The Objectivity of Subjectivity

Blurry iPhone picture exhibit A ft. free National Geographic world map.

After finishing my last A2 exam this afternoon, I celebrated as any normal 18 year old does after finishing school: I caught the bus home, poured myself a smoothie, opened the freezer and sighed at my brother's precariously discarded bowl of unfinished ice cream complete with frozen spoon, crossed off the exam paper from my timetable and sat on my bed. Wild! Not knowing what to do with my time having spent the last 6 months preparing for my exams and the 6 months before that preparing for university applications and the 6 months before that preparing for my exams last year, my brain was quite defunct. So I proceeded in my wild celebrations with a movie; Selma. Preamble aside, the movie got me thinking about the objectivity of subjectivity, particularly in light of the connotations of the Time's May cover. 

So let's talk about maps. 

Picture a world map and you're likely to imagine something as hangs on the wall beside my bed: North and South America to the left, Africa in the bottom, Europe in the centre, Asia to the left and Australia to the bottom right. Objective. Standard. Established. Right? But what about the connotations about this structure? 

Blurry iPhone picture exhibit B.

The map above looks wrong. Your brain is telling you that it's upside down (ignore the inverted writing in the corner), that it's back to front, it needs to be turned around. Who's to say that this is wrong? It's not. It's just a view of the continents from another angle, rather than the preconceived, established view that your brain tells you is 'right'. Now imagine the map with Australia in the centre, or South America in the centre. Again, it's 'wrong'.

This is just your brain being objective, because the world map that we have been exposed to and educated with has Europe in the centre. But think about this subjectively: perhaps the map that hangs beside my bed does not incidentally and objectively have Europe in the centre, perhaps the map hints at subjective objectivity. Perhaps, it's Eurocentric. Europe is not at the centre of the objective world - no continent lies at the centre of the world. Where is the centre of the world? How does one dictate the centre of a spherical globe? Where is the centre of the sun? The apparent centrality of Europe is imbued with notions of colonialism and earlier subjective ideals of racial, cultural, political and economic 'superiority'. The map could be constructed in a multitude of different ways; take into account economic factors and it would perhaps be more suitable in the future to locate Asia or North America at the centre of the world, or prioritise political dominion and it is perhaps more relevant that North America lies at the centre of the map, or even consider population distribution and in light of current statistics Asia ought to occupy the focal point. But that's not objective, right? That takes into account too many factors, making construction complex, complicating a simple depiction of the world. Europe being at the centre is not objective either. The apparent objectivity of our maps is saturated in subjectivity. 

Isn't everything? 

Is it even possible to be objective? 

I tried to compile a list of the most assumably objective things I am exposed to. Including:

1. Education
2. News
3. Food

But then - 

1. My education is grounded in British culture. In English Literature I studied British writers exclusively, in Geography many of the topics within my course were concerned with issues within the UK, and in Maths I (don't know where this is going, but I only do three subjects - and three is the prerequisite for strong rhetoric according to convention. But this concerns subjectivity so I'm going to end mid-sentence.). If I were to have been brought up in America, I'm sure my education would have been grounded in American culture and I'd have studied American history, American geography and American literature, just as I'm sure my education had I stayed in South Africa would have been grounded in South African culture and society. 
2. The news feed on my BBC app is generally concerned with news that covers a multitude of topics, perhaps the most objective of my list. But what is assumed 'breaking news' is assumed by someone's opinions, the style in which stories are constructed is constructed itself by the reporter, and what is covered is covered by someone's perceptions. 
3. Okay, this probably reads like folly. But when I go shopping to buy, say, an apple, I don't just go and buy an apple. My choice of apple is primarily influenced by where I buy it; do I prefer the appeal of Tesco, or that of Marks and Spencer's? I'm then influenced by a range of brands or sources; do I want to support Jim's farm or do I want to support my own dwindling funds and go for value? And then - do I prefer green or red apples? But X advert says that Y apples are better for Z and superior to K, so surely I should go for L, which M advert says is the best? And so the objective purchase of an apple is shrouded in subjectivity. 

Nothing is strictly, innocently, absolutely objective. 

So, the map that hangs on the wall beside me as I write. When I look at it I don't just see the continents and the oceans, but an object that embodies the objectivity of subjectivity. It's a daily reminder of the ease with which things that seem apparently conventional and established can be blindly accepted as objective fact, when the reality is rather more subjective. 

C

P.s. Would recommend Selma.