I guess, for this first post, I would like to talk about some main points I’m interested in and leave the discussion open from there.
First, I continue to float back and forth as I evaluate my
stance on the definitions of ideology and
agenda. We started to talk about
this at the end of our first class meeting. And, in the last blog posting,
Professor Waterston continued the discussion, saying, “We often hear calls for the value of objectivity, of
staying neutral, of not taking a stand. But aren’t we always taking a stand or
position on something whether or not we make explicit what it is?”
Thursday’s
class brought this statement to life. We all brought something different to the
situation in deciding who was the killer and what really happened in that grove. Professor Reitz’s follow-up question—“what does
this say about you?”—elicited the inner, subjective feelings
…Sally
empathized with the rebelling, norm-rejecting Tajomaru, albeit not his narcissistic
features. Andre and Aaron opted for a “concrete,” “factual,” and “logical”
approach to the story’s facts, hence
leading them to choose Tajomaru, too, but for a different reason than Sally. Nico, Professor Stein, and myself took more of
a psychological approach, however, coming to different conclusions based on the
value of emotion (i.e. validity of truth vs. a false confession). On the other hand, Professor Waterston saw
the woman’s account for its historical, gender value, through the broad lens of an
anthropologist.
What
does this tell us? Well, it makes me consider that we might just all have some kind of agenda or ideology. I suppose I’ve always associated both of these terms with
rigid ideas and political leanings. But, what if it can just denote our inner
feelings and motivations, as seen in class? We have to be driven by something,
right?
As
my cognitive psychology professor always said, “we all bring something
different to a situation.” Our biases, expectations, education, values, etc. lead
us to unique reactions to the world around us.
Overall, what does this story really mean, though? I ask
myself what the purpose of the assigned reading was: how does this tie in to
social justice and Vera's work? Isn't the advancement of social justice (and any process, for that matter) about gathering support for a cause, melding or putting aside personal views, and seeking a common goal?
What is objective
truth—does it exist? From whom can we trust truth? We all saw in class how we
believed some characters over others for various reasons (social class and
position in society, perceived morality, gender, personality).
Flip to page 43 in A Kind
of Genius and Sturz talks about how he “…learned very early that most of what people say is to be discounted.
They’re either lying to protect themselves or just to sound impressive, or they
don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’ve vaguely heard something or
other.” Maybe that’s a cynical view of the world and human nature, particularly coming
from a guy who worked with the system and its players for so long, but does it
hold some truth? I think so.
- Do you agree? What do you think we bring to situations, if anything?
- How does this story translate into reality, our internships, and/or to the field of social justice?
- What is truth? Is it ever objective? Who can we trust?
18 comments:
Hey Joe,
I think that you have raised a really good point, in terms of how we are all biased to a certain degree and how we all have something that drives us to make the decisions that we do (in this case, deciding who murdered Takejiru).
After class on Thursday, I too thought about how the story ties into the issues of social justice and what the whole purpose was. I agree with you that it is about the process of gathering support and finding the solution to a common goal. I also wanted to add that it is meant to show us Fellows the difficulty of finding the solution. As the debate in class clearly showed, our opinions and views were steering in all different directions. I believe that this exemplified the difficulty it is for any individual to gather all views of “reality” from the parties involved and come up with a justified conclusion to fix the problem.
In regards to Sturz’ statement in A Kind of Genius:
1. I do agree with Sturz to a certain extent. There are many situations in which people do speak inaccurately and according to those terms that he mentioned. I think this idea roots back to the importance of education in our lives and awareness of what is going on around us. As Malcolm X stated, “Knowledge is power.” I believe that oftentimes, people do lie to protect themselves , sound impressive, etc. However, once the individual is educated about how to self-correct, instead of simply holding onto fear of getting in trouble, he/she wouldn’t have to lie. Similarly with the individual trying to sound impressive or not knowing much about something… Once someone is educated about the topic, he/she wouldn’t need to lie. They would have enough knowledge to speak confidently. In regards to what we bring to situations, I believe that it is in our power to educate ourselves about particular situations and get the facts. Then, it is our responsibility to put aside our biases, and bring the truth to the table, so that not only are others aware, but because we are stating the facts.
