Inescapable subjectivity
My biggest bugbear is the oft harping about objectivity (in various 'terms') which all the researchers, writers and speakers suggest, and how we should design, think, evaluate and criticize objectively. For me, it is inherently fallacious to talk about objectivity when the realm of technology that you are dealing with is totally focused on the human 'experience' with technology. We cannot possibly be objective considering that we have to take a certain point-of-view even when critiquing a certain practice or theory which we label as 'subjective'. Prof. Dourish mentioned that one should be careful when assigning a particular meaning to the world 'progress' , but isn't it always the case ? How can one argue what constitutes progress unless there is a common ground on which we can even argue what it could be ? I say that ultimate aim of technology and thus the currency of human progress is the maximization of human potential. How could one prove me wrong unless they take a subjective stand that something else is more important than just maximization of human potential. How can Lillie talk about capitalistic and consumption-based evils of utopian technologies unless he takes a stand that an alternative is more suitable. And if so, then suitable for whom ? You always are representing a certain section of human population when taking a stand in any argument unless you stand for some axiomatic truth about the universe which all agree on.
So what does being objective mean? Isn't it a bastard of subjectivity and denial ?
Again in the paper "Reflective Design", Sengers postulates certain design strategies one of which is 'Interpretive flexibility'. Would it always be applicable ? Isn't the use of such strategy subjective as well ? What if the form and nature of a person's interaction with ta certain echnology is supposed to be deterministic, rather than totally open to interpretation by the user at any given moment? And by deterministic I mean a certain population's point-of-view shoved down the throat of the unwilling. As a functioning society, we have to agree to a certain point-of-view or semantic meaning of a situation or object when we use a common token of meaningful social exchange such as language or abide by laws and social mores. One could design for open interpretation but the field and scope has to be limited. It is like choosing a car, we all have to (though some may not) agree that the car when we are going to buy will have 4 wheels, a transmission, and a approximate physical shape. The 'design-for-experience' aspect which Prof. Dourish espouses comes to the choice of color and upholstery. So, some part fixed and some part flexible. We could debate over what that fixed part would be, but then when the verdict is reached it will adhere to some point-of-view held by certain section of politicians/leaders/designers. So subjectivity is inescapable.
With this cynical point-of-view I culminate my last blog post for this class, it was an enjoyable and learning experience.