The Myth of Objectivity

I have a colleague here at seminary who shares with me several things, including that we both name our cats after Gods, and that we both have Bachelor’s degrees in History. Yet, we have a fundamental disagreement about the method of the study of history. He was trained to try to be as objective as possible in historical study and writing (training that is classically correct for a historian, I’m the one who is out of step). I believe that this is impossible, and that what the historian is called to do instead is to recognize and be open about their bias, and share the story of history as their individual encounter with the events and interpretations of the past.

In essence, I believe that Objectivity, (all objectivity, not just in history) is a myth. The claim of objectivity is almost always an attempt to gain power for a particular viewpoint. Sometimes the claim is an intentional seeking of the power of universal truth for a particular viewpoint, but most of the time it is pure delusion, for the individual has bought into the myth of objectivity hook, line, and sinker.

I do not believe that the human being is ever capable of objectivity. We are never capable of separating ourselves from our biases, from our assumptions, from our pre-conceived notions. We may change those biases, assumptions, and pre-conceived notions, but that is not shedding them or setting them aside. It is simply adopting a new version of them.

The closest that I believe humans come to objectivity is apathy. There are times that so few of our biases, assumptions, and pre-conceived notions come into play on a specific topic, and we may not care one way or another about that topic. “David, you are not involved in thusandsuch, give us your objective opinion.” I have no objective opinions, and asking someone to give you advice on something they care nothing about seems more than a little silly to me. Besides… am I really as apathetic as I appear? Probably not.

We humans spend our limited time on things we care about, and that very act of caring moves us out of apathy and away from even the barest semblance of objectivity. When we pretend that we can set aside our biases and try to be objective, we are deluding ourselves. You cannot be objective about what you care about, and we only have time for that which we care about.

Nowhere is this seen clearer than when those of Liberal Faith claim objectivity in their encounters with other religious faiths. Trained by the scientific method (which is also not objective… just imagine the different ways you can “observe” one thing) those of us of Liberal Faith sometimes act as if we can give an “objective” account of other faith traditions. I have encountered this trend in relation to Christianity, to Buddhism, to Judaism, and even to many pagan faiths. Yet in each of those experiences it has been painfully obvious to me that there are specific biases that we of Liberal Faith carry and bring with us to any encounter, including with the history of Liberal Faith.

If you think I am saying that there is no such thing as objective truth, you are right. But I want to take it one step further and say that seeking the myth of objective truth has led us to a world where delusion abounds… where we often seek power for our own prejudiced notions by claims to objectivity.

So, is there anywhere we can find this elusive thing called truth? Yes, in the spaces in-between. Let me return to the study of history for a moment. The closest we can get to truth is not through one historian’s encounter with the story of history, but finding the mean within the encounters of many. Truth always rests as a shadow in the spaces between our prejudices, biases, opinions, and notions.

The key is not to pretend to an objectivity that human beings are incapable of. The key is to be aware of your biases, to be aware of your own life story and emotions, and how they affect your encounter with everything in life, including the study of history. Then you must be open and honest, with yourself and with others about those prejudices and biases.

Every history book should begin with a short biography of the historian, and a detailed look at what biases and prejudices that historian brings to the study. That introduction should be written as a collaboration between the historian and another historian who has different opinions about the topic in question… who may see the other’s biases in a different way.

So too should we approach everything in life, not seeking a mythical objectivity, but being clear and open about what brings us to the approach we take, to how we encounter each other, how we encounter faith, and how we encounter the world. We need to develop deep awareness of our own biases and prejudices, and ask others to help us in doing so. We need to let go of the myth of Truth with a capital T, and the myth of objectivity that feeds it… and accept that our reality is one of shifting sands.

Yours in Faith,

David