2. I believe that In a Grove can relate back to all those fields mentioned because it questions the validity of statements made by individuals (leading you to make a decision for yourself, whether it is in real life or at our internships), and exemplify the difficulty it is to gather all the information and make sense of what really happened and how to go about creating a solution.
3. This is actually a question that I have a lot of difficulty answering. I believe that truth is the validity of a situation and the highest level of facts for that situation. I want to say that objective truth is the point of view from a third party, someone that has no connection or relation to any of the parties involved. However, after our debate on the text, it is clearly not the case. In regards to the last part, I don’t know who we can ever trust. I really don’t think that there is any way that truth can be objective because the parties involved will always have a bias or opinion about the situation in one way or another, which can ultimately sway the direction of the “truth” and what they decide to believe or look at a situation.
Hey Joe,
Thanks for that very informative post. When it comes to the value of objectivity, I believe that staying objective is the way to go. In the story presented to us, the story was set in a time where modern technology wasn’t available to play a role in finding out who the killer was. All the character gave their own conflicting testimony, which made it harder to not only piece together the story but as well as determine the killer. My friend, who worked at the Innocence Project told me how countless individuals based on the Jim Crow laws were convicted based alone on faulty testimony. I believe that science is the way to go so you don’t have to rely on testimonies. The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy explains how being objective is “Objective judgment or belief” refers to a judgment or belief based on objectively strong supporting evidence, the sort of evidence that would be compelling for any rational being.” Whereas being subjective truth is “A subjective judgment would then seem to be a judgment or belief supported by evidence that is compelling for some rational beings (subjects) but not compelling for others. It could also refer to a judgment based on evidence that is of necessity available only to some subjects.” Based on those two definitions of all the testimonies given by the characters, it is subjective and compelling for some individuals, not others. That is why all of us had our different views on which the killer is.
1. I believe that each individual bring their own individuality to it. However, it is still a subjective claim which can both help and hinder the process of social justice. Criminal cases can be decided alone on credibility, whether one is more credible than the other and have a polarizing effect on cases.
2. This story had huge effect correlating to reality such as internships. At Espranza, we work with children who may have children who may have criminal background, if one were to be involved in a future crime their credibility would take a hit and night lose a case based on other factors beside the actual incident.
3. Truth based on Dictionary.com is “verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like” I don’t believe that individuals can ever give indisputable fact besides backing from science and quantitative data.
It’s so great that we’re getting at these knotty issues right from the start. Thank you, Joe, for synthesizing our positions and prejudices as each of us cast a gaze onto “the grove.” In your beautifully written post, you teased out some important implications for social justice.
Here’s what I wonder. What are the contradictions in the issues you identify and in the questions you ask? I’m not sure contradictions can ever truly be “resolved,” but I do wonder if it is worth taking them apart, and exploring them more deeply.
For example, Joe writes: “Isn't the advancement of social justice (and any process, for that matter) about gathering support for a cause, melding or putting aside personal views….” My questions are: What does it mean to “have a cause”? Doesn’t having a cause imply holding a personal viewpoint, a value, a position that something is important to fight for? If so, what does it mean to “put aside personal views”??? How can you commit to a cause without having a personal viewpoint about it? For that matter, what’s wrong with having a viewpoint? Isn’t fighting for social justice taking a stand, taking the position that social justice (however “social justice” is defined) is important and worth advancing? And what of the opposite? If someone doesn’t take a position on a social justice, does that absence or silence have consequences? What of apathy? What of the bystander?
In her response to you, Michelle seems to express concern that there can never be objective truth about anything. Her worry makes me think we tend to value “objective truth” over “subjective truth.” Are there times and places for each—where objective truth might be of more value over the subjective, and where subjective truth might be of more value over the objective? In his response, David notes the value of “objective truth” considering lives are at stake in the criminal justice system. At the risk of giving you all a headache, I have to add a couple of other questions, inspired by David’s post: How do we know “science” is objective? What makes you think “quantitative data” objective???
