The Phoenix Program and Scholarly Objectivity
From: Nguyet Nguyen <nn9606a@student.american.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] on a different note.....
To: "Pierre Asselin" <passelin@hpu.edu>
Cc: "vsg@u.washington.edu" <vsg@u.washington.edu>, "Bruce Kinsey" <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be brucekinsey@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013, 9:28 PM
Professor Asselin, I have read a few of your writings and have great respect for your work. But after reading your below
response, I feel that I need to also respectfully discuss some of your points. Can an academic work be purely an academic
exercise, or should it even be? Yes, scholars research, debate, and produce findings and judgment, and none can claim to
produce anything like "the whole Truth"; there are always angles to be taken into account. However, some angles yield better
pictures than others; some will distort the picture; some will be forgotten; some remain "on the side walk" for reference;
and some enter the mainstream. And, boy - as the way you put it - we all hope that our work would be in that mainstream, and
even into the policy-making. So, what we write, debate, advocate should not be pure academic because it's politically
charged. I was born long after the war ended, I did not witness first-hand even one act of war, but I have always felt I
lived and live in it. When I see maimed people, bomb craters, Agent Orange victims, when I look at cementary after cementary
along the highway, when I hear stories of tortures and murders, when I hear my mother talk about her father being one of the
very few who survived indiscriminate bombings, I always wonder why it had to happen. If somebody studies the wars in Vietnam
"just for the heck of it" perhaps the person will not get emotional. For me, I have a cute sense of right and wrong; and I
always wonder what would have happened if the academics in this country had managed to produce a different kind of discourse
- one that advocated for peace more strongly than for war and one that entered the White House. For people like the
Vietnamese (well, most of them, except for ones who could just fly out of the country in a heartbeat) - the people on the
ground who are at the receiving end of the policy, the debate matters a great deal because it may mean life and death for
them. So, professor Asselin, I do judge and do feel emotional when I study the war, and I am not afraid it will make me less
of a scholar. Yes, I can respect the effort a scholar put into a scholarly work, but I will refuse to respect its content
just because it's produced by "one of our collegues." And, while some studies really make me feel humble because of their
evidence, rigorous research, insights, judgment, and humanity, I can't say studies that anger me make my academic inquiry
"fun." I read this from professor Logevall's Choosing War, and respectfully quoted it here because I cannot express it
better: "Writing this book stirred strong emotions in me... I was determined to fulfill the historian's obligation to explore
what people did - and what they thought they were doing - in the context of their own time... I questioned the motivations
behind America's Vietnam policy... not merely the practicality of the chosen course, but also the morality of it." Sincerely,
Nguyet Nguyet Nguyen PhD Candidate History Department American University Washington, D.C. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:15 PM,
Pierre Asselin <passelin@hpu.edu> wrote: > Dear Mark & All: > > I take exception to Mark (Ashwill)’s derisive statements
about Mark Moyar. > > As I understand it, the purpose of historical/academic scholarship is to advance our understanding of
the past. It is to introduce fresh evidence and interpretations, to challenge conventional wisdom, to stimulate discussion,
to generate debate. It is, in short, to make us think/rethink about the past. > > As I made obvious in recent postings, I
don’t agree that Nick Turse’s recent study captures the essence of the “real American Vietnam war,” in part because I don’t
believe it possible for any of us to capture the “truth” about any aspect of the past, particularly something so broad at the
American role in Vietnam. Still, I respect Turse for producing a book that stimulated interesting discussions on this list
and elsewhere, compelled me to think further about the nature of the American effort in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, and,
perhaps most important, generated widespread interest in my/our field of study. Turse made the Vietnam War and those of us
who study it relevant, and for that I’m truly appreciative. > > Like Turse, Moyar produced a highly controversial book.
But, boy, did that book spawn fascinating debates in countless outlets! Any of us should be so lucky to produce a piece of
work that attracts so much attention, generates so many responses, and makes people think about the topic the way Moyar’s
book made all of us think about the topic. > > People like Mark Moyar make the study of the Vietnam War interesting, even
fun. At a minimum, let’s show some respect for one of our colleagues, for one of our own. > > Pierre > > > Pierre Asselin >
Associate Professor of History > Hawai'i Pacific University > 1188 Fort St., Suite MP 409 > Honolulu, HI 96813 > Tel: (808)
544-1479 > > "Dieu aima les oiseaux et inventa les arbres; l'homme aima les oiseaux et inventa la cage" >
________________________________________ >
From: vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu [vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu] on behalf of Mark Ashwill [MailScanner
has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be markashwill@hotmail.com] > Sent:
Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:34 PM > To: vsg@u.washington.edu > Cc: Bruce Kinsey > Subject: RE: [Vsg] CORDS (Phoenix Program?)
