Objectivity/subjectivity

[Deepflow]

Personally, im a great believer in subjectivity, and the non existence of objectivity. I was just arguing about it on irc so decided to make a thread. It's very late and i cant be bothered to write a load, so here is an extract from an essay i wrote this year; it is talking about ethnomethodology, a school of sociology, but the concepts can be applied beyond sociology:

It takes phenomenology as its primary philosophical influence, particularly the work of Alfred Shutz, whose book The phenomenology of the social world brought the ideas of phenomenology into the context of the social sciences .

Luckman writes that:
“The goal of phenomenology is to describe the universal structures of subjective orientation in the world, not to explain the general features of the objective world.”

What this means is that phenomenology concerns itself not with ‘objective facts’ as reached through scientific method, observation, and reasoning; but with reality on a far more fundamental level. Husserl (the main developer of phenomenology) believed that all knowledge was flawed due to the inherent relativity of human observation. This relativity was due to specific “social and historical baggage” that was present in all human experience, effectively tarnishing any so-called ‘objective facts’ with the context of the people and the situation in which they were derived. To avoid this contamination of knowledge, Husserl believed that to make true sense of the world, the facts that we take for granted cannot be treated so insofar as they relate to scientific method, or indeed anything. In order to achieve this Husserl attempted to set aside everything we simply accept to be true and examine the process by which we came to this conclusion. This setting aside is normally referred to as ‘phenomenological reduction’, or ‘bracketing’ or the époché .

Ethnomethodology is effectively the use of this philosophy in the study of social behaviour. It comes from the standpoint that society (and all social interactions) is a collective conspiracy by all social actors, that all social situations are an achievement of its collective actors. Ethnomethodology is the study of how this is done. Similarly to phenomenology, bracketing needs to take place for this to be understood, as all our knowledge is initially wrapped up in our creation of the world. What I mean by this is, that ethnomethodologists believe that we continually create the world we live in, or at least our perception of it. This is done unconsciously by all the social actors present, and ethnomethodology is the only discipline within sociology (although SI covers the same ground, it does not go to such a fundamental level) that deals with how this is done rather than its outcomes. Craib writes that “…other forms of sociology take as a resource what should be taken as a topic” . That is to say that, even in sociological research, the sociologist carries around all his ‘baggage’ of previous experience as well as the context of the current situation; this leads to a distortion of the “true facts” as things are inescapably taken for granted in any given situation.

One more important area of ethnomethodology is indexicality. This means that “the sense of any object or activity is derived from its context” . What this means for ethnomethodology is that people inescapably make common sense judgements from any action or activity, bringing meaning to something that may not make any sense if it were looked at out of context and lubricating the machinery of social interaction. This is done through what is called reflexivity, basically, when we describe something through language and/or action we are creating it. Reflexivity is the process by which we correct the inevitable indexicality of all words and actions, bringing solidarity to concepts which could otherwise be misinterpreted due to the ambiguous nature of discourse.

-----

and slightly later:

Disagreement within the ethnomethodological community is less bitter, but (according the ethnomethodologists themselves) more valid. One large disagreement regarding the nature of ethnomethodology by those practicing it is, to put it in layman’s terms: ‘where to draw the line’. There is a fundamental question here, whether the ‘truth’ can ever be shown empirically, or whether the world, or more specifically the social world, can ever be regarded objectively. The same criticisms that ethnomethodology has of ‘mainstream sociology’ can be turned upon ethnomethodology itself. Even after bracketing, some ethnomethodologists believe that facts and actions are never truly laid bare. There is a deep philosophical question here, and people, including ethnomethodologists are divided generally into two schools of thought. Those who bel ieve that objectivity is possible, and those who believe that anything can only be expressed subjectively. This is because, just as I described in my introduction to this essay, everything we see, do and think is inextricably bound into our previous and our current experiences, and the context of the situation. Believers in universal subjectivity (including myself) believe that nothing can ever be ‘truly known’. To them, ethnomethodological method is merely a step in the right direction upon a never ending road. Just as the époché attempts to remove the context of actions and concentrate on the meaning behind, there is always ‘the meaning behind the meaning’ which repeats indefinitely. Craib writes that: “…the process of explanation has no end. It is always possible to ask ‘What do you mean?’ to any reply that you get” .

