Objectivity assumes there is a single ultimate truth out there for the finding, which will be discovered through ‘rational’ discussion. Feminists are often derided for being ’subjective’; women are called irrational (or emotional); men are the class in charge of language, science, politics and philosophy in our society. Coincidence? I think not.
The ideal of objectivity and rationality is the absence of ‘bias’ or of emotion towards the topic being considered. Science, for example, has claimed objectivity and rationality since the eighteenth century; this objectivity has brought us theories of women as creatures controlled by their reproductive systems and white males as ’superior’ to all other human beings (I’m talking to you, Gynaecology and Anthropology). The Western males who considered women as attachments to wombs and happily maintained that the white Christian male represented the peak of the evolutionary chain, appealed to their use of rational argument and their lack of political bias. Today, instead, we have women as ruled by hormones or a differently wired-up brain, and refer the countries which are poor due to the greed of the imperial West, as ‘developing’- with the unsaid assumption that we are ‘developed’.
The problem with objectivity and rationality is that it ignores who decides what is evident, and what is obvious. The dominant class is the one that is able to enforce its perceptions of what is ‘obvious’ and rational; these perceptions, needless to say, benefit its ideology and the maintance of its power. It is apparently undebatable, for example, that women’s brains are different to men’s, because various scientific experiments have proven this. To argue against this, as a laywoman, is to invite the accusation that you do not understand what you are talking about, and are therefore unqualified to judge. Appeals to the absurdity of accepting conclusions about the ‘natural’ difference between men and women as valid in a world where women and men are treated differently from the moment they are born, are refuted, because science is ‘objective’. We obey ‘doctor’s orders’ because the doctor supposedly knows us better than we know ourselves; in the mental health service, this leads to the imposition of heavy sedatives on ‘psychotic’ patients and the use of electroshock, despite the devastating side effects of both treatments, because the doctor knows what is best for the patient. That the doctor’s ideas about what is best for the patient may be due to his/her assumptions about how the patient should be behaving in a framework which benefits the status quo, or to do with her/his discomfort at the sight of a person acting ‘abnormally’, is routinely ignored.
Objectivity disregards such trivialities as human feelings because it does not regard them as real. Whatever it cannot take into its hands, touch, control and order it does not consider real. That is why a commentator (male) felt it was appropriate to ask the inane question ‘what is pain?’ on a comments thread for a post about sexual abuse of women. Pain was unreal to him, because it did not affect him.* Many readers of my blog can tell him what pain is. Here, a member of the dominant class refused to recognise that which he could not himself control, brought to us by his objective, rational thought process. Objectivity denies the viewpoints of those who do not agree with the dominant ideology of what is ‘rational’, ‘obvious’, ’self-evident’, and assumes that the thinker is capable of divorcing himself from the world in which he lives, in order to make judgements which affect the lives of the less powerful.
It is incredible the number of comments I have seen from (mostly) men on feminist threads, proclaiming that the truth is self-evident and that they (of course!) are the ones who are able to point it out. The silly feminist women ignore the known facts that men are different from women, that men ‘need’ sex, that women want degradation and humiliation. They never consider that they are wrong. They make these statements without evidence, and insist that we accept them as true. But we’re not going to do that.
After all, we are not objective.
*I deleted this chap’s comment, needless to say.
Great post.
It seems I’m not ‘objective’ either.
Oh well. I shall continue my silly little misguided notion that wimmin are people too!
Comment by stormy — October 12, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Interesting and well argued post! But– I beg to differ.
I AM eminently rational and objective. And I am by far much more rational and objective than those who simply embrace an ideology, mindlessly and blindly, and henceforth refer to themselves as “objective” on that account.
I see the political realities of discrimination against women and people of other races. I am so objective that I do not shy away from these realities by burying my head in the sand, whilst making up self-justifying pieces of rhetoric in my own honour. I acknowledge what is true, and I deny what is untrue, and I do both in the coldest, most rational manner. I refuse anti-feminist trolls commentary space on my blog on the same objective basis of facts (I see them objectively for what they are, and rationally deny them access.)
Furthermore, I live in reality. I orient myself to the world by having low estimations of those who do not live in reality (but who occupy, rather, the realm of ideological fantasies about gender and race).
I am as strong as can be — and it is all because I AM objective!
Cf.:http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/grinning-sheepishly-apologetically.html
Comment by scratchy888 — October 12, 2007 @ 9:16 am
more
Comment by scratchy888 — October 12, 2007 @ 9:19 am
BRAVO!!!
And this idea “objectivity” applies to JOURNALISM, of course. You know, the ones who get to decide HOW we view what’s happening in the world.
