Strong Objectivity Analysis
Assess your standpoint. What social group memberships influence it? Which are most influential? How would Harding and Wood measure your degree of strong objectivity? Do you agree or disagree with their assessment? Through this analysis I will explore Sandra Harding and Julia Wood’s theory of standpoint in depth. I will be looking at my own standpoint as well as explore other individual’s standpoints. Through different standpoints, I will see the group or groups that have the most power in society. I will also be discussing the faults in strong objectivity concept. Based on the concept of strong objectivity that Harding and Wood’s described, I will be looking at my standpoint in society. They stated that those whom are marginalized groups
…show more content…
have a better look at society. Orbe builds on their idea and described them as nondominant groups rather than marginalized groups. His list consisted of women, people of color, lower economic class, and people of in LGBT (Orbe 1). Through this perspective, I fit into three of the four nondominant groups. I am a gay male from low income and I am multiracial; none of my races being white. Due to this Harding, Orbe, and Wood would think that my objectivity is considerably strong. I would be able to understand most of the marginalized groups and find ways that would make most people equitable with the rest of society.
I find Wood and Harding view of strong objectivity to be mostly true because I am able to see how many marginalized groups are affected by the dominant group. Society influenced me through day to day interactions with it. The dominant group shaped my reality because I grow up around it (Griffin 451). One technique of discrimination through history class by omitting many people of color, LGBT, and women. Yet, when I came to college, I surround myself with people whom are marginalized and also counter the master narrative. I did this by taking many cultural studies classes as well as majoring in communications; people in this major are inclined to be social activists. I also made a blog that was based on social activism and only followed those whom also shared my values, to some extent it is like living in a protective bubble. When I go into areas with a low percentage of these people, real society as I like to call it, I am reminded who is really in power. Those in the dominant group shape a majority of us and we carry their values within us and without knowing it. Some of the values have been imbedded in us from such an early age that we fail to see its existence and just see it as the norm.
Orbe may be reflecting his view of what he belies to be the norm, because he is only hitting the tip of the iceberg with the marginalized groups that increase strong objectivity.
There are many more groups that are marginalized in American society that he fails to acknowledge. He also fails to incorporate the theory of intersectionality, which would change the concept that people with multiple non-dominant identities have a stronger objectivity. Ann says “At the same time, she argues, categories of signification have to be viewed as part of a creative, constructive process in which the relationships between positionings, identities and political values are all central and not reducible to the same ontological level (Phoenix 188).” I agree that we must look at all of the aspects that make up a person’s identity, because they are all relative to their standpoint. As stated, not all aspects can be the same ontological level, these levels are contingent on the person. We have this happen in the Deaf community, some people may hold their hearing status higher than their race and vice versa. Such as, someone who is white and Deaf might identify as Deaf first. On the other hand someone who is black and Deaf might identify themselves as black first (Holcomb 112). I say might, because people could choose both to represent their identity and may even be part of many marginalized group. People do not have to confine their identity to one, and if they do it can be a problem. Causing that given person to fighting for only one marginalized group that they belong to. This is one of the flaws with strong objectivity, how would one measure which marginalized groups have a more difficulty in society and how would one measure which identity a person hold higher in regards to
intersectionality. To further this idea, time and location greatly influence our standpoint. For example, in the late1980’s location played a role in the Deaf Movement that occurred on the east coast of the United States (Hott). This event took place on Gallaudet’s campus, where students barricaded the school in order to impeach the current present. They wanted to enact the first Deaf president into office. The students ended up succeeding after six days. Although it was felt throughout deaf communities across the country, those who lived west of Ohio did not feel the same sense of pride and safety as those in the east. Those who were not on the east coast did not have safety in numbers and were not able to protest for their own Deaf president. Time is also important, prior to the 1980’s the Deaf community wanted a Deaf president; however they did not have the support to do so, it was not until after the civil rights movement that they were able to adopt on previous ideologies. One very powerful quote read “We still have a dream,” alluding to Black civil rights movement and gaining support from those who supported that movement. JC Jones was interpreted, saying, “We rode on the wave of the civil rights movement to make some changes. We had the right to education, the right to interpreters, and we had the rights to captioning. And we need to be thankful for the civil rights movement (Hott).” Both time and location change identity and power of any given identity. Those two factors strengthen the problem, how can we consider these factors when measuring objectivity.
