(with equal parts Derrida, Dada, and Drollery)
—

If Michel Foucault and Groucho Marx had a lovechild raised by Oliver Sacks and an enthusiastic TED Talk clicker, he’d probably look suspiciously like Vilayanur Ramachandran. Or at least speak like him.

Ramachandran, India’s most flamboyant neurologist-export since yoga met neuroscience, doesn’t just explain the brain. He performs it. His style is less “clinical authority” and more “cognitive cabaret.” Which makes him ripe for a post-structural analysis—a framework that, like Ramachandran, suspects all systems (including brains, books, and identities) are elaborate fictions trying very hard to pretend they’re not.

Let’s begin.


—

1. The Neurological Signifier Has Slipped Its Leash

In classic Saussurean linguistics, the signifier (word) and the signified (concept) are tied together, albeit arbitrarily. But post-structuralists like Derrida showed that the connection is a lie—we chase meaning from sign to sign like a dog chasing cars on a Möbius strip.

Ramachandran thrives on this slipperiness. “What is real pain,” he asks, “if a phantom limb can hurt?” It’s Derrida in scrubs. The signified (pain) refuses to obey its physical referent (limb). Neurology, it turns out, is one big deconstruction of the Enlightenment notion that “I think, therefore I am.” Ramachandran seems to suggest: You think you think? Cute.


—

2. Metaphor as Epistemology: Or, How the Brain Is a Metaphor for a Metaphor

Ramachandran’s lectures are a riot of analogies. The brain is a Swiss Army knife, a zoo, a committee, a colonial bureaucracy, a hall of mirrors. This isn’t mere simplification. This is Derridean play at its finest—différance as pedagogy. Meaning is never fixed; the metaphors spiral, unstable, like neurons in search of a home.

What’s more: the phantom limb becomes a literal embodiment of post-structural fragmentation. The self isn’t a unit but a negotiation. The body doesn’t “mean” what it thinks it means. The man with a phantom arm scratching his cheek collapses inside/outside, presence/absence, self/other. Baudrillard would’ve had a field day.


—

3. Author-ity and the Performing Brain

Barthes said, “The Author is dead.” Ramachandran replies, “Not quite. But he has Capgras syndrome and thinks his wife is an imposter.”

He stages knowledge, doesn’t impose it. He’s not a scientist handing you Truth on a clipboard; he’s a brain in a dinner jacket, tap-dancing across a TED stage, showing you that Truth has a lazy eye, and you’re filling in the blanks with stories.

His delivery is comic, even vaudevillian—“Imagine your brain is reading itself in a mirror!”—but beneath the laughter is structural implosion. “You” are not who you think you are. You are the sum of chemical illusions, evolutionary kludges, and interpretive guesses made by a squishy mass that insists it knows better.


—

4. Style as Hallucination

Post-structuralism loves hallucinations—they reveal that perception is constructed, not inherent. Ramachandran adores them too. Synesthesia, visual agnosia, mirror-touch disorder—they’re not aberrations but windows into how the brain always fabricates.

He explains with a grin: “You see color in numbers? Delightful. Your neurons are throwing a party in the wrong neighborhood.”

But the real hallucination is his prose. There’s something delightfully unhinged in the way he mixes empirical detail with literary flourish. It’s Oliver Sacks meets stand-up comedy. The text laughs at itself, even as it gestures toward profundity.

Ramachandran’s style doesn’t just describe the disintegration of meaning—it enacts it.


—

5. Conclusion: Brains Over Matter? Or Brains As Matter As Text?

In the end, what makes Ramachandran’s style so rich for post-structuralist dissection is that he refuses to stabilize meaning. His neurology isn’t Newtonian—it’s Nietzschean. There are no “facts” of the self, only provisional arrangements. The brain is an unreliable narrator. The body is a post-modern novel: disjointed, haunted, self-aware.

And Ramachandran? He’s the trickster author who’s read Lacan but prefers Monty Python.

He knows the matter of the brain is serious business. But he also knows that brains over matter—the human belief that we can transcend our meat-circuitry—is the greatest joke the brain ever played on itself.

And he’s in on it.


—

Postscript:

Ramachandran says, “The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.” Post-structuralism would reply, “…and suspiciously full of footnotes.”

We nod, scratch our phantom chins, and wonder if we ever existed at all.