I agree that it is important to realize that we will always be taking a stance, whether for, against, or remaining neutral. It is also crucial to realize how our experiences and personality can influence how we perceive a situation. I think once you are self aware of this, it is ideal to surround yourself with others who bring different views and values to the table.
To answer Joe’s three questions:
1. I fully agree with Sturz in this respect. People are always out to impress others, and if stretching facts or blatantly lying achieves that goal, then unfortunately many people have no qualms about it. For some reason people may not feel comfortable with themselves and the knowledge they possess. Michelle makes a great point about the importance and power of education in today’s world. Along with education, I think being comfortable and aware of who we are can diminish the need for lying. As humans we are all bound to make mistakes, so being accepting of other’s imperfections and our own could open the gateway for more honest interactions. It is the ability to gather and process information and come up with a conclusion that we bring to situations we face, knowing that we cannot be 100% impartial.
2. I think for me, In a Grove will help me keep in mind there are always two sides to a story. While working at CEO with a retention specialist last week, he explained how if a participant loses employment it is common to get conflicting stories from the participant and the employer. It is part of the RS’s job to maintain a positive relationship with both parties.
3. In theory, truth consists of facts from an event depicted as they actually happened. However, as we all realized in class, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to be completely unbiased. As for whom we can trust, I think it depends on an individual’s personal characteristics and past behavior.
To answer Professor Waterson’s last question about the objectivity of science and quantitative data, it is my understanding that scientific experiments and statistical data can be manipulated for a particular intended audience. The facts or conclusions may not be incorrect but you can always spin information to your advantage, in doing so you distort the truth.
I agree that we all have our own ideologies and values, which play big roles when we are making a decision, taking a stand or taking a side. We bring our own perspective into everyday issues in order to make sense or try to understand why? or how? of any given situation. In our class discussion we saw the scenerios were given, in our own different ways because we all have our own values and beliefs which can sometimes make it difficult to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. I believe that this story has alot to do with our roles as interns in the different organizations we are working in because it lets us see how a particular situation can have different meaning for different people and how one instance can be seen from so many different vantage points. I agree with you that Sturz's statement holds true in many, if not most cases. I believe most people will enhance their words in many or most circumstances in order to appear more knowledgable or as Sturz stated to "protect themselves." I do believe that there are people who will be honest throughout most of their life. However, I agree that it is hard to tell when you come across such a person and in what circumstances said person will be willing to set aside his or her honesty and moral values.
2. I believe that "In A Grove", relates to reality, social justice and our internship in that it shows how necessary it is to pay attention to every aspect of a situation. In order to get a better understanding of a particular scenerio, it is necessary to evaluate all the posibilities. We cannot take a side or view a particular topic or issue from our own point of view without first looking into, listening to and analyzing, all the different perspectives. It is important in order to be objective to keep an open mind when you are comfronted with contradicting statements and scenarios from different sources. In social justice, as in life, we cannot simply make a decision or take a stand without analyzing and understanding all the different naratives.
3. I believe truth is the actual facts, feelings, actions or words that are spoken or related in the exact manner of occurence. The problem with truth or rather what obstructs truth, is that most people recount things as they view them or as they feel them. It is very rare for two people to see or interpret a particular occurence in the same manner because no two people can take in the same information in the same way or with the same feelings. In answer to Professor Wateston's question I am incline to believe that both, "objective" and "subjective truth", should have a balanced value, as we all see things from our own perspectives.
Joe,
Extremely insightful, great post.
I agree and disagree. I agree in that I believe that many individuals, especially those who hold positions of power, often times say and do things that have the sole purpose of helping them protect their position. I believe that this is a sometimes very cruel reality, but not always a selfish one. Take many politicians, I think we would all agree, especially in hindsight, did things simply to secure re-election or so that they would be a constant part of what defined the status quo. However, at the time, their acts may have not been so selfish. Perhaps in 50 years, President Obama may be analyzed in a way that can suggest everything he did was to just stay in office, and while that is certainly true now, many believe, including myself, that he has policies that work and has been an amazing president for these past four years.
