Jan 13 – Haiti and the Pedagogy of the Oppressed - Ottawa

Redundant as it may sound; mirrors show a reflection of ourselves. The mirrored image often serves as the mental image we have of ourselves. Photography and video have come to play that same role. A friend has called me “brave” for recording myself on camera. Don’t we hate to see ourselves reflected? Our voices recorded? Our “bad angles” photographed? Mirrors and images of us can be “horrific” as they make us self-conscious… However, the best thing about them is that they are not really us (Rene Magritte’s “Ceci n'est pas une pipe" -"This is not a pipe"), they are just a reflection… and reflections can be deceiving, certainly subjective, altered by external components like the mirror itself and the influence of light. But also by internal elements such us our minds, our eyes, our senses. Descartes dedicated part of his life to theorize about the unreliable effect of our senses and the unpredictability of perception.



On today’s video, I play with my reflection, altered by the effect of mirrors. What we see is something similar to what it was, but never the act per se. Paulo Freire, questioned the role of traditional pedagogies and called them “banking education”, information that is not neutral, that serves a system of thought, a moment in time, and that is often deposited in our brains like we deposit cheques in the bank. We call ourselves skeptical these days, but we are not sure of what… paying attention to the way we do things, trying to understand how we see, how we look at things, how we analyze and draw conclusions… is a good path to awareness. And awareness is what we need in order to discern our times and what we are accountable for… now and tomorrow.

Catastrophe is defined online as “a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin”. Catastrophes alter our sensitivity and awake a sense of solidarity. We get in the mood to help, to change, to pray… but we soon get bored, tired, we forget, we move on. Catastrophes can be like mirrors, reflections of a horrific moment in time… but not the real image, not the embodiment of the course of history (the before and after the event). If we could only dig deeper and unearth what lies beneath?

Thought of the day: Haiti has been perceived as the “cinderella” of the Americas, impoverished and caged in its own misfortune… but the beauty of its people, of its nature, of its history, combined with the strength of its roots can change the course of history…and soon shine. I believe I’ll see it in my lifetime.

Share

On the arbitrariness of the relation between thoughts and the words to describe them

What I am about to write is not necessarily something I need to say… I just have it somewhere in my brain… and I want to let it go as it is stuck somewhere within. I would hope it flows as I start to write. I am not sure it would but why shouldn’t I try. Perhaps, as much as we don’t know the universe and many other “solar systems”, we also don’t know this microcosm inside of us… our brains have been picked-on and dissected but we do not understand the nature of thought and all those interconnections we make every fraction of second (many people have studied this but it isn't common knowledge). I want to understand something as arbitrary as language. I am writing right now in a foreign language. My mother tongue is arbitrary too. I know it better than I know English as a second language. I am writing in it.. but does it matter? I would never be able to decode thoughts purely and put them into paper. That is the drama of a writer… language and how we decode thoughts as if they floated in our minds and we were trying to fish them and then package them and send them into our nervous system for them to be processed in the area where the western alphabet has been engraved… right there the thought starts being carved, shaped, as we try to find the word that would define it according to the cultural paradigm that associated a meaning to that signifier… the signifier is the floating thought and the meaning is given by me according to the conventional word I find more appropriate to it… the one that seems to fit the mold of the thought, according to my limited knowledge of this foreign language. It is bizarre… how much of what I think cannot be translated into words? That’s the tragedy of the writer and the beauty of literature. Despite these limitations we insist on trying to grab those thoughts and express them on a written form. We also add style and literature imagery… that makes the thoughts flamboyant or practical… yet, we censor or transform those thoughts once again because we cast them as we want them to be represented. They exist, they say, in their natural form, and when we manage to apprehend them in our brains… and when we package them and transport them to the alphabet centre… then we apply norms of conduct, stereotypes of time, cultural elements, learned knowledge… we chose the form we are going to translate them into… they get transformed… shaped to fulfill a style, a public, an idea… the cannot come raw… like… straight from the garden to the table. They need to be processed, washed, cut, cleaned… their roughness is sharpened and their smell refined… like we do with most products. That’s a second tragedy… not only we are unable to grab thoughts in their natural form but we also dress them according to a determined idea (and please not that I don't want to get into the unconscious mind and Lacanian psychoanalysis). I, right now, am trying to avoid thinking too much and just letting go to see what happens. I still have to go back and erase, re-think... correct misspelled words… think about the option I am using and whether it expresses all I am meaning to convey… convey to whom? A possible reader… S? E? P? Someone who visits my blog… a philosopher who may think that my ideas are revolutionary… or not… boring… the “same shit someone else has thought about” before… perhaps thoughts can only exist because of language? Saussure would disagree with me… language is the subjective shape of objects… yes, like my theory of objective/subjective… the object exists out there and as we name it, it gets transformed. Words are not even as accurate as printers (and printers aren’t accurate at all)… printers decode an image from a source, let’s say a computer or a digital camera… and try to convey that image in a “realistic way”. Words try but would never do so… to start with… the image of an object is nameless but we have given it a name (Foucault would disagree with me… things had names and what Adam did was just ‘read them’)… … according to a language or a dialect… let’s say… an apple… hmmm… I am thinking of another object that I can express in a different language… all I can think of is this sticky rice cake filled with tuna and wrapped in seaweed… in Japanese it is named “onigiri” I don’t know how to spell it or what it means but when I think of “onigiri” I think of this rice cake… does the word “onigiri” describe it? Define it? I don’t know, perhaps it does… but as I do not speak Japanese I just refer to the codes I understand… rice cake… thus I limit the object to my limited knowledge… however, I am able to convey and idea and perhaps order “onigiri” in Japan… If I order it in Mexico… not many people would know what I am talking about… if they do at all.

