The lies objectivity tells
(Nimue)
Objective writing sounds impartial, unemotional and rational. In theory this is how we write science papers and do good journalism. It’s often quite passive language ‘today three people died when a bomb went off’ – which has a very different swing from writing that three innocent civilians were deliberately murdered, for example.
Adopting an objective writing style conveys to the reader that this text is authoritative and trustworthy. It often normalises whatever it presents. Objective writing draws attention away from the author who hides behind the text a little like the man behind The Wizard of Oz’s curtain. The objective text offers apparent facts, hides biases and any statement presented in this voice conveys certainty and universality. Druids and bards interested in language as a tool may find this topic relevant to their concerns.
It’s not how I usually write, and that’s no accident. Normally I speak as an individual, talk about personal experience and the subjectivity of my own view. I don’t want to write in a way designed to persuade you of my authority. There’s a lot I don’t know, and my perspective is always personal. But then, that’s also all true for everyone who writes in an objective voice. They’ve adopted a style that disguises their individuality, and with it their feelings and biases. We all have those, and hiding them is misleading – often deliberately so.
The objective reporting of a science paper often isn’t an issue. If the scientist genuinely feels curious but neutral about a topic, then that objectivity is real. It causes problems when we can’t see who funded the study. We may not know what political or religious beliefs a person brings to their science. The gender of the scientist is not always irrelevant.
Where I’ve seen other people posting content from AI generators, it often has that objective authority tone while at the same time spouting empty nonsense. It makes sense that Ai writing would be set up to sound objective because of course there is no single human with an opinion behind the work. At this point we can’t be warned to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, because there’s nothing there. That troubles me.
It’s worth being alert to this when reading – or when encountering anything that is presented as news. Ostensibly objective writing can be highly manipulative stuff, especially in the ways it hides accountability. Too often reporting looks like ‘a thing happened’ and not ‘a person did this.’ Especially when the person in question has a lot of power. Objectivity is used to normalise atrocities.
This is certainly an issue I encourage fellow bards and Druids to consider. How do we express ourselves? Are we using language to validate our beliefs or to expose our own biases and limitations? I’m always uneasy when I find writing that goes ‘Druids do this, and at these times’ and doesn’t make it more personal. We do this. I do this. Some Druids. Not all Druids. I think we need to be talking from inside our own specific experiences instead.
