Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Objectivity has often served as a bulwark reinforcing the privilege of dominant groups.

No one engaged in social and political dialogue can effectively occupy the emotionally detached, non-perspectival, pre-interpretive point of view presumed by [some] conceptions [of objectivity], and only those who enjoy the privileges of dominant groups can even appear to do so.

[In many] cases, the members of a dominant social group are unlikely to accept the validity of a demand for justice, either because they live at too great a social distance from the injustice in question or because they have emotional, social, and economic investments in the perpetuation of the status quo.

The ideal of public reason places the burden of proving one’s freedom from subjective interest and bias squarely upon the marginalized critic of the status quo rather than upon the dominant defender of that state of affairs.

If our concept of objectivity sets the threshold of a good-faith effort so high that no claim grounded in an experience which is not equally available to all participants is objective, then our concept of objectivity will silence the demands for justice voiced by many oppressed groups and perpetuate their marginalization.

One way [change] might be achieved is to define objectivity in terms of each person's responsibility to [...] seek out experiences which can help them understand the standpoints of the subordinate and the marginalized [and] to examine their moral and religious views self-critically to uncover any signs of ideological determination.
The Ideal of Objectivity in Political Dialogue
Reposted byjaphymusternametomash

Don't be the product, buy the product!