Comment by MaryTracy9 — October 12, 2007 @ 11:53 am
There is a very immature and violent part of my psyche that says, put his balls in a vice clamp and then ask him what pain is.
Of course I do not advocate it, that wouldnt be rational. Not like the objective consciousness that tells us that women should be used for breeding stock, otherwise ignored or sold as chattel or used as sex toys.
There are plenty of physiological differences, however that men try to claim that their configuration is superior to me signifies a certain amount of insecurity.
As for Christian Priviledge, White Priviledge, dont get me started.
Comment by Seeing Eye Chick — October 12, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Objectivity and rationality are worthy goals, but hardly anyone is willing to admit that their obvjectivity is colored by their own biases
“It is apparently undebatable, for example, that women’s brains are different to men’s, because various scientific experiments have proven this.”
MRIs may have shown physical differences in male and female brains (I’m not up on the research). What is up to interpretation is what those differences imply.
“Objectivity disregards such trivialities as human feelings because it does not regard them as real.”
Objectivity *should* get away from human feelings as far as it can, depending on the issue. Humans feel different things, many of which are appalling. The feeling that homosexuality is evil, for example, is quite real for some people and leads to laws about things like preserving marriage. However, if you ask for an objective, rational reason against homosexuality, (including not involving religion), one can’t be provided.
If you’re in a medical situation, feelings/sensations are valid because they may be all a diagnostician has to go on, and the diagnostician *should* listen to those feelings. I keep coming back to Mom and her cancer, but it’s a valid point here. Her abdomen was hugely swollen. She looked pregnant at 60. This is one of the known symptoms of ovarian, but was disregarded by her GP as ‘age-related weight gain’, and he didn’t do the most basic of tests. When she was palpated for a kidney stone, they *felt* the freaking tumor in her abdomen. If the doctor had been willing to heed his patient, her diagnosis could have come much earlier.
Comment by Miranda — October 13, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
test?
Comment by Miranda — October 13, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
MRIs may have shown physical differences in male and female brains (I’m not up on the research). What is up to interpretation is what those differences imply.
Ultimately what they imply may not be very relevant in terms of social relations. What if the differences implied that men were more likely to act out as mass murderers? Or that women were less likely to do science? In the first instance, we would still want to punish and prevent mass murdering (no matter how much the desire or tendency to murder was “in the brain”). In the second case, we would still want to give women opportunities to succeed in science (no matter how disinclined they were to do it).
Which brings me back to my earlier point. We don’t need to know that there are differences between the way men and women “are” in society to know that a certain behaviour is wrong (lacks merit) or that certain achievements have value (merit).
Somebody who abuses women — for whatever reason — lacks merit. Someone who shows they can present a good argument, who can understand both simple and complex ideas, and who will stand up for what they believe in — has merit. Merit is not a feature which belongs to any specific biological sex — it is something that is palpable and evident from someone’s actions.
We need to stop looking at justifications and looking more closely at people’s actions in order for society to return to objectivity.
Comment by scratchy888 — October 13, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Laurelin-
This is the sort of thing that originally got me interested in feminism. I don’t understand why you would say that science brought us the theory that white men are superior to all other human beings. I don’t think any theory that claimed this could ever call itself scientific. Moreover, I think discrediting objectivity and rationality is dangerous because we need both to undermine power.
Let me give an example. My family lived in rural South Africa where parents taught at a private school. Frank, a local buisness owner, often stopped by on Sunday afternoons to talk with my dad. I remember one afternoon he asked my dad (a biologist) if it was true that black men were more closely related to gorillas then white men (this was something black children were told by the state when Frank was growing up). I imagine Frank knew these were lies but still wanted confirmation he was right. I also think my dad’s answer that this was bunch of garbage carried more wieght than a typical response. Why? Because it came fom somebody who’s supposed to be objective and accurate.
I guess my question is, “how does truth confront power without some sort of objectivity standard?”
Any Thoughts? Chris.
Comment by chris — October 14, 2007 @ 6:23 am
Hi Laurelin:
This topic of feminist epistemology and the feminist challenge to accepted forms of epistemology are very interesting to me indeed, as I am currently taking a class called “The Production of Knowledge.” Here are a few of my thoughts on this subject.
The concept of objectivity is, as you mentioned, non-existent. When I make this claim, I like to use (ironically enough) the discovery in quantum physics that, everything we look at changes when we look at it. In other words, when we examine something like the human brain, our cultural perceptions colour what we see. Sometimes the very “nature” of the thing we are looking at changes.