Right, comments, objectivity, subjectivity?

go nuts!

[Yahwe]

in 5 years of knowing him 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' are two words i know not to use where nodrog can see them.

he can't understand them at all.

EDIT: they're like a red rag to a bull

[Nodrog]

What does objectivity mean here? (and subjectivity too for that matter).

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

in 5 years of knowing him 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' are two words i know not to use where nodrog can see them.

he can't understand them at all.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What does objectivity mean here? (and subjectivity too for that matter).

[Nodrog]

Its not so much that I dont 'understand' them, as it is that ive encountered more different usages them of than I can count. They dont even have a standard usage within sociology yet alone within philosophy as a whole.

If subjectivity simply means 'involving a subject' then "all knowledge is subjective" is a trivially true statement since everything we do is necessarily done from the human perspective. But I suspect you want to say something more radical than this.

[dda]

The meaning of objective seems to be very subjective?

I object to this subject?

[Azof]

Your use of the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity" is very, very confusing. It appears that you are talking about absolutism and relativism, in which case you should refer to these by their proper names.

[Dante Hicks]

There is an objective universe. There are objects, there is matter, there are atoms. Whether (and how) we see this is largely irrelevent in an absolute fundamental sense. Denying the existence of a bullet will not stop it destroying your brain if fired directly at your temple.

Obviously each individual is going to perceive things in a unique fashion and this perception will be affected by their class, ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, what they had for breakfast and so on. All of this is very obvious, of course.

But problems in perception (or in verifying the accuracy of certain physical truths) does not make the "facts" any less true.

When it comes to non-physical things (e.g. love, justice, beauty and so on) then everything depends on definition and framework and the scientific method model does not necessarily apply in the same fashion. Often, we can just try to agree on a mutually compatible system of ideas which will have beneficial consequences for us all. If we all try to play Poker for instance, we cannot insist our rules are anymore "true" than anyone's elses (well we can appeal to precedent, but that's besides the point), but we can try to show our rules (e.g. no wild cards) leads to outcomes desirable to all (say, a game less dictated by luck)

Overall, I'm not sure there is any value in these kinds of discussions. No offence to Deepflow, but his opening essay contains a fair amount of verbiage, but I cannot really tell what he is on about. Now perhaps I am merely stupid, or he is a poor writer (or both) but it seems that when people engage in this kind of discourse a lot of is written and very little is said (as it were).

[Thermodynamics]

Oh dear, I'm resisting the temptation to post anything related to the topic- it could blow up into one of those big philosophical arguments which make my head hurt [and everyone's elses too- though some of you won't admit it! You know who you are............................. :-p]

Someone learnt something new at school today.

[s|k]

By objectivity I think he means observing with an open mind -devoid of any influence such as pre-existing ideas, cultural baggage, human physical limitations. In that sense I would obviously agree. I see 'objectivity' as a role created in western science where an effort is made by the person in the role to assume a sort of universal neutrality. A non existant state. We can escape our cultural subjectivity like we can escape our human skin and so I also don't believe in objectivity. At least not in the objectivity assumed by late 19th and early 20th century social scientists.

I see objectivity, in ethnographic works, as a way to interpret another culture's ideas and systems into something understandable in our own.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by s|k

I see 'objectivity' as a role created in western science where an effort is made by the person in the role to assume a sort of universal neutrality. A non existant state. We can escape our cultural subjectivity like we can escape our human skin and so I also don't believe in objectivity. At least not in the objectivity assumed by late 19th and early 20th century social scientists.

