The Problem with Objectivity

The Problem with Objectivity.

Objectivity can be looked at as ‘simply’ viewing anything from a position of isolation, unaffected by the observable extraneous  issues in order to be or offer a rational objective opinion, not to be affected by ones own ‘perception’ nor indeed to be affected by the impact of the result of the issues derived from objectivity. In this, something is true and has reality disregarding any or all external influencing factors. This might be that an opinion being constructed about an issue is done with impartiality be it in describing an object, circumstances, situations; observation of anything and laying out the view of ‘it’ objectively. From this it may be assumed that there is no requirement to even consider any other route out from the reality of what is being observed. If someone says they are being objective or the reality of a thing is framed by the terms of the statements laid out in objectivity; then is it true?

Being objective is to challenge the veracity of all known fact that relate to an issue, to test them and apply a logical process in accepting or rejecting postulated truths, the known and known unknowns. In its honest form it may be considered useful dependent on why and who is offering the objectivity; is the source conscientiously, habitually reliable? Is it in any way useful to have or be objective and rely on the points that such objectivity offers?

The human species is surrounded and immersed in the panoply of the effect of attitudes, actions, creativity, social structures, infected by objectivity, from the application of laws, policies, and sciences. There is no sphere of human activity that is not under the influence of the application of objectivity applied by human design. Being objective is supposed to be the badge upon which principles and policies hang, so the outcome of the objective analysis is accepted as being true, unchallenged, unbiased, believable etc. Of course this depends inevitably on what purpose the objectivity is to be used for.

Objectivity is a creative framing device, mostly applicable and used in philosophy and posed in sciences as a way of divining truth or not of the substance of a debate. The debate can range over a huge area of philosophical trends to challenge the meaning of the inherent reality of things, knowledge, understanding, truth; everything. In this sphere nothing is allowed to be absolute, yet all can be subject to objectivity. Such scrutiny can be extensively protracted and different philosophers have tussled over the application of the meaning of objectivity and its attribute being attached to whatever argument is being examined on the significance of insubstantial ideas. This will also extend to the reality of things and existence, in doing so it expands in it complexity and descriptive construction to attempt to have a truth. Given that objectivity is so open to a vacillating interpretation between examining participants, it is little wonder that the subject of objectivity is held within philosophy discourse were the ability to play with complex terms and ideas on a mental and verbal level is fascinating but the sophistication of the concept is lost when moved to the application of purposeful endeavours in the ‘real’ everyday world.

It is often assumed that in presenting a case, supporting proffered conclusion on a subject, that the associate intentions like being rational, impartial; having neutrality and being detached are the supporting ribs to an end result, therefore what is being offered is as close to a truth full situation as is possible. However, one can take it that objectivity can be applied to an object, something material and substantive; something that can be seen, weighed, measured, something that has spatial presence etc but is described in terms and with words that all other observers understand and agree on the interpretation being offered on the object is where a measure of objectivity can be perhaps agreed on. But extending it to anything else that is nonorganic, any topic that is inevitably subjective like poverty or the ‘problems’ of generations X,Y,Z, or PPE, does not in any way tend to the application of objectivity. So I would suggest, the hard cold facts of being objective on a subject like these, is of course fraught with pit falls, not to say open to falsity, yet there is a consistent drive to wrap elements of law and politics in a mantel of independently produced reports fostered as the result of objective analysis.

A few years ago Amartya Sen., of Trinity College Cambridge raised a comment, “how can anyone believe austerity with high levels of unemployment is intelligent policy for the UK”? This at a time when there was a high and increasing level of spare labour, one that seemed to have no solution. With the start of the policy of austerity from the CC came the recession and a drop in incomes, the squeeze on prices, influx of cheaper compliant disposable labour and a shift to a low skill consumer economy. That question can now be perhaps rephrased to ‘how can anyone believe austerity with high levels of employment is intelligent policy for the UK? Or can it be that in the current high level employment phase, it is acceptable to have the levels of employment driven by low wage and uncertain tenure of employment to support an austerity drive? This bearing in mind that the ephemeral improvement in the UK GDP/economy, hyped by the government policy confidence tricks is being driven, once more by increasing non-productive borrowing, created low interest rates, raising stock market pumped up with the injection of billions of pounds of treasury / tax payers money of QE, with little increase in neither productive output nor exports (in part held back with a strengthened pound against the euro) and a drop in energy cost that at any other time past would drive an increase in productive output and consumption; on top of this, a wholly unnecessary and perhaps destabilising tragic farce of the EU in/out debate. At least for the moment an objective observer might conclude that there is a need for strong state asset investment and not the time to create futuristic uncertainty. However no sustainable insurance strategies are in place to mitigate the consequences of the retreating wealth of the nation. There is no evidence of rationality or conclusive objectivity to address these issues but within the plethora of government policies, the course is to portray a reasoned knowledge to justify actions as if they were considered against objectivity. One cannot be certain, but that the lack of foresight and ability to formulate a constructive vision of a future path of, at least in maintaining, a level of prosperity or building a new raft of economic generators in the face of malign forces, may be due to an air of entrenched desperation approaching despair amongst the executive powers; some of whom may be considering ‘objectively’, their own future position versus the problems and self-interest involved in being instigator of dubious objective policies.

There is a role for objectivity, it may be constrained by set terms of reference in pursuing an analysis of a subject assuming that the investigator has the access to relevant factual information and may offer up the bare bones of an issue however this is only of use in ordered structures. Ambiguity will still be a contention set by the interpretation of the term of reference and by the psychology of the researcher. Unfortunately using it in policies influencing directive action on poverty, health, or the ‘problems’ of generations X,Y,Z, pensioners or in concurrent PPE; produces no satisfactory outcome and it certainly can never used on a communal basis or there would be some reaction to significant social effects unreserved objectivity could endorse.

Why given the reduction in disposable incomes, the reduction in good employment opportunities, the eviscerating of public services, the deterioration of infrastructures, the lack of public and private productive investment, the continuing beneficent laxity given to despotic financial structures, the mounting government intrusiveness, democracy lassitude; is there no outrage or greater demonstrable  public discontent?. Is it that with so much uncertainty, insular concerns and lack of employment security that people are resigned to a state of subdued acquiescence? It may be that there is still sufficient intrinsic consumable wealth that allows the nation to be comforted in the illusions its disposable (diminishing) resources and to be tolerant of objective forces. Perhaps as Kazi Nazrul Islam held – “Patience is a minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue” but for how long? Any objective view may draw the conclusion that all is not well with a process that relies on objectivity to create policy directives that impinge severely on human endeavours; the very nature of humans psychology determines results. So there is no such thing as true objectivity, it is a useful phase and may carry an element of practicality for application of ideas but it cannot be taken as an absolute fact of existence. All it does is, if one believes it to be immutable, is to create a trap which with sufficient supportive power of belief holds back the understanding of the essence of what is perhaps real even then one should take some things for their usefulness not their truthfulness.  One should never have outright conviction for objectivity; it is just a tool to formulate a limiting perimeter to exclude that which is not within the pretext of the problem with objectivity.

© Renot

143151546