On the flipside, I must disagree. I am an optimist, and I believe people are inherently good, not evil or so selfish that they are consumed by it. I do think we have a human nature, but human nature is complex, not black and white. We struggle, and I say we only because I have reflected on my experience on this earth, about what is right and wrong, better or worse, desire and need, you and me. We are always at the crossroads of a struggle. But one decision does not define our entire existence. One chapter in a book doesn’t make the whole book; you need to read the other chapters.
And that is what we bring to the situation. Where we are at that struggle. One moment we may be self interested, and a moment later we may be the selfless heroes. But it all depends on the stage we are at in life, be it trying to maintain power to do some good, or just trying to figure out what we want to do in life. What we bring to the table all depends in timing, and sometimes the timing isn’t really good.
I’m not so sure I understand your second question, but here goes. We are all currently in a position where we are at the bottom of the food chain. We’re interns, and what we see and hear are all things that happen in the circles above us. Instead of looking down, which many of us have done throughout our undergraduate careers, we can’t look down anymore; we have to look up. And, for me, this means taking everything in as words of an almost absolute truth, because to be honest, we don’t know any better. Yes, we may be informed, but we don’t have the luxury to not listen. We have to listen, because that is how we will learn, and some of what we may hear should be discarded, but we don’t have the experience to make that call.
Truth. I’m not sure if there is any truth, especially since we are so limited by our own vocabulary and the finite ability of our brains. I honestly don’t know, I mean, I could write forever on what I think, but I don’t think I, or we, could get any closer to the truth. If I did start writing, it would be a blog post too long. But I will say this; I think everyone has his or her own definition of what is true, so the best we can do is compromise on those definitions, in one way or another.
Hi Joe,
You raised a very interesting point when you quoted the short phrase from “A Kind of Genius”, that is, do we really have a solid idea of what do we believe in, or are we simply forging new opinions as our lives progress? Are those “beliefs” that we once firmly held on to truly reflect our take on the world around us? Or maybe, they are simply the products of our life experiences and the social structure surrounded us. If many of us can’t even distinguish the impact of external environment from the nature of our inner selves, are we still qualified to take a stance on what defines social justice? With so many questions in mind, I believe it is the best to begin to explore the question with some self-reflection.
My living experience in China as a person of Chinese and African heritage bears an enormous accountability for creating and shaping all fragments of my personality and views. Having been exposed to racial and gender injustice at an early age, I became extremely sensitive to, and often become irritated, whenever I learn about the existence some kind of injustice that reminds me of my encounter. Sometimes I wonder about whether my concern for social justice is merely fueled by rage. If so, how can I battle injustice with peace loving mind that is dictated by wrath? What a paradox! Justice, after all, involves restoring balance and harmony. It might be quite a challenge for me to measure the right approach to injustice, if I do not become more aware of my own weakness.
On the other hand, the weakness, which is my sensitivity to injustice, constitutes a reasoning pattern that is intrinsically unique to my personal character. My flawed mentality is what will distinguish me from others, thus allows me to contribute to grassroots social reform movements in my own way. After all, no one is perfect, that also includes Sturz. It might be those flaws that make individuals unique and allow them to provide something different than others. Take the example of our class discussion, after reading the exact same story, each of us came up with distinctive interpretation of the scenario in the story. I am almost certain that when we are evaluating the story, our past experience, personal beliefs and other significant factors all played a part in shaping our take of the story.
Sylvie
Thank you, Joe, for this penetrating commentary. And it is so interesting reading about how each person in this seminar grapples with the slipperiness of eyewitness testimony. Akutagawa was certainly ahead of his time. Between the fallibility of memory, the influence of leading questions, and issues of witness credibility, the contemporary courts are increasingly discarding eyewitness testimony because it is potentially so unreliable. As Joe points out, this raises many other questions that impede our search for justice: Whose account can we trust? On what basis do we decide “whodunit” or even what “it” is? Overlay this on a real situation like, for instance, a stop and frisk operation that turns up some weed, or a he said/she said accusation of rape. The stakes are enormous for individuals and also have implications for a wider vision of social justice. Figuring it out is very complex (so complex, I am writing two posts) but most of us hate messy and ambiguous. A material view of the world with empirically verifiable, essential truths that maintain across time and culture is so much more manageable and morally comforting. Whenever you are comfortable, it is time to start worrying.