I am sitting in a café, downtown Toronto… people pass by before my eyes, walking north or south… they seem to be in a hurry like most Torontonians… I wonder what their thoughts are… and how they decode them… they may be silent… but their thoughts take the shape of a sound that can also reverberate in their minds… even if they don’t speak their minds… they think they think what they think they are thinking… as they name their thoughts, they manage to agree with the idea of the sound or visual image of those thoughts… we are not talking “deep meaning”… they are not necessarily decoding those thoughts to understand additional loaded signification to them… they are just thinking and naming their thoughts… let’s say: “I am late, I better hurry up”.
This person has just looked at her watch and thinks… “shit, it is 3:55 and my meeting is at 3:45” She looked at a conventional way of telling time… a watch… and she knows how to read either digital numbers or analogical watches… she remembers that she had an appointment at a specific time and by the look of it… she’s late because ten minutes have gone by past that time… somebody (or a group of people) must be waiting for her. She assumes that… therefore… she tries to find a way to decode that thought… and she then translates it into the expression “I am late”. She’s not really taking the words apart to analyze each of them individually… or trying to identify the origin of the expression “being late”… from the Greek or the Latin adopted by the Anglo or the Saxon… “I” refers to “me” (in this case “her”, the first person singular”, “Am” is the conjugation of the verb “To be”, also in the first person… and “late” is the word that is used to express the opposite of being on time… “late” may have other meanings (“at night”, “at an older age”) or look/sound like other words (latte, lait, plate)… but in her context the word seems to translate what is happening to her. She doesn’t need to try to understand the grammatical quality of her choice, its ideological meaning of it (is she being subjugated by a system which exploits her, slaves her to the point that she’s being stressed and nervous?)… “she’s simply late”… and her degree of “lateness” could depend on many factors (how realistically she set up the appointment, how reliable public transit or traffic is, if she’s often late, if she was not paying attention to time, if she had a problem at home, etc)… it could also be that her watch is ahead of time… which may mean that she’s not actually late but she feels that way… it could also be that the person or group of people she’s supposed to meet are also “running late” consequently “it’s ok to be late”… Attached to the idea of being late, there is a code of conduct… “it is not polite to be late”, that may be motivating her thought… or her appointment is important hence it is not ok to be late… she’s not seeing a friend, it is someone who will offer her a job… etc… that could be the reason for her second translation of the thought “ I better hurry up”. She’s giving herself an order, and also connecting her first thought to an action that, despite the fact she won’t make it “on time”, she doesn’t want to be “too late” or try to ameliorate her “fault” by running a bit faster… it may show people at the other end some respect, or make her feel less guilty… or less nervous about the appointment… But… when she translates thoughts into words thus into actions, is she fully conscious of what she’s saying? Of how she got to speak that language that made her translate thoughts the way she does? Perhaps her language is also associated to the culture that tells her that “people should arrive on time, especially to appointments with third parties”… Did she use the right words? Could she have used alternative options “I am a bit late” ( the expression “a bit” would change the meaning of her statement a bit… as she gives it less importance)… she could’ve said “it’s late” (in that case it is not putting the pressure on herself… but on time itself. Time is running “too fast”)… she could’ve blamed the others… “I told them to set up the appointment for four”… or say… “Good, I don’t want to be the first one to arrive!” It is possible that she’s “ironically saying that she’s “on time” by saying the opposite. She could also have her own “code” where the word “late” has a meaning she herself has given to the word… so it doesn’t have a negative “connotation” but a “good meaning” for instance… “things are going well, I am late”. All this translations belong to different feelings and she could’ve grabbed any of them. The abovementioned expressions are not strictly related to the statement “I am late” but are “personal approaches” (feelings). Those would be different reactions to that specific “time” than to the linguistics of thoughts and words… If she wanted to translate her thoughts by using “synonyms”, she should’ve said “Voy tarde” (“going late” in Spanish), “I am behind schedule”, “I am delayed”, “I am not on time”… the use of these expressions could depend on “knowledge of vocabulary, of other language, on habits, laziness to employ “difficult” terms, etc”. Is there anything wrong with a “person approach” to language? Not at all… we all do it… but it becomes less conventional. Some couples may use their own codes of understanding and they add “coded or symbolic meaning” to certain expressions, sayings, objects… “it’s sunny” may mean “ I love you”… so if they use this expression between them, nobody else would understand it but them.

