I've been observing this stimulating discussion for some time and thought
I'd contribute my own thoughts about objective/subjective reality and
science fiction.
I agree with Heather MacLean that "objective reality" has, in the past and
somewhat even now, been decided upon by a majority of men in academia,
politics, the sciences, the media, who were often little concerned with the
realities of women. There has been an ongoing debate in the philosophy of
history, for example, as to whether "objective reality" can exist in the
study of history. Philosophy, similarly, is still grappling with the idea
of social construction of reality (after all, all anyone has to go on as
far as "reality" is what they can perceive, and no two people perceive alike).
In college I took a course called Sociology of Intellectual Life, in which
we learned how fraught with bias much scientific research is. One of the
enduring lessons of college was that I really shouldn't believe anyone just
because they are considered an expert by others.
At the same time, there are many generally accepted "objective truths"
which I regard, for practical purposes, as being True. My thinking is that
if all the experience I and others have indicate that a particular
statement is true, then it is. But I try to remain aware that the realities
I've cobbled together could be radically challenged at any time. It's an
approach I'd describe as "the golden mean" between objective and subjective
world views. Not to say that I've achieved the golden mean, but I try to.
Thus, objective vs. subjective for me is largely a matter of certainty. It
seems that women are urged to distrust themselves and qualify themselves
much more than men are, so it follows that they are less likely to believe
that they are objective, or to be perceived by others as objective. So I
believe there is a certain amount of sexism that women have to overcome to
enter into the scientific discourse (which is largely concerned with
"objective reality"), but the concept of objective reality is not
inherently sexist to me. Perhaps a little too _rigid_ if relied on too
much, but not sexist.
As for the distinction between "hard sf" and "soft sf", I don't believe
there is any reason to categorize science fiction as either. I, personally,
have a hard time seeing what defines science fiction itself as a discreet
body of literature, so I have an even harder time trying to decide what
hard vs. soft might mean. So I'm in favor of scrapping the terminology
entirely, especially considering the metaphorical resonances of "hard" and
"soft", which ARE laden with sexist baggage. (I'm certain enough of that to
say it's objective truth!)
I hope this has all made sense. I've been composing this message on my
lunch break next to a busy break room. I look forward to feedback.
--Janice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:09 PDT