Feminism in particular is something regarded as value-laden partly because it challenges, well, everyone and everything. You correctly mentioned that it is often the people who subscribe to the values of objectivity-namely privileged men- who cannot see inequality because, fortunate for them, they are usually not the ones living it. I think a lot of men can’t understand that the feminist movement arose out of the women’s epistemological claims that their experience counted for something. I think there is so much resistance to feminist epistemology because men don’t really want to hear or acknowledge what women have to say. The threat is that that may lead to the acceptance of a new system of knowledge.
What I found in feminism was a completely different way of looking at the world. I saw myself in this perspective because it validates a lot of my feelings I have about our social structures. I also saw the opportunity to make valuable different kinds of knowledges. Objectivity, empiricism and logical positivism count for little with me. I also think it a mistake for feminists to adopt a “feminist empiricism” because it validates existing structures- like colonialism and elitism- in a different way.
When I think of knowledge formation, I cannot help but think of the people who are left out: women, people of colour, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, children, people under colonialism…in short, everyone but white men. So, in short, it is ludicrous that we should privilege a system that excludes almost everyone. Challenging this system is vital.
So, I am not objective either.
Cheers,
Leyna
Comment by Leyna — October 14, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
“Ultimately what they imply may not be very relevant in terms of social relations.”
No, but it might be of value in the treatment of mental disorders or diseases such as Alzheimers.
Comment by Miranda — October 14, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Chris – I’m not Laurelin, but if it’s alright with her I’ll post this response.
“I don’t understand why you would say that science brought us the theory that white men are superior to all other human beings. I don’t think any theory that claimed this could ever call itself scientific.”
For a very long time, pseudo-science claimed that men were superior to women and that white people were superior to those of other races. The books “Mutants” (Leroi), “War Against the Weak” (Black) and “Medical Apartheid” (Washington) have long and sordid accounts of scientific racism. Fausto-Sterling’s “Sexing the Body” has many accounts of bizarre theories about inequalities between the sexes.
It still continues today. Relatively recently, in the US, we had a book called “The Bell Curve” that claimed blacks are less intelligent than whites, and a few years ago, the president of one of the most respected schools in the country said that women have less aptitude for math than men.
Biology and anthropology have long and shameful histories of backing up those facts with “science”. (I am pursuing a math/science major and nothing I have learned backs up racist pseudo-science.)
Regarding the story about your father-
“I also think my dad’s answer that this was bunch of garbage carried more wieght than a typical response. Why? Because it came fom somebody who’s supposed to be objective and accurate.”
So women and minorities have to wait for educated (presumably white?) men to tell other white men that we are human? Women and people of color – or even women of color – often without educations, lack the expertise to tell people that we too have dignity and worth?
Unfortunately, too many educated white men are all too happy to perpetuate the myths that we are inferior. I’m happy that white people and men can oppose racism and sexism – and particularly with regards to legislative matters, white and male allies have done a lot – but I don’t think theirs are the only voices that matter.
Comment by L.M. — October 14, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
L.M.
Of course I have no problem with you responding to me.
As to your first point, I said that any theory which claimed white men were superior to all other people could not call itself scientific. You yourself described the examples you listed as pseudo-science, so where do we disagree? Theories of white superiority could never have been objective since their thesis is false. Paraphrasing My Cousin Vinny – “the prosecution’s case is a house of cards – it has to be because you’re innocent”.
As to the second point I think I clearly said (just checked – yes I did) that the gentlemen in question knew he was being told lies. Observation is of course a fantastic way to refute white superiority theories. My point is that there is value in being able to say “we looked at things carefully and objectively and found the SA government is full of bull etc . . .” because then you’ll be in a great position to refute any counterarguments you might hear.
In both cases I think objectivity and rationality are things to embrace, not run away from.
chris
Comment by chris — October 14, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Chris- I think the point here is that these pseudo-scientific theories were called science in their time, and were called objective because they fitted in with the elite white man’s vision of himself, the Other, and the world. Likewise I believe that supposedly ’scientific’ tests on gender are equally constructed with the dominant view of truth in mind, calling that ideology ‘objectivity’, ‘common sense’ or whatever. Objectivity is non-existent, imho, and we need to admit that and ask what assumptions about human nature, etc. people such as scientists are relying upon when they say ‘X is scientifically proven to be true’. Of course we strive to be objective, but we should be aware that we can never entirely achieve it, and we should draw attention to ‘objectivity’ being used as a shield by those who benefit from the status quo. The point of my post is that largely things that are beneficial to the dominant class are those which are considered to be ‘objective’, and the obviousness in those things functions to silence and mock dissent.
