Ever since I joined Christ University, I have become part of the active and passive deliberations on the question of subjectivity and objectivity. To my surprise the cacaphony on subjectity is too much that objectivity has been defeated by sound and not logic. (Interestingly most guest lecturers belong to this subjectity band wagon) There is no objectivity and all objectivities are ideology ridden and hegemonic is the most appreciated view that is gaining currency now. To my hunble thoughts, I find that if subjectivity is overemphasised, there will be no common ground even for discussions, let alone common decisions. Living as a society will become impossible because no two people will be able to agree on anything.
Consider the typcial instance of the illusion of the rope as a snake. Imagine that there are only two people who see 'something' as a rope/snake. One claims that it is a snake while the other claims that it is a rope. The one who considers the 'something' as a snake even gets the fear and repulsion of actually seeing a snake. While the other does not. Now, if there is no way of going near to the 'something' to confirm whether it is a snake or rope both will continue to claim that it is a snake/rope according to each one's perception. If a third person actually finds that it is a rope, will he be able to convince the first two people? But does lack of ability to get convicned reduce the objectivity of the rope?
Well, I am aware that the third person is hypothetical and there is no one to varify the actual thing. So the debate will continue. But this debate is meant for those who care to look at things from far, uninvolved in the search for truth. If both of the initial viewers were to cross the difficulty and verify the veracity of their claims? Objectivity will surely emerge. But there is a complication that happens at this juncture. If out of the two only one agrees to cross the difficulty and verifies that the 'something' is a rope the other person will continue to debate that it is a snake.
Another complication that can emerge is if the one who goes finds out that the 'something' is a rope but is not interested in truth and returns to claim that it is a snake (he has vested interests (hegemony) to keep the other persons away for ever from the locus of truth) the debate will still continue.
Now the original question is twisted, the question is not on objectivity but on who wins. In this power tension, other people join sides and make so much of sound perhaps on the side of the one who has known that 'something' is a rope but misleads that it is a snake. Here the one who has more sound will be heard. Earlier the power hierarchy was based on political and muscle power. Now this is shifted in favour of sound bytes and public support. Interestingly public support is a matter of emotions and not reason.
A few underlying facts could be drawn out from the discussion.
1. The question is actually not of objectivity but of the ability or inability to verify objectivity.
2. The question of objectivity is blurred by power structures (hegemony)
3. But hegemonic manipulations do not affect objectivity itself but only its narration
Some pre-requisites to find objectivity are
1. to belielve in the existence of objects and its narrations.
2. a committment to truth. It is a willingness to change stance when one is proved wrong.
3. Truth does not rest with the powerful nor with the powerless but with the object.
The belief that the truth rests with the parties in an argument is what makes enquiry impossilbe.
My conclusion is that Deconstruction/ I am using this word with hesitation/ of the binaries of power structure has an agenda of establishing alternative narratives and power structures. In order to establish this new subjectivity (narration) the deconstructionists have kept objectivity out of circulation. This is more hegemonic than the one they try to deconstruct.
No comments:
Post a Comment