The mission of these specialists was to provide scientific solutions to issues of industrialization, such as efficiency requirements placed on workers, in a way that distinguished itself from politics. According to Mannevuo (2020), the model worker constructed by these specialists manifested culturally enforced ideals of emotion control and discipline.

Similarly, despite of its aura of objectivity, the brain discourse reflects the hegemonic cultural understanding of normative and ideal subjectivity as committed to harnessing one’s brain capacity to work. As seen in the combination of a structural problem and an individualist solution, the interplay between individualism and its alternatives in brain discourse is complex. Diverging from the individualist register of positive psychology, the problematizations in our corpus mobilize flexibly both collectivist and individualist vocabularies. Managers are advised to attend to the brains of their staff as a resource to be protected and mined for human skills, which almost fades out the working individual. The labouring brain itself is represented as a porous system that is shaped by evolution as well as social and cultural factors. We propose that this hybrid partly stems from the ambivalent cultural recognition of the accelerated demands of work and its adverse effects on employee well-being (Mauno et al 2023). In the current circumstances, exhaustion and burnout at work cannot be solely attributed to individual failures, whereas calling for system-level change would not befit the neoliberal ethos of Finnish working life and its problem-solving tools (see Varje and Väänänen 2016). Moreover, this variation could reflect the polyphonic nature of brain culture in general, recognized also by Cliodhna O´Connor and Helene Joffe (2013a) as well as Emily Martin (2010).

Discourses are not only used to maintain the status-quo, as minor political actors can use them for their alternative agendas as well (Bacchi 2005). Even though in recent years, the structural power of capital has increased in Finland, trade unions of the country are still strong compared to most European countries (Bergholm and Bieler 2013; Bergholm and Sippola 2022). We found that trade unions and other actors willing to set an agenda for improving working conditions seem to have found alliance with brain culture in legitimizing their agendas, as the brain discourse can be mobilized to highlight the value of workers in an economy that relies on their cognitive capacities. We suggest that framing workers this way might indicate discursively reducing their labouring selves into an unpersonal biological resource, which as a rhetorical strategy would need further investigation to understand its potential implications for workers. As the diffusion of brain culture into people’s self-conceptions is still an open question (O’Connor and Joffe 2014b; Pickersgill et al 2011), it is worth considering if workers actually recognize themselves in the brain talk employed by these actors. We then encourage further research that aims to understand the contextualized functions of the brain discourse in politicizing health and human biology in the context of economic relations and working life. Our research shows that the economic relevance of the brain discourse cannot be conflated with neoliberalization alone, as the process of extracting value from human (neuro)biology is a core feature of cognitive capitalism in general.

The texts show the Finnish media’s tendency to draw from a Finnish pool of experts and researchers instead of explicitly referring to international discussions. The relative absence of international neuroscience experts or scholars, however, is not indicative of the absence of globalized features of the brain discourse. The results of this study are, to a large extent, congruent with studies based on English-language samples showing a tendency towards configuring human subjectivity in terms of brain sciences (e.g. Lowe et al 2015; Pitts-Taylor 2010; Whiteley 2012). Based on our analysis, the universalist language of the brain discourse substantially conceals the local and historical context of the neurobiologized labouring subject. Even though neuroscience could encourage morally charged categorizations based on apparent biological distinctions (see Busso and Pollack 2015; Lowe et al 2015), in our study, the labouring subject is a worker of cognitive capitalism, or the information society, without a particular social position aside from mentioned occupations. However, the universalist language itself, manifest in the absence of gender differences in the corpus, might be implicitly indicative of gendering practices characteristic of the Finnish culture. In Finland, gendered structures are often disguised by gender-neutral rhetoric and focus on the individual self (Lahelma 2012). The universalist rhetoric is further consolidated by representing middle-class work as the universal norm (see Varje and Väänänen 2016).

In a textual level, the brain discourse blends biological language of brain tissues and neurotransmitters with metaphorical language, which creates rhetorically powerful and persuasive narratives. The narrative functions of brain discourse are not unique to popularized neuroscience, as storytelling arguably plays an important role in the publication of neuroscientific findings in general (Huber et al 2019). In our data, the concept of brain—such as in terms of ‘brain work’ and ‘brain ergonomics’—is used often almost as a metaphor, implicating established meanings of science, rationality, and intelligence. In addition to meanings conveyed in text, visual representations of the brain are an important feature of brain culture. In this study, only text was analysed; whereas, in internet, picture, video, and audio are other prominent modes of communication that could create meanings and representations not conveyed in text.

It remains to be seen if the brain is actually something workers and managers find problematic in everyday life. Thus far, studies analyzing lay people’s use of neurobiological concepts have found limited evidence of prevalence of neuroscientific ways of understanding the self beyond science communication and expert discourse (e.g. O’Connor and Joffe 2014b; Pickersgill et al 2011). This can change over time, however. Because of the rhetorical power and persuasiveness of the texts, there might be the potential for readers to begin reflecting on themselves in new, neurobiologized ways. The theoretical framing of this study, the framework of cognitive capitalism, is itself an example of the version of brain culture where social sciences draw from neuroscientific vocabularies to advance sociological imagination (e.g. Mackenzie and Roberts 2017). Employing the theoretical framework of cognitive capitalism, this study is not aiming to place itself outside brain culture as a neutral observer, but instead being itself entangled in the brain discourse with its potentialities and possible issues.