As Saussure said, the relation between thought thoughts (objects) and the names we give them is arbitrary… not only by the language used but by the person who chooses the words. My questions are… are thoughts richer out in the space where they float… or we make them richer as we acknowledge them and name them? Is the perfection of the language a way to enrich thoughts? Are there thoughts that cannot be translated into words… like certain feelings or dreams? Do words limit thoughts thus our main priority should be to perfection a language before we attempt to produce knowledge?
Thoughts and words to ponder on… I should talk about non-verbal communication some other time. Share

The Inukshuk Emblem: Opportunity or Opportunism?

I was invited to participate at the Northern Communications Conference in Whitehorse (March 3-5, 2008). My presentation was based on the research project I am currently conducting as part of my Masters’ thesis. I am a graduate student with the department of adult education at UBC in Vancouver (http://www.ncconference2008.ca/Speakers/tabid/54/Default.aspx)

In 2005 the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC) launched its emblem Illanaaq, a stylized inukshuk, with the aim to “illustrate” the Games. Perhaps for the first time in the history of the Olympics, particular attention has been placed on Aboriginal participation in the pre-Games. Indigenous participation in past Games, such as Calgary and Salt Lake City, has focused primarily on ceremonies and cultural programs. VANOC has said that they plan to go beyond that “to set the bar higher, with the hope that future Organizing Committees can be inspired and learn from our experience”. I am attracted to images and their meaning. One of the source texts I am reading is Gillian Roses’ Visual Methodologies in order to refine the approach I will be taking in my image-based research project. The visual is central to the cultural construction of social life in contemporary Western societies. We are constantly bombarded by images that offer views of the world. Research in the area of visual culture suggests that the rendering of the world in visual terms is never innocent. Images interpret the world and display it in very particular ways. The purpose of my critical qualitative study is to identify, describe and analyse the information made available by VANOC.

By using a document case study I intend to observe, understand and critique the images made available for learning by this organization. My aim is to contribute to creating awareness of commonly overlooked symbolic elements that could be taken for granted in this context. I chose the title Opportunity or Opportunism, because I believe there is great potential for sharing and learning before, during and after this event. I would like to take a close look at these opportunities. An opportunity is a favourable time for progress and advancement but opportunism takes advantage of an opportunity to achieve an end but often with no regard for principles or consequences. Where does the creation of the VANOC emblem fall? I thought this conference would be a very important space to discuss this topic. For that reason I came here to share some of the sample materials I will be studying, discuss them and raise some questions. My main hope was to have enough time to get participants’ feedback. I knew in advance that the objective of the conference was to continue to figure out ways of communicating the realities of the North to the South on issues that would go beyond the stereotypical northern topics “polar bears and igloos”… or those issues that specifically affect the south, “global warming and sovereignty”

The following is a VANOC’s press release from April 23, 2005 http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/OrganizingCommittee/MediaCentre/NewsReleases/2006/01/13/92_0601131509-781