Does the non-existence of 'pure' objectivity prevent some approaches from being more objective than others? As a concrete example, would you agree that a BBC documentary is more likely to give an objective look at foreign affairs than either a government propaganda film, or an editorial on Al Jazeera?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Does the non-existence of 'pure' objectivity prevent some approaches from being more objective than others? As a concrete example, would you agree that a BBC documentary is more likely to give an objective look at foreign affairs than either a government propaganda film, or an editorial on Al Jazeera?

In these terms, it seems that objectivity means being honest and nonpartisan. It seems to stress an effort or willingness to look beyond one's own motives and trying to understand an issue or observation from all relevant sides.

I don't know if this is the same sort of objectivity used in social science. What if you can't understand the impact that your assesment of an observation will have? What if you can't understand all the contingencies of an event under observation? I think that understanding the complete impact and all the issues involved in any observation is impossible. Is it simply the 'effort' to be 'objective' that makes something objective, or is it a continuum with unrealizable ideals on each end and reality falls somewhere in the middle?

Is it possible to qualify objectivity?

[Deepflow]

im not saying that things cant be closer to objective than others, just that nothing is

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by s|k

In these terms, it seems that objectivity means being honest and nonpartisan.

In this context yes, those would be the main components of objectivity (the word is here almost synonymous with 'unbiased'). But this can also be seen as a specific instance of adopting universal neutrality, and stepping out of your 'cultural skin'. Although it may never be possible to do this absolutely, some approaches seem to manage it to a greater extent than others.

I don't know if this is the same sort of objectivity used in social science.

It's not, the word is being used differently here. As far as I know, 'objectivity' in social sciences means something like 'pretending we are physicists' - society is taken to be an 'object' to be studied in the same way as trees or atoms, and social 'scientists' are required to be entirely dispassionate and unconcerned about questions of value. And if we are using the word in this sense then I would agree that objectivity is impossible (and undesirable even if it werent). But if we can agree to define objectivity in more sensible terms, then I think the 'everything is subjective' claim can be shown to be wrong. For instance, a theory in social psychology that is based on some form of experimental evidence is going to be more objective than someone making a theory about black people based on the 3 he has met in his life.

is it a continuum with unrealizable ideals on each end and reality falls somewhere in the middle?

I wouldnt quite use that terminology, but yes. We dont have to reach an unattainable 'God's eye view' to say that one thing is more objective than another. We 'measure' objectivity by ordinal numbers rather than cardinals, as it were.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It's not, the word is being used differently here. As far as I know, 'objectivity' in social sciences means something like 'pretending we are physicists' - society is taken to be an 'object' to be studied in the same way as trees or atoms, and social 'scientists' are required to be entirely dispassionate and unconcerned about questions of value. And if we are using the word in this sense then I would agree that objectivity is impossible (and undesirable even if it werent). But if we can agree to define objectivity in more sensible terms, then I think the 'everything is subjective' claim can be shown to be wrong. For instance, a theory in social psychology that is based on some form of experimental evidence is going to be more objective than someone making a theory about black people based on the 3 he has met in his life.

yes nod, it means "something like that", probably dates back to durkheim and his studying of "social facts" etc etc. But he was silly anyway, no one likes him any more (me)

also, yes, i refuse to use the word in the more "sensible terms" as they are untrue to the spirit of it. I'm perfectly happy to accept that nothing can be objectively viewed or any objective conclusions ever reached about anything. I still get on fine.

Those are the only lines i mean the "everything is subjective" thing. The actual lines, if you want to soften it and say "well some things can be more objective than others, so we might as well CALL them objective when they are really still subjective", then you go ahead. But im sticking to my guns.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

y to durkheim and his studying of "social facts" etc etc. But he was silly anyway, no one likes him any more (me).

Emilie Durkheim is still incredbily relevant. His ideas about dual opposition and his theoretical models of mechanical solidarity societies versus organic solidarity societies I find amazing and ingenious.