- The purpose of this learning module is to challenge students' assumptions about their own objectivity in the classroom when it comes to matters of race, class, gender, imperialism, etc. Specifically, this activity: de-centers the students' position as "objective" observers of their world; challenges students to see themselves as active participants in creating "myths" about their social position and objective status; and confronts their own assumptions as well as the claims by those who propose to speak from an "objective" or "authentic" experience."
| Instructor Prep. Time | Student In-Class Time | Student Out-of-Class Time |
| 30-45 minutes | 30-45 minutes | None |
- Pen and paper.
Step-by-Step Procedure:
- Instructors can easily adapt this module to their own discipline. It works well in courses that deal heavily with issues of race, class, gender, etc. In the explanation below, the activity is modeled on a history of imperialism course, but it is easily adapted to the traditional literature of your field.
- This activity occurs about one-third of the way through the course, after students have read a series of articles and books that engage with the “colonized” experience. With instructor guidance, students have come to recognize that the “native” described by the authors was usually presented through European eyes. What has not been explored is the fact that, most often, these authors used European, bourgeois categories of analysis. Students have accepted these categories as “objective.”
- It was decided that the most appropriate lecture in which to discuss these issues would be in a lecture on Captain Cook and British exploration in the Pacific, focusing on European representations of Hawaiians. After giving the students a survey of the topic, a very public debate is introduced between two famous anthropologists, Marshall Sahlins and Gananath Obeyesekere, who argued about the nature of early European contact in Hawaii. Each author accused the other of ethnocentrism, of perpetuating colonial stereotypes, and of subjectivity. In addition, each argued for their own objectivity and the other's participation in colonial “mythmaking.” The class explores each author's arguments before beginning a discussion on the nature of bias, assumptions, objectivity in the social sciences, and the “native” and authorial voices.
- The following questions are asked to begin discussion:
- What assumptions does each author make?
- What is ethnocentrism?
- What problems does ethnocentrism create?
- What is the authorial voice?
- What is the “native” voice?
- What is colonial “mythmaking?”
- How does one achieve objectivity in the social sciences?
- Can one be objective in the social sciences?
- Whose experience do you consider more “authentic,” the colonizer or colonized?
- Which experience gets us closer to the “facts?”
- After proposing these questions, which themselves evoke heated debate, the questioning is turned to the students' experiences:
- How does your social status and background affect your interpretation of other communities, cultures, etc.?
- What assumptions do you have about the nature of objectivity, and why do you think you have them?
- Can you imagine why others with different experiences might question your objectivity? Would their challenges be well founded?
- In assuming that you are objective, how do you participate in “mythmaking?”
- What is multicultural reflexivity, and how can this help us better interpret and present our findings in the social sciences?
- Finally, the discussion is opened to more theoretical issues in the social sciences.
- If our social status and preconceptions influence our interpretation of events, where does this leave the social sciences?
- How can we get around the ethnocentric experience, and how will this change how we analyze things in the social sciences?
- Who can speak for the “other?”
- Certainly, a professor cannot ask all these questions in a half hour. However, by asking a few of these questions, students make the links themselves and begin analyzing most of the topics suggested by the above questions.
Suggestions for Use:
- Due to the complicated nature of this discussion, it is best for the instructor to monitor debate and provide the necessary guidance. Because of this, a class of no more than 20 people is suggested.
- A possible variation would encourage students to prepare answers to some of these questions before they arrive in class.
- The goal of this activity is not to inspire cultural relativism or undermine the methods of the social sciences. Rather, it is meant to help students develop their analytical ability, building upon skills that the students have already acquired while at the university. Therefore, this exercise may not be as useful in a first-year survey course as it would be in a second- or third-year seminar.
- Fee, M. (1989). Why C.K. Stead didn't like Keri Hulme's the bone people: Who can write as other? Australian and New Zealand Studies in Canada, 1, 11-32.
- Griffiths, G. (1994). The myth of authenticity. In C. Tiffin & A. Lawson (Eds), De-scribing empire: Postcolonialism and textuality (pp. 70-85). London: Routledge.
- Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
- Obeyesekere, G. (1992). The apotheosis of Captain Cook: European mythmaking in the Pacific. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Sahlins, M. (1981). Historical metaphors and mythical realities: Structure in the early history of the Sandwich Island Kingdom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
- Sahlins, M. (1995). How “natives” think about Captain Cook, for example. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
- Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. (pp. 271-313). London: Macmillan.
- Trosset, C. (1998, September-October). Obstacles to open discussion and critical thinking: The Grinnell College study. Change, 30, 44-49.