Scientists, particularly since the 19th Century, have sought ways to measure the material world and its inhabitants, searching for universal truths. Using objective, quantitative methods, scientists have proved that people who have a certain pattern of bumps on their heads are born criminals, that dark skinned people are intellectually inferior and sexually rapacious, and that women are biologically too fragile to labor outside the home. We may laugh at these findings now but, in their day, they were considered the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. Updated permutations of each of these “facts” still exist but, in our own time, we tend to not question how curious it is that so many objective facts just happen to support dominant ideologies and help those in power maintain their position. Aaron calls attention to the purposeful manipulation of data and of course, that is a huge problem. But more insidious and widespread is the honest pursuit of knowledge by people who have not examined their own biases and underlying assumptions.
Continued...
Michelle says that it is our job to “put aside our biases and bring truth to the table” but, as theorist Donnel Stern puts it “how can the eye see itself” when it is deeply rooted in a particular version of reality? David is on the right track I think when he cites the need for “strong supporting evidence, the sort of evidence that would be compelling for any rational being” because, although there may be no objective truth, we can certainly still continue to seek an approximation of truth, taking in many accounts-both subjective and empirical-and attempting to examine our own biases as best we can. I would not want to leave the impression that all accounts are equally valid, just that our decision to believe in a particular one is always a matter of subjective interpretation.
When are you forced to decide between competing accounts at your agency? How have you decided?
Ahhh, a teacher loves nothing better than to imagine her students leaving the classroom thinking, "What in the hell was all that about." Seriously. The proof of your tremendous introspection is in this week's blog discussion which really hits a new high for blog philosophizing.
So much has been said that needs (and will receive) further thought and discussion, but a quick anecdote from my Dickens class his morning illustrates my perspective on, uh, perspective.
The first book I assigned to my senior seminar is titled DICKENS AND THE STREET CHILDREN OF LONDON. Its admirable if hero-worshipping thesis is that Dickens was the most clear-eyed social reformer of the 19th century and that all roads of social justice lead to him and his many, varied writings. But then we read a piece by Christopher Hitchens (the King of all Crabs, may he rest in peace). Hitchens writes about "Dickens's Dark Side" and how this giant crusader against Pauperism (he is Sturzesque in some ways) seemed to have less sympathy for certain populations than others -- or as Prof. Stein likes to say, "We like our victims a certain way." So what in the hell is this all about? I guess the challenge is not simply limited to the different perspectives of different stake-holders involved, but even the different (and often unacknowledged) perspectives held by a single person.
Joe, Your post definitely opens room for in depth discussion and self reflection.
Let me dive straight into the questions. I definitely agree with Sturz's belief that people make up truths in order to satisfy their hidden agenda's and beliefs. This is evident both in the Grove story as well as in our class discussion. The husband, the wife and the robber all seemingly changed their stories in order to satisfy their agenda's and you have already noticed that our cohort, based on their personal biases, were able to come to conclusions about the murderer. I am definitely no exepciton to this phenomena but this trait is exactly what I can bring to the pursuit of justice; or at least the perception of it. I have learned great lessons from my past and therefore I have a strong notion of right and wrong. I can also see many different sides of the story before eventually coming up with a well informed decision when attempting to resolve issues. I feel that this combination of objectivity and subjectivity breeds champions and has helped me dearly when faced with a potential problem or road block.
The story of the Grove is the perfect example of finding the bright line between subjectivity and objectivity. Who told the truth and who was lying? Who was satisfying their hidden agenda's and who was seeing justice? These questions are still unanswered when approaching them through the lens of justice. If we approach the story through Sturz's lens, everyone is lying and their is no way to find the truth in the end. The more we analyze this story the harder it seems to find the truth and it seems more and more that everyone is simply speaking from personal biases. However, the answer does in fact lie in the fine print. The reason why we can not see it is because we are all already pre-wired to believe the story that reflects our problem solving skills; i.e concrete evidence versus psychological evaluation. In a weird way, we are all right and wrong at the very same time.