Collins also disagrees with Woods and Harding theory of strong objectivity. She stated that she is not less oppressed than anyone other marginalized group (Griffin 453). I can see why she does not want to be less oppressed than any other non-dominant group, because she does not want her voice to be overshadowed by someone who is black, lesbian, and lower class. “One implication of some uses of standpoint theory is that the more subordinated a group is, the purer the vision available to them (Collins 270).” I have also constantly seen circumstances where the dominant group chooses one person to represent an entire community. If this theory was to be enforced we would not be hearing from people throughout the entire spectrum. As a consequence, we would not be obtaining many solution; which could consequently only favor a minority of marginalized groups and leave the rest still inequitable. As long as we put up some guidelines for strong objectivity we would not have to deal with only having one input.
I disagree with Collins saying that she is not less oppressed than other marginalized groups. For instance, let us explore slave master relationships, there are different levels of privilege given within a society that permits slavery. During the slavery period in American culture we had white men, light skinned blacks and dark skinned blacks. This can further include free slaves, poor whites, light skinned men, light skinned women etc. For this example, I will not be incorporating those, so that the example is less obscure. The white men had the most power because they controlled the other groups. The light skinned blacks were usually indoors, were literate, and had easier work. Dark skinned blacks were outdoors in bad conditions, illiterate, and have vigorous jobs (Duke). We still see the pragmatic residue in current day black culture. Such as in Harrison book she frames her life through a white passing black woman. She described her life as better because she got into one of the leading college in the country and made a life around her pseudo white last name and her white appearance. She was black, but she had privileges over her family and friends because of her light skin (Harrison-Kahan 20). She had to ignore her family in order to get full privilege. Privilege like these come about by favoring the dominant group’s ideology such as appearance. We see this time and time again throughout many marginalized groups. Especially in LGBT, those who are “straight acting” appeal to society and perspective partners more than those who act beyond the binary. “Straight acting” people will get better jobs and more opportunities. Through this we can see that certain people in society have privileges, even within the same marginalized group. For Collin’s to say that she does not have privilege because she is not part of all the marginalized groups is naïve. Both the dominant and non-dominate groups must acknowledge there are privileged when fitting into some part the master narrative. The non-dominant groups cannot ask the dominant group to acknowledge their privilege if the non-dominant group fail to do so themselves. In order for us to be equal in society we have to admit that some of us have privilege and use it help those with less privilege and make them equitable.
I have looked at my own standpoint, and how it has been affected by the dominant group. I agree with Harding and Wood’s standpoint theory that those who are marginalized see more than those who are not. However I also agree with Collins that we need a wide range of views and not take the person with the most marginalized identity and change society based on their views. That being said, marginalized groups need to accept that they can have more privileges than others in society, and using their privilege they can help make everyone equal.
have a better look at society. Orbe builds on their idea and described them as nondominant groups rather than marginalized groups. His list consisted of women, people of color, lower economic class, and people of in LGBT (Orbe 1). Through this perspective, I fit into three of the four nondominant groups. I am a gay male from low income and I am multiracial; none of my races being white. Due to this Harding, Orbe, and Wood would think that my objectivity is considerably strong. I would be able to understand most of the marginalized groups and find ways that would make most people equitable with the rest of society.
I find Wood and Harding view of strong objectivity to be mostly true because I am able to see how many marginalized groups are affected by the dominant group. Society influenced me through day to day interactions with it. The dominant group shaped my reality because I grow up around it (Griffin 451). One technique of discrimination through history class by omitting many people of color, LGBT, and women. Yet, when I came to college, I surround myself with people whom are marginalized and also counter the master narrative. I did this by taking many cultural studies classes as well as majoring in communications; people in this major are inclined to be social activists. I also made a blog that was based on social activism and only followed those whom also shared my values, to some extent it is like living in a protective bubble. When I go into areas with a low percentage of these people, real society as I like to call it, I am reminded who is really in power. Those in the dominant group shape a majority of us and we carry their values within us and without knowing it. Some of the values have been imbedded in us from such an early age that we fail to see its existence and just see it as the norm.
Orbe may be reflecting his view of what he belies to be the norm, because he is only hitting the tip of the iceberg with the marginalized groups that increase strong objectivity.
