more (at times rather foucauldian) unsupported assertions
our everyday notions of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" (i.e., our misappropriation of "science") often lead us to think we get closer to the truth by placing more distance between ourselves and that about which we are trying to discern the truth. case in point: common methods of academic evaluation. out of a (usually whole-heartedly sincere) desire for fairness we insist on "objective" measures of student performance. here's where the sleight-of-hand comes in: two switches/reversals happen, hiding each other from view. a) what can be measured "objectively" gets substituted for what we really want to measure. with things as slippery as minds, learning, thought, this is extremely dangerous. b) the moments of decision necessary involved in evaluation, of the dreaded "subjectivity," get pushed farther and farther from the person(/s) in the best position to evaluate meaningfully. decisions never, cannot ever disappear from this (or any) process; someone, somewhere--a human mind--has to choose. but the more minds are involved, the farther from each other all the decisions are made, the less and less it looks like any decision was made at all. this is the miracle of bureaucracy--to relieve the bureaucrat of responsibility for his authority!
the evaluation sees without being seen. this is always close to tyranny.
the evaluation sees without being seen. this is always close to tyranny.