With that being said, objectivity seems to be a distant blur in the face of justice. To say that I am never objective would be a lie but the vast majority of the time I see things through the lens of my past experiences. I admit that I am hardwired with a notion of right and wrong but I still consider my self very trustworthy. Trust and subjectivity can and do coexist. I find it ironic however how trust and law seem to be polar opposites...It is possible to bridge the gap between what is right, what is wrong and what is justice but it takes a strong minded person to withstand the system and make a difference...Is anyone else inspired?
Hey Joe,
I think that you have raised a couple of good points in terms of how the reading may have a connection to social Justice. This thread demonstrates the point Joe and others have made: we all bring own perceptions and views into discussions.
After the class on Thursday, I couldn’t help but analyze some of the perspectives of my fellow classmates and comparing them to the jury—especially when Professor Reitz asked us all who the killer was. With this in mind, some of you agreed that being objective is that best way to go when judging the criminal justice system; however, doesn’t that then mean that you would agree with the concept of having juries? Are juries the most representative form of democracy? Or perhaps, are there inherent limitations with humans—as Professor Stein mentions—that limit truly objectivity form?
1) I agree with Herbs Sturz emphasis on trying to achieve objectivity when dealing with issues, but there are a number of downsides, which Nico mentioned about decisions being black and white. A combination between Michelle’s suggestion about harnessing knowledge compounded with David’s suggestion to use science as a tool to obtaining objectivity appears to a very plausible solution and highly seductive. Yet, there are a few things to consider. Haven’t a number of the most heinous examples in recent history been carried out by highly educated individuals? Moreover, isn’t science a theory to explain phenomenon? I realize I am playing a little bit of devil’s advocate, but let’s take the case of Malcolm X. For years, Malcolm X advocated and ascribed to a specific set of views and believes that he swore to be true and correct. However, after his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X completely renounces his former believes and re-imagined the world he wanted to see, which was quite different from his previous views. His change in views did not rely on education or science. On the contrary, his decision to renounce his views hinged on his belief in a higher power that has yet to proven by science and from an experience that many individuals around the world will never undergo. Would experience with a higher power be credible enough to with stand objectivity and science? For this reasons, the only things we can bring our actions is our experiences. We must ground discussions on human commonalities of experience, such as oppression. Granted certain experience may generate some more reactionary believes than other, yet I don’t think the human capacity to emphasize with other can be fully utilized without human experience.
2) The reading of In the Grove reinforces the concept that individuals should not cling solely to objective views because the intentions and conceptions of right and wrong will not be objective. Unfortunately my internship doesn’t start until tomorrow; however, this story provides certain guidelines on how to approach situations when I am dealing with clients. In other words, I should not come to the table with a one-sided approach and that my experiences and biases may be beneficial to helping others. Still, I must temper myself by realizing that my views are not right or wrong completely, and I must be humble enough to constantly evaluate my views.
3) As I mentioned above, truth varies from place to place in terms of definition and what standards and values individuals decide to use to determine truth. The relationship between objectivity and truth depends on each person’s conception and views accepted by the public-at-large. I know this may seem a little vague, but terms like truth and objectivity have become so politically charged that they can be used to justify almost any position right now—regardless of the cause. As advocates for social justice, we should tend to believe and trust in people. Hopefully shared experiences will determine commonalities that individuals all around the world experience, beginning to determine certain standards.
In closing, I want to leave you all with the famous quote that has been rephrased a number of ways, but it was inspired by Dante’s Inferno. As John F. Kennedy and others during the 1960’s said, the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who stay neutral during times of moral crisis.” With this in mind, can we every really achieve objectivity? Should we embrace certain bias as a source for inspiration that undergoes tests dealing with science grounded in human experience? Does telling everyone to achieve objectivity contribute to the tension associated with black and white because the view implies only two choices?
I'm so glad Sally mentioned being "humble" because when I think of how I envision Sturz and his work (having read the book, met the man and thought about Vera for about five years), the one thing that seems "true" about him is the importance of humility. It certainly if evident when you meet him -- he sat behind me in the 5th row at the spring event for goodness sake! But I also think his ability to get out of the way, to not make this work about himself (whether that be ego, politics, personal gain) has given him so much freedom to think, evaluate success and failure with as little ego investment as possible and to be as transparent (as possible) about his subjective understanding of the issues.