There are many more groups that are marginalized in American society that he fails to acknowledge. He also fails to incorporate the theory of intersectionality, which would change the concept that people with multiple non-dominant identities have a stronger objectivity. Ann says “At the same time, she argues, categories of signification have to be viewed as part of a creative, constructive process in which the relationships between positionings, identities and political values are all central and not reducible to the same ontological level (Phoenix 188).” I agree that we must look at all of the aspects that make up a person’s identity, because they are all relative to their standpoint. As stated, not all aspects can be the same ontological level, these levels are contingent on the person. We have this happen in the Deaf community, some people may hold their hearing status higher than their race and vice versa. Such as, someone who is white and Deaf might identify as Deaf first. On the other hand someone who is black and Deaf might identify themselves as black first (Holcomb 112). I say might, because people could choose both to represent their identity and may even be part of many marginalized group. People do not have to confine their identity to one, and if they do it can be a problem. Causing that given person to fighting for only one marginalized group that they belong to. This is one of the flaws with strong objectivity, how would one measure which marginalized groups have a more difficulty in society and how would one measure which identity a person hold higher in regards to
intersectionality. To further this idea, time and location greatly influence our standpoint. For example, in the late1980’s location played a role in the Deaf Movement that occurred on the east coast of the United States (Hott). This event took place on Gallaudet’s campus, where students barricaded the school in order to impeach the current present. They wanted to enact the first Deaf president into office. The students ended up succeeding after six days. Although it was felt throughout deaf communities across the country, those who lived west of Ohio did not feel the same sense of pride and safety as those in the east. Those who were not on the east coast did not have safety in numbers and were not able to protest for their own Deaf president. Time is also important, prior to the 1980’s the Deaf community wanted a Deaf president; however they did not have the support to do so, it was not until after the civil rights movement that they were able to adopt on previous ideologies. One very powerful quote read “We still have a dream,” alluding to Black civil rights movement and gaining support from those who supported that movement. JC Jones was interpreted, saying, “We rode on the wave of the civil rights movement to make some changes. We had the right to education, the right to interpreters, and we had the rights to captioning. And we need to be thankful for the civil rights movement (Hott).” Both time and location change identity and power of any given identity. Those two factors strengthen the problem, how can we consider these factors when measuring objectivity.
Collins also disagrees with Woods and Harding theory of strong objectivity. She stated that she is not less oppressed than anyone other marginalized group (Griffin 453). I can see why she does not want to be less oppressed than any other non-dominant group, because she does not want her voice to be overshadowed by someone who is black, lesbian, and lower class. “One implication of some uses of standpoint theory is that the more subordinated a group is, the purer the vision available to them (Collins 270).” I have also constantly seen circumstances where the dominant group chooses one person to represent an entire community. If this theory was to be enforced we would not be hearing from people throughout the entire spectrum. As a consequence, we would not be obtaining many solution; which could consequently only favor a minority of marginalized groups and leave the rest still inequitable. As long as we put up some guidelines for strong objectivity we would not have to deal with only having one input.
I disagree with Collins saying that she is not less oppressed than other marginalized groups. For instance, let us explore slave master relationships, there are different levels of privilege given within a society that permits slavery. During the slavery period in American culture we had white men, light skinned blacks and dark skinned blacks. This can further include free slaves, poor whites, light skinned men, light skinned women etc. For this example, I will not be incorporating those, so that the example is less obscure. The white men had the most power because they controlled the other groups. The light skinned blacks were usually indoors, were literate, and had easier work. Dark skinned blacks were outdoors in bad conditions, illiterate, and have vigorous jobs (Duke). We still see the pragmatic residue in current day black culture. Such as in Harrison book she frames her life through a white passing black woman. She described her life as better because she got into one of the leading college in the country and made a life around her pseudo white last name and her white appearance. She was black, but she had privileges over her family and friends because of her light skin (Harrison-Kahan 20). She had to ignore her family in order to get full privilege. Privilege like these come about by favoring the dominant group’s ideology such as appearance. We see this time and time again throughout many marginalized groups. Especially in LGBT, those who are “straight acting” appeal to society and perspective partners more than those who act beyond the binary. “Straight acting” people will get better jobs and more opportunities. Through this we can see that certain people in society have privileges, even within the same marginalized group. For Collin’s to say that she does not have privilege because she is not part of all the marginalized groups is naïve. Both the dominant and non-dominate groups must acknowledge there are privileged when fitting into some part the master narrative. The non-dominant groups cannot ask the dominant group to acknowledge their privilege if the non-dominant group fail to do so themselves. In order for us to be equal in society we have to admit that some of us have privilege and use it help those with less privilege and make them equitable.
I have looked at my own standpoint, and how it has been affected by the dominant group. I agree with Harding and Wood’s standpoint theory that those who are marginalized see more than those who are not. However I also agree with Collins that we need a wide range of views and not take the person with the most marginalized identity and change society based on their views. That being said, marginalized groups need to accept that they can have more privileges than others in society, and using their privilege they can help make everyone equal.