I woke up this morning
thinking about yesterday’s class and the interesting discussion we had around whether
it is possible to be objective or not. It’s an absolutely central issue, not just for WGS but for the entire university. For all universities. What are the implications for the knowledge human’s
produce if it is possible to be objective versus if it isn’t possible?
Feminist Sandra Harding has
raised the issue of what she calls ‘strong objectivity’. She says that
traditional ways of producing knowledge have been dominated by particular groups
– primarily middle class/elite white men. She argues that while we might think such research is value
free/objective, it usually isn’t. She says to get research that is closer to
true objectivity we need to start from the experiences of those who haven’t
traditionally been involved in knowledge production. Southern scholars such as
Chandra Mohanty, Amina Mama and Mahmoud Mamdani, Edward Said (and many many more) have insisted
that knowledge generated from both men
and women in the South has been marginalised, and that this matters. These
ideas are what feed into debates around indigenous knowledge (and why UWC was
one of the first (the only one?) to have a school of natural medicine.
In terms of research the key issues revolve around
what kind of research questions are objective and which aren’t (who gets to decide? on what basis?), identifying the
underlying assumptions behind the questions that shape knowledge production (how,
for instance, do we recognise our own
biases and assumptions?) How might who we are, our own experiences and
embodiment shape what it is we are interested in, the questions we might ask, who we ask
them of, and how we interpret what we are told?
What are your thoughts?
When I reflect upon thinking, I become aware of the fact that what we 'know' is attached to many overarching 'macro' processes and structures. A self is actually a social structure and a process that arises in and from “social experience, that it involves the body and the self-the generalized Other- is multiple or composite” (Mead 1974: 163 cited in Van Wolfgutte, 2004: 261).
ReplyDeleteThe above-mentioned ties in with Harding’s (1991, cited in Ewick, 1994: 96) “strong objectivity” it becomes clear that “the world is both an ongoing historical and cultural production and empirically real, acknowledging that even while we construct the world, we are constrained by it” (Ewick, 1994:96). Hence, I am not an objective observer, "observers do change the world that they observe, but refusing to strengthen the notion of objectivity leaves reflexivity always threatening objectivity rather than also as a resource for maximising it" (Harding , 1993: 74-75). By engaging in a self-reflection process we increase understanding and start to unravel that which we accept as "normal", we start to deconstruct preconceived notions of everyday life and living.
I had my first tutorial's today. I realised that my mind still needs to adapt to the academic sphere because it was so easy for me to label groups of people. I was placing it within the context of the reading, but the tutorial left me thinking that something needs to change with how I view the world.
ReplyDeleteI get onto the blog now and I see that it is exactly what Lindsay is saying. I was not being objective today. It was easy for me to sit there and speak about my "opinion" because I was the person with the "power" and it was only after a student made a comment regarding "labels" that it hit me.
I am glad I got challenged in the tutorial because this has now forced me to think about labels and objectivity.
deep thoughts Monique! You are suggesting that we don't actually exist outside the social? that we are who we are through others? That has the ring of Ubuntu in it....
ReplyDeleteIt also makes explain why we might be different with different people, they are different and so we are different. Do you think that means then that there is no essential self?
And Zayaan interesting observation about the tuts! I'm interested to know your thoughts on how an individual might recognise movement towards greater objectivity. What do you think might be the indicators of such a movement?