The brain is its history, not merely something that has one

Evidence

The structural bond here is so deep that in a certain sense it defines an identity. It’s not just that the brain has a history—which is sometimes confused with that of its constitution as an object of the sciences—but that it is a history. — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 27

The brain is a work, and we do not know it. We are its subjects—authors and products at once—and we do not know it. ”Humans make their own history, but they do not know that they make it,” says Marx, intending thereby to awaken a consciousness of historicity. In a certain way, such words apply precisely to our context and object: ”Humans make their own brain, but they do not know that they make it.” It is not a question of effecting a tricky rhetorical move by corrupting this fine phrase for the benefit of our analysis or of acceding to the facility of a formal analogy. Quite the contrary, the bond between brain and history—concepts long taken to be antithetical—is now established with certainty. — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 26

Categorization

• XREF: Plausibly connects to the Marx citation habit in neo-Marxist cultural criticism (cf. Against Postmodernism, Frankfurt School) that reads Marx’s historicity line into new objects. — connects to: Nature and history are inseparable and mutually qualifying — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1339
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 27; Catherine Malabou, What Should We Do with Our Brain?, 26