Comment by Laurelin — October 14, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Chris – “I said that any theory which claimed white men were superior to all other people could not call itself scientific”
Sadly, a frightening number of people out there believe it to be true. Many racists believe that whites are destined as the “master race”, and so any evidence about the alleged inferiority of nonwhites simply reinforced their existing ideas. It’s the same way with gender, as Laurelin explained above, that many men believe that we are “destined” for patriarchy and men are superior to women, then see any evidence about the alleged inferiority of women as reinforcement.
“My point is that there is value in being able to say “we looked at things carefully and objectively and found the SA government is full of bull etc . . .” because then you’ll be in a great position to refute any counterarguments you might hear. In both cases I think objectivity and rationality are things to embrace, not run away from. ”
Well, yes, I’m glad that some white academics like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and Stephen Jay Gould who’ve poked holes in white supremacist “science”. But I don’t feel like I should wait for white men to tell other white men that I’m* not an animal and a human being, before I’m accepted as such.
*I’m a nonwhite woman
Comment by L.M. — October 15, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Laurelin –
Fair enough. I imagine people often throw supposedly obvious facts at you which really aren’t obvious or even facts.
Just be carefull about assuming it’s common for the assumptions scientists bring about human nature etc to have much to do with their theories. Many of the questions being asked in the hard sciences are so abstract and removed from our lives its hard to imagine what it would mean to be unobjective about them.
chris
Comment by chris — October 15, 2007 @ 5:39 am
L.M.
Just to clarify, Frank was white. I tried to make it clear I wasn’t saying the world needs white scientists to rescue them from ignorance (just checked – twice now) but that there is value in the objective methods of science whatever the race of the scientist. Maybe an example where race is less of a factor would be good. I think we can safely substitute intelligent design/creation science into what I’m saying.
chris
Comment by chris — October 15, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
If I could just throw in my tuppence-worth – I’m quite happy to be subjective and to be seen as such. The issues feminists are interested in/campaigning against etc are often things that affect us personally everyday, so it’s pretty difficult to be objective even if you wanted to be.
To put it in probably far-too-simplistic terms, I believe we are subjective because we are the ’subjects’ of patriarchy, and men (ususally) are the ‘objects’ of patriarchy and as such naturally think it’s very important that everybody be objective the whole time.
Comment by Debs — October 18, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
and men (ususally) are the ‘objects’ of patriarchy and as such naturally think it’s very important that everybody be objective the whole time.
Yeah, but expecting everybody to mechanically toe the line does not equal being objective. Not in the deep sense of what it means to objectively understand the world and how it really functions.
Comment by scratchy888 — October 19, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
“Yeah, but expecting everybody to mechanically toe the line does not equal being objective. Not in the deep sense of what it means to objectively understand the world and how it really functions.”
I agree. But I think that to objectively understand the world and how it really functions scares the living shit out of a lot of people so they’re happier making women’s understandings ’subjective’ and mens ‘objective’.
Me, I’m 30% objective (on a good day).
Comment by witchywoo — October 20, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Timely -
James D. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel prize for deciphering the double-helix of DNA, apologized “unreservedly” yesterday for comments reported this week suggesting that black people, over all, are not as intelligent as whites.
Comment by L.M. — October 20, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Please do not conflate science and rationality with bad science aka ‘crap work designed to prove my own prejudices’. I am both a feminist and a trained scientist and it is important to understand that science is not coloured and it is not gendered, it is a mechanism for building the best model we can of the way the world works, via hypothesis and experiment, no more and no less than that. A scientific theory is simply a theory until experimental evidence supports it and even then IT CAN STILL BE WRONG.
To be more specific, when you say that: “Appeals to the absurdity of accepting conclusions about the ‘natural’ difference between men and women as valid in a world where women and men are treated differently from the moment they are born, are refuted, because science is ‘objective’.”
you have misunderstood science entirely. You see, in such a debate YOURS IS THE SCIENTIFIC POSITION. YOU are the one pointing out that it is impossible to do a control experiment, that it is impossible to deconvolute environmental and genetic factors to produce conclusive data. YOU are the one requiring that valid evidence be produced to support the hypothesis. YOU are the one being rational and objective.
The tools of reason and rationality are ours as much as anyone’s and to cede them to the other side is a huge mistake that plays straight into the hands of the enemy who are, incidentally, about as far from reason and rationality as it is possible to be, as well as being vile immoral fuckers into the bargain.
Pseudo-science is not science anymore than quackery is medicine. Please don’t forget it.
And since someone has mentioned James D. Watson above I shall mention Rosalind Franklin, if you are unfamiliar with her story, you should look it up.
