Subjectivity and Objectivity

SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY (History & Theory , Journal, 1)

As a human being I feel I am both subjective and objective.

I am objective as belonging to the human-being mammal group. I am objective in being a female, belonging to the female human-being group. And I could probably keep on going with objective relationship between me and others, between me and the world around me.

But I am also subjective as I am an individual, with my own thoughts and feelings, with my own way of living, my own way of thinking and perceiving, and consequentially, a priori or a posteriori, acting.

So human being , we are both, objective and subjective, depending and according to different and equal things.

In one sentence we are all the same and all different, capable of changing and this is fascinating.

And this thought , I think, might be evident, but it is deep, very deep; and also extremely elastic and malleable, suitable and applicable to most of things.

Among all the things we can actually apply this 'thought' to, I would like to focus on its relation with History.

We know about history, about the past through many different and various sources.

Some of them are more evident : the tangible footprints left in that moment in the landscape we live in right now, and since then remained or maybe it is better to say, survived in our contemporary living world.

But again, among this we should distinguish between the ones that have remained unchanged through time and the ones that might have been reused or restructured or...

And even the ones that have remained unchanged through time haven't remained unchanged, because time has gone by, time can't be stopped, and time brings change with it. So it is probably more precise saying, everything changes? Because everything walks hand to hand with time? So the things which have been able to survive, they have all anyways changed. But the ways of changing are different, some are more evident, some are less. It can bee weather, human being action...

So, finally among this kind of sources, we can say, that even if they have all changed, some have changed more than others, so we can probably relay more on the ones that have changed the least. And of the others, try and understand and study how they changed, why, and what they where in each moment. And this is what I think about the physical sources that surround us.

But if we have tangible, physical sources, we also find intangible ones, which are generally less reliable. This ones are generally know as consequences. Some are long-term, some are short-term, some bring to another consequence.

And this sources I have mentioned, are probably meant to be considered more objective. The subjective ones, but, at the same time, the ones we tend to give in a way more importance to, are the written sources. Written by human-beings (historians, philosophers, writers...whoever), so even if they might have tried to be as rational as possible, and as objective as possible, it is almost unavoidable not to bring out subjectivity through your own thoughts, opinions, ideas and maybe even feelings. That is why I believe that when we read about history, and generally about events or moments that usually have more than one view, is necessary to read about at least two different points of view, so that we can find a balance. Although even this balance can be subjective. Because where is the middle? What is the balance? "our own-balance", what we want to keep of what we study and read, and in a way, 'cause is us who decide, is subjective.

Finally I think, in this case, it is all about finding objectivity through subjectivity.