“The Vancouver 2010 emblem is a contemporary interpretation of the traditional inukshuk, a stone sculpture used by Canada's Inuit people as directional landmarks across the northern Canadian lands of snow and ice. Over time, the inukshuk has become a representation of hope, friendship and an external expression of the hospitality of a nation that warmly welcomes the people of the world with open arms. The distinctive formations are found across the country - from coastlines to mountaintops, from small towns to large cities - in a variety of styles. Unveiled during a live nation-wide television broadcast, the Vancouver 2010 emblem shows the deep connection between Canadians and their breathtaking environment. The emblem features five stone-like formations depicted in vibrant colours found in both the natural features of the Vancouver-Whistler Games host region and across Canada. Green and blues represent coastal forests, mountain ranges and spectacular islands. The red is for Canada's signature maple leaf and the gold evokes images of the brilliant sunrises that paint the Vancouver skyline and snow-capped mountain peaks. The Vancouver 2010 emblem is named ILANAAQ - the Inuit word for friend”. Questions such us the following were raised soon after reading this article: what purpose does Ilanaaq serve? What is the connection between the North and the South in this context? Is this emblem’s aim to represent Canada? The artic? The Inuit people? Vancouver and Whistler? How is that portrayed? I also shared a page from the VANOC’s website which I incorporated into my thesis’ proposal.

http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/LookVancouver2010/Vancouver2010OlympicGamesEmblem

In brief statements I discussed the photographs and the content of this excerpt. I clarified that the photos were taken in Vancouver and Whistler respectively and that the three images from this webpage are not from the north. According to Norman Hallendy (2000), “inuksuit have become icons used to sell telephones and financial services, beer and sugared drinks. The figure adorns ball caps, sweatshirts and coffee mugs, and is much sought after as an object d’art” (p. 97). The sad irony, he says, is that in the growing interest in Inuksuit the wisdom of their creators is dying with the passing of each of the elders who once had lived on the land. I mentioned that in my view, the organizers of the Games have made a de facto promise to give Aboriginal communities a level of prominence never before seen at the Olympics. Some of the questions I raised were: Is this just clever marketing or a real attempt to show Aboriginal people respect and to show the rest of Canada (and the world) something more about First peoples and the North? In other words, there is a clear opportunity here to share aboriginal knowledge but is this opportunity being used to get across all these ideas and realities of life in the North and issues that the North faces (the ones that go beyond stereotypes), or is it nothing more than a cynical use of a northern symbol that the organizers of the Games have no intention to use to communicate important ideas about the North but simply use it as a marketing tool to promote other set of corporate ideals?

My crowd was full of government officials, most of them from the south but living in the north. They raised their own questions about whether my findings were going to be available and if I was planning to involve some elders in my research process. I clarified that for now I was planning to concentrate on the promotional materials made available by VANOC but I would hope that this research project would open other doors and invite some people to look beyond the surface of images. Somebody asked me if I was suggesting to change the emblem to what I answered that the emblem was already in place… and I was trying to understand the motivations behind it.

An Inuit elder told me that they were very happy when they found out that the “Inukshuk” had been chosen amongst 1,600 entries to the emblem contest. They saw it as a great Northern victory in the South… many people applauded his comment. I was happy to raise some questions. I had a very short time to convey further ideas. There was a quote from Bellfy (2005) whoch I couldn’t share with the participants but that I firmly agree with. It says that “popular culture norms are designed to remind everyone, Native and non-Native alike, that there is a dominant culture that has determined how Indigenous identity is to be constructed, and, who owns and controls their images”. Some Inuit people approached me after the presentation to offer help. They gave me their email address and welcomed my questions… any time. A young Caucasian fellow from Yellowknife, who’s graphic company is designing some packaging for souvenir inuksuit to be sold in Vancouver soon, told me that he would be interested in my research as well… as they are trying to decide how they are going to present this “can or package” containing an inukshuk.

It was overall very interesting to be there. First of all because it is my first “official” presentation of my project (it certainly helps to be presentation the idea in front of an audience) and second because it gave me some feedback about the different possible reactions this project could generate in people. Somebody asked me if I was planning to share my findings with VANOC, I said I would invite them to attend my thesis’ defense! Share