Comment by A. — November 24, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
I appreciate what you’re saying here, A. and I certainly support the practice of a feminist science. There is still the problem, however, that ‘objectivity’ is generally defined by men and refers to their knowledges, and that a lot of ‘pseudo-science’ goes under the name ’science’- with it being difficult for the non-scientifically minded among us to know what to believe. Unfortunately, findings that have the name of ’science’ are then assumed to be true, and on things such as sexual difference experiments, I want to argue that we shouldn’t take the conclusions as true just because they are called ’science’. Does that make sense? I also think it’s incredibly valuable for us to take into consideration the history of science, particularly in the areas of women’s health, to remind us that things that were once called true are now deemed ridiculous. But I take your point A, and thanks so much for commenting and for the reading suggestions.
Comment by Laurelin — November 25, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Laurelin, I agree with you almost entirely but I still think that your language/approach is wrong, though I am struggling a little bit to decide why. Maybe it is because you are far too willing to cede ground to the opposition that should not be surrendered. Rather than head your piece ‘I am not objective’ why not say ‘THEY are not objective’. Since the whole thrust of your argument boils down to the fact that some (pseudo)science is bad science and that some people wish to define their own blatantly subjective experience as the ‘objective’ norm, then say so explicitly, don’t give the opposition the luxury of arguing and believing that they still occupy the ‘objective and rational’ ground…..because they don’t. Also, I think that you are still misunderstanding a little bit what science actually is, for you to use terms like ‘feminist science’. Science is science, it is a just a bunch of intellectual tools for doing a job and the models we’ve built with those tools, and that’s all. You can’t have feminist science anymore than you can have a feminist hammer or a nazi rabbit hutch or a liberal letter Y (though clearly this is not true of scientists or pseudo-science). I should also say that it is important for non-scientists to understand that science leads to findings that are provisional, subject to revision at any time and not the absolute truth….what good science gives us is the best approximation to the truth that is currently available. Therefore, rational scepticism is an absolutely key ingredient of all science and we would never advance understanding without it. To ask for proper evidence and to demand proper experimental controls is not subjectivity or irrationality….it is the fundamental underpinning of all scientific endeavour. A scientist does not take the conclusions of science to be true because they are ’science’ he/she does that because the best available evidence supports those conclusions. So, if you advance rational arguments against a hypothesis/finding and you accompany your arguments by valid evidence, this does not make you subjective or irrational or over-emotional……and never, never let any cock-sure little gobshite make you think for a moment that it does. I believe that this is essentially what you are saying but the way you’ve said it is far too defensive for my taste…..
To change the subject a bit: any bozo who “feels it appropriate to ask the inane question ‘what is pain?’ on a comments thread for a post about sexual abuse of women” appears to be exhibiting psychopathic tendencies and is not worthy of debate. I cannot believe anyone with normal human sensibilities would write that.
Anyway, I’m stiil not quite sure I’ve managed to say what I mean, but hopefully some of that makes some sense. Thankyou for your activism good luck with everything.
Comment by a — November 29, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
Thanks for this A., this is really interesting.
I think that by ‘feminist science’ I meant science undertaken with the ultimate aim of helping women, but you have made me think about my rather confused terms. As is no doubt obvious, I’m no scientist!
And you’re quite right; I am a very defensive person, and this often comes up in my writing. I regularly respond to attacks that have not been made…
Good luck and best wishes to you too, a. xxx
Comment by Laurelin — November 30, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Leyna, I really have a hard time with that theory, even though I’m certainly not a scientist. How on earth do the scientists know what the thing looked liked before they looked at it?
If they looked twice, and both times the thing is different, then they are blaming the change on their mere looking at it?
That reasoning wouldn’t stand 5 seconds if a woman claimed “looking at her radio caused it to break”.
Besides that, I have no problem being objective. It is men themselves who behave like sexist pigs. Yet when we say men are exactly like what their behavior indicates, somehow we are the mean ones!
That too makes no sense. Calling someone mean for pointing out the obvious is simply a distraction technique. My new improved non-confrontational attitude is to point out the technique and move on. It is not necessary to write paragraphss refuting their point, for when we do write extensively, it only wastes our time (which was their intention all along) and also reinforces the negative point they were pushing, if we’re not careful how we respond. There was an article circulating briefly which described this in detail.
Comment by m Andrea — November 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Look, it is wrong to lump women in with people of color. The experiences are quite different.
Comment by Michelle — May 23, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
[...] done—probably without even realizing it. Stereotype: women are emotional, men are logical. The evidence for this is that men say it is so. As men develop the language and they connect bad things with women, they also connect good things [...]
Pingback by More Toenail Trimming . . . Feminist Edition « The Essentia Sphere — June 10, 2008 @ 6:00 pm