Thanks for all the responses everyone.
My mind is kinda overflowing with ideas, so let me just start typing a little.
Prof. Waterston: In response to your questions, I would say "a cause" is often a broad construct. Look at Occupy Wall Street and the interviews of the people there. Some are there because they hate the super elite. Some want a job. Some want to pay off their college debt. Some don't even know why they're there, really. What's the common goal? Perhaps it's not so much "putting aside" personal views as it is melding them and working together to achieve and advance... something.
Nico, I allign with your beliefs on human nature. It's complex and rightfully so, not a generalizable idea.
Sylvie, you speak of a "rage" that sometimes drives you. And what if that does propel you to advance social justice? What if that is your personal motivation? Is that okay with you? It may not mesh with your outward appearance and how you want to come across to achieve your goals, but rather than rage, I like to call it a passion for humanity.
On that note, Prof. Stein provides the segue to Sylvie's question of noticing our biases and being aware...
My second question hinges on something Prof. Stein said: "But more insidious and widespread is the honest pursuit of knowledge by people who have not examined their own biases and underlying assumptions." I hope this can be a continuing discussion throughout the seminar. What "baggage" do we bring to our internships? To the idea of social justice? Can we further operationalize social justice?
Look to the timely email Prof. Stein sent today. What do you see? Is there an objective truth to that picture, or like Andre says, can two subjective truths just coexist?
Thanks Sally, for that quotation. It's great food for thought:
"...the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who stay neutral during times of moral crisis."
Joseph, you reminded me of Sylvie's fraught conversation with a CEO client. Trying to express empathy, she was blindsided by an unanticipated reaction. (I have experienced different versions of that response many times myself.) In terms of interrogating our own “baggage” regarding social justice, it seems to me that what is most invisible to us is our own privilege: to be free, to be safe, to have food, etc. (it can also include being white, being male, being in a particular profession). Yet others see that privilege clearly and process it in many ways, from the totally insightful to the completely delusional. I remember a patient speaking with me after many years of working together about her feelings regarding my being white (she was Latina). It had literally never occurred to me that this might be an issue. Of course it wasn’t TO ME. My whiteness was invisible to me, like that Stephen Colbert character who “doesn’t see race”. Pretty thick, huh?
Joe,
Your post posed a lot of questions, and has some great food for thought.
First, I'd like to address your statement that "we all have an agenda and ideology." For the most part, this is absolutely correct. But from which source does our personal agenda and ideology stem from? There is a multiplicity of factors: family, religion, professors (I'm not trying to imply anything...haha). But what I'm really trying to say is, we never develop these stringent, and pointed modes of thinking on our own. Sir Issac Newton once expressed, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." In the same way that individuals stand on the ideas of others to further another's innovations, we stand on the ideas and ideologies of others, who so strongly impressed them on us. The impression is so great that we cannot avoid spouting a view that many others have held for centuries and on.
In the case of "In a Grove," some chose to defend the wife based on gender, others defended the robber based on core political beliefs. Our ideology taints (or enhances) our views on certain issues, whether we want to sound "objective," or not. And the word "ideology" does not have to stem from political leanings. I define ideology as a set of ideas, or a way of thinking, that affects the way we act. Possibly to the very core.
To answer Joe's questions:
1. What we bring to situations is a baggage of ideas, values, or agendas. We bring the views impressed onto us by the reality that surrounds us. We cannot escape ideology, and ideology does not escape the conversations/situations we find ourselves involved in.
2. We may think that we bring a personal agenda to our agencies, but it is actually the agendas of many others compressed into one, singular plan. We may fight for a seemingly objective goal ("justice," or "equality") but how we define justice is subjective, and the way we fight for that goal is also subjective. We fight for an objective cause through a subjective lens.
3. In my opinion, nothing is objective. We can say that we view the world objectively, but as I said earlier, we are all subjective creatures. My question is, how do we come to the point of labeling things as true? Is it something we universally agree on? I'm not sure...
Post a Comment