The impossibility of the objective and the fear of chaos

Objects exist in nature, their presence is blatant, unavoidable. They present shapes and mass or form before our eyes. The natural sciences have tried to understand them, analyze them… yes, understand them. Language has given them a name and our imagination has given them a place in our brains, either because we’ve been taught how to go about them or because we have experienced them ourselves. We were never part of the battle of Waterloo but we have heard about it. Napoleon and his era exist in our heads.
In the case of “heat”, for instance, we have experienced it on our skins or seen it… when we feel the sun’s rays, a water-boiling pot or a fireplace. It is impossible to say that those elements are not objective, that they don’t exist out there. That rain, those cars and computers are tangible items that exist and can be approached without emotions. Yes, they do exist on their own. They can even be a product of nature: a stone; or human made: a plane. Their existence does not imply their objectivity. We make them objects in our brains, and we translate them from their original form into a virtual thought in our minds just like a video camera does on tape or disc. The image we see on the screen is not the stone or the plane, it is a representation of it. The image we have in our brains of every single object is a representation of the object, the result of a chemical processes that brought that object from its natural form to our heads through our eyes, our nerve cells… to a spot in our brains where objects of that kind can be processed. But that’s not all. If we all processed objects the same way and translated them into thoughts exactly the way they are, we could say that objects are represented inside of us the same way… we have to take into consideration that there are other created factors that affect our perception of those objects; this factors could be physical limitations: we wear glasses, we have a hearing problem, we are colour-blind. And not only that, but our particular culture, the worldview we have, the way we’ve been taught, whether we are left or right-handed, our own language would call those objects in a different way… and the images we see, yes there could be a table but is not the same table that a different person sees… the value of the table is different, there are emotions attached to them… it is a table that belonged to my ancestors, it was the only furniture left after a family crisis, I was punished by my father at that table when I was a kid, I used to make love on it with my ex partner, it is too big for my place… the measures of this table, the size we perceive in our head and even the way we remember it, if we never see it again, will change fromperson to person… and even within me as I change myself.
If we go into the core of tables, they are also not the same; tables differ in shape, size, measurements. Some people represent them as square, others are round, others rectangular but they could be amorphous. They can be used to eat, to operate patients, to play table games or to pray. Their value and their representation varies, therefore when we say the word “mesa” the Spanish word for table, people would think of million different tables; provided that they understand the Spanish word. A table is not just a table. A table is a universe of tables represented in our brains that clearly differ from the object “table” itself even if we have it in front of our eyes. An indigenous colleague told me the other day, that in his native language, names represent the actions you perform with those objects, tables for instance, are linked to the food you eat on them, therefore they have a very important value… different than the persons who eats on their desks because they don’t “have time” to take a lunch break.
Objective is defined in many different ways: not biased, or existing in the real world outside the human brain. Subjective should be the opposite. After this introduction, if we consider that every object goes through our brains to be apprehended, the object looses its unbiased value and takes a subjective form, a representational one, the interpretation of the idea of the object.
If tangible items take this form, the description of values and emotions, rules and laws, is even more difficult. How do we understand truth, responsibility or terrorism? In order to have a “common understanding” of ideas, the different sciences and humanities have approached these terms to try to define them; we have created dictionaries that enunciate definitions that we assume as valid; if we didn’t have a “common language” (by this I mean a relatively close approach to the definition of objects an ideas in the different existing languages) we could barely understand each other; not that we really do but we have created “conventions” that make us believe we do. In order to create conventions we need to have a plan, and this plan is closely linked to the ideology of cultures, religions, political and social instructions. We have created systems that allow us to form patterns of behaviour that people can follow in order to avoid chaos. If we were all abandoned at birth and we managed to grow up without anybody’s instruction we would probably create our own sense of values. Yes, we do have the ability to create all these systems, to communicate through different means, to use our brains to try to understand the environment. We have created machines to “measure” this world’s phenomena and we call those measurements objective, but are they really?
One metre is one metre, that’s objective… but metres were created, so yes, they are conventions created to measure, and we accept them; so when we say that we are one metre and 80 cms, people understand us… There is a need for order, for uniformity, mutual assimilation of behaviour in order to prevent chaos. We have created religions and these religions have created books of reference (or vice versa), we have constitutions, codes of ethics, etiquette, etc… we create definitions, like contracts do when you are to purchase property… terms that are defined by “someone” in order to agree in terms. Even if we believe that “TRUTH” is out there as an “OBJECT”, the definitions of truth we get to write down, will never be objective, therefore there is not TRUTH in its objective form, because, again, even if there is one out in the space, how do we know that we chose the right definition when we interpreted the idea?
