Objects in the mirror

One of my "research interests" is the subjectivity/objectivity dichotomy (four times). More specifically, I don't think there is one (when applied to human beings). Though I do like dichotomies (five?), I think this particular dichotomy is a myth, like the difference between Sasquatch and Bigfoot.

I like to think, instead, that human subjectivity is a continuum, with varying degrees of subjectivity possible. In this sense, objectivity is like zero in division: no matter how many times you divide subjectivity, you never get to zero.

This belief can make it difficult to do my job(s), since I'm constantly asked (by some ambiguously present entity) to be subjective.

The research I'm interested in currently relates to how subjectivity is navigated in video game reviews, which is something I want to research in a quantitative study of game reviews. (Speaking of which, my review of Mass Effect 2 is on the line.) One of the first principles I was taught as a journalism student was objectivity. It's a golden chalice, of sorts, that most journalists search for, quest-style. Odd then, that I would reject it so wholly.

Here's why:

I don't think video game reviewers or any reviewers can be objective because of myriad socio-cultural forces that paved the path for that review to even exist in the first place. In some cases, these forces may even be consciously applied. If, for example, a PS3 fanboy reviewed an Xbox 360 game, the review would probably be "flaming," due to fanboy code – there are bylaws. In smaller measures, I think all reviewers/people are infected, like zombies, with their past understandings and biases. Louis Althusser would call this interpellation.

A good example from my own life would be NBA Live, because I have a complicated love/hate relationship with that series and what it does to the sport of basketball with which I'm familiar. I always disagree with the sub-par review scores the game receives but then blast it myself while playing. There's no way I could objectively review any game in that series. So I don't.

My disbelief in objectivity also problematizes my teaching when I'm asked to grade papers, something I'm doing right now, well not right now because I'm writing this, but in the time that is immediately adjacent to now.

I think objectivity is a myth, so in grading papers, I just try to get myself as close as possible to the mythical-objectivity side of the subjectivity spectrum. One way I increase my objectivity, ostensibly, is by allowing my students to create – in part – their own grading rubrics. Also by creating and using grading rubrics at all, I am required to apply some sense of near-objective subjectivity since these grading rubrics have certain objective rules.

Objects are objective. Human [subjects] are not.

I'm cautious to discuss my grading too much on this public forum, but I want to stress that I try my best to be close to objective, even though I philosophically disagree with the principle as applied to human beings.

If this were Wednesday, I'd quote Bo Burnham's song "i'm bo yo," in which he says, "don't sit on that couch 'cause I treat my objects like women."

Question of the Week:

I'm going to steal one of Matthew's questions (since he wrote his blog before I did):

Who will win the Super Bowl? Saints or Colts?

My (biased) take: Colts.