With constitutions and “human made” laws, it is easier to figure it out; a whole bunch of people got together to produce a document, they commit to make it as accurate as possible and out of consensus… so yes, if we agree to it, we know it is the product of a committed exercise. When it comes to religions, the arena is not as solid; we need to trust the existence of an external source that has defined all these terms for us and has dictated them to a human being, who “objectively” wrote them down centuries ago. We also need to believe that this information, that could’ve been an oral narration at some point, has been transmitted exactly the way it was “originally” inspired… it means that no translation, no interpretation, no distortion to its core has been changed throughout the years. Is that possible? Perhaps it is, that’s why we have created a term called “FAITH” defined by some as “complete confidence or trust”.
Unfortunately, all of these terms don’t mean the same for everybody. If “objects” don’t represent the same idea in every culture, neither do these more ethereal definitions. We have tried to generate international conventions to determine what a crime is, or what plurality is, etc… but all of these ideas are mediated by beliefs, faiths, doubts, fears, geographical conditions, traditions, languages, experiences… even what I am writing, makes only sense in my own mind, and there may be some people who identifies with what it is written and some others that could think I am CRAZY (Stupidly irresponsible).
In my opinion, even if processes and natural physical actions are happening objectively out there, they are interpreted through our minds and our senses, and all of them our biased. Seeing is a physical objective process, but how we see and what we see is completely individual… even if we “all agree” it is a table. We cannot generalize, we cannot assure that what it is is what it is… yes, we’ve made an effort to get there, perhaps because it is necessary for us to do so, but systems like “democracy, or deciding by consensus, or mutual agreement” are biased. We want to believe we agree, we want to believe we see the same… but we don’t.
States and institutions have managed to educate people to think one way or the other, it is not new, and it is considered for the own convenience of that system, state or institution. We create culture (very loaded term) in order to feel identified with a set of values and make it easier for “all of us” (especially the ruler in power). Those who dissent, or simply don’t cope with that set of values are considered “outsiders” and we reject them because they are not “like us”. The need of homogeneity serves the purpose of societies because it prevents chaos. Chaos is feared by most because there seems to be a need of cohesion. The problem here, is that there is no room for individuality. We often use this other created expression “Freedom” (right or privilege of unlimited access); we cannot claim FREEDOM because it is impossible. If we have limits, if we haven’t decided what was before us and we won’t be able to decide what is after us, we are not free. That’s an illusion reinforced by some systems… and like freedom, there are many others. But, why do we need to make others believe that? Why is it important that we uniform the world? It is important because some people BELIEVE that’s the way to make it work… that’s a mechanism of control… a political system like democracy, a monetary system like capitalism, a religious system like Christianity, a new order like Globalization, serve certain purposes. A set of values, have been attached to these ideas, and only a few people get to participate in the decisions made by these systems. They control behaviours because they have understood our vulnerability, our fear of chaos, the subjective form of thought and how it can be so random that it may be “dangerous”. It is necessary to punish those who oppose the mainstream thought, that’s why “terrorists” are being prosecuted… because they dissent and they express themselves by generating “chaos”… (Complete disorder or confusion). “Terrorists” may not be able to change systems, but they alter them, they destabilize them, by breaking the “organized order”.
But ORDER is also subjective; we have encouraged it as the way to function in order to “succeed”. But there is tendency to chaos within the order... and we continue to punish it because we are unable to revise these systems of values. We are spreading philosophies that benefit the systems we have created, and this is all subjective. Unless we understand the subjectivity ruling these systems, we won’t be able to “understand” each other. But these systems don’t favour free thought, free thought is dangerous, it again, may generate chaos, we have to shape peoples’ minds in order to achieve order. How do we do it? By creating or reinforcing certain values, by creating or re-shaping the definitions to those values, by making people believe certain goals are attainable like freedom, wealth, happiness. How do we do it? Through the school system, through media, through politics, through literature, through church, through institutions like police or organized institutions like courts, parliaments, boards. Our subjectivity has been repressed, and as it is malleable and subject to influence, it has been “objectivised”. We have been instructed to believe that something can be objective. Objectivity exists as a ideal in nature but it doesn’t exist as a practical term in humanity. Everything is mediated by thought and emotions, therefore a chemical, physiological process that gets distorted once it reaches our senses. The table we film exists as an object but we will never be able to say that the photograph we take of it or the film we make of it will capture the integrity of that object… it is the same with us. Not even science can claim objectivity because it is mediated by us, and we are all, ALL, biased.
Take an example: copper… it is objective in its original form in nature… but our approach to it, its name, its chemical formula, its melting point, etc, are conventions created by us… the abstraction of copper is a human process not present in nature… and its make copper subjective. We would never be completely sure about the nature of copper, and that vulnerable approach makes it subjective because we cannot approach copper as a whole. Share