assassinations? > > It's pretty obvious whose ax Bruce Kinsey is grinding: If we and the GVN had instituted Phoenix a few
years earlier, my guess is that South Vietnam would still be free today. His fawning endorsement of Mark Moyar, revisionist
historian par excellence, "independent national security consultant and author," former director of research at Orbis
Operations, former chaired professor at the Marine Corps University, boy wonder of the national security state and defender
of the empire, is the proverbial icing on the cake. (My recommendation would be The Phoenix
Program<http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Program-Douglas-Valentine/dp/0595007384>, which did not qualify Doug Valentine for a
chaired professorship at the MCU.) > > @ BK - Let me take the liberty of reminding you of some other "Ifs" by quoting from a
contribution to a recent VSG thread: Had the US not scuttled the Geneva Accords, picked up where the French left off,
bankrolled yet another client state, subverted the will of the electorate (I believe it was none other than Ike who said HCM
would have received 80% of the vote in a 1956 election) and delayed the inevitable unification of VN, millions would still be
alive, many of you would be in a different line of work and many others would still be in Vietnam. There would not have been
an American War in Vietnam... And, of course, Vietnam and SE Asia would be very different places today.
(http://wp.me/pI5NK-1Kx) > > Stanley Karnow's response to Stanley McChrystal, who asked him if there was anything we
(Americans) learned in Vietnam that “we” can use in Afghanistan, also applies to you and others who wax nostalgic about your
time in Vietnam and your vain attempts to "win hearts and minds" and preserve the "freedom" of South Vietnam: What we
learned is we never should have been there in the first place. > > Vietnam became a sovereign nation when the last US Marine
helicopter took off, Saigon fell/was liberated and "South Vietnam" ceased to exist. Fast forward to 2013: central and
southern VN are doing a lot better now than when you and your colleagues (the "good guys"?) were here back in the day, as is
the rest of the country. > > MAA > Hanoi > ________________________________ >
Subject: RE: [Vsg] CORDS (Phoenix Program?) assassinations? > To: "David E. Brown" <MailScanner has detected a possible
fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be nworbd@gmail.com<mailto:MailScanner has detected a possible
fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be nworbd@gmail.com>> > Cc: Judy Gould <MailScanner has detected a
possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be thepolicybabe@hotmail.com<mailto:MailScanner has
detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be thepolicybabe@hotmail.com>> > > > Dave - > >
Best source is Mark Moyar's Phoenix and the Birds of Prey. > > Mark attacks the numbers problem head-on. There were a million
claims about how many VCI Phoenix eliminated. Especially at the beginning of the program, too many low-level KIA's were
attributed to Phoenix - the old number-padding problem. Things were pretty sloppy at the start, but tightened up considerably
as the program expanded. Moyar goes through all the numbers on eliminations, but finally settles on several VC documents as
hard proof that the program was having a devastating effect on the bad guys. > > Phoenix was a CORDS program, but, DepCORDS
Komer and then Colby - both former CIA officers - made no special effort to integrate it with the rest of the pacification
program. In the field it only paid lip service to its CORDS affiliation. Wise PSAs maintained friendly and supportive
relationships with the Phx advisors. Where Phx took a semi-hostile attitude toward CORDS, my belief is that the Phx program
actually suffered as a result. > > When I get to this in the book I plan to tackle it unapologetically. The Viet Cong,
beginning in late '59, deliberately kidnapped and murdered many thousands (well over 100,000) GVN officials. They did not
overlook schoolteachers, census takers, nurses and anti-malaria sprayers, as well as hamlet and village officials. Their
program was very effective in terrorizing rural dwellers into inaction when it came to GVN programs. It took until late 1967
for the US and the GVN to begin to effectively give the VC a taste of its own medicine. Plenty of innocent people were very
glad they did. The VC terror program was not due to some overabundance of battle-induced emotions; it was cold-blooded,
carefully planned murder in an attempt to eliminate and intimidate the GVN's lowest level - akin to cutting off, one by one,
the fingers of the body politic. > > One much bigger part of the Phoenix program nobody here ever paid much attention to was
the Colby-inspired effort to straighten out the GVN justice system's handling of VC suspects. My CORDS colleague, the late
Bob Gould, who was the only American lawyer who spoke Vietnamese, worked long and hard to establish fair and standard
procedures for admission of evidence, legal review, incarceration, and sentencing. He was very effective at that, and a lot
of innocent people are alive today who would probably have been shot as VC sympathizers before Bob, Bill Colby and the GVN
Interior Minister got hold of things beginning in 1968. It was one of the best pieces of advising that we Americans did. Bob
got zero credit for it, and Colby was publically eviscerated in Congress for his work. > > The other thing often overlooked
has been that the first priority of the PRU's - the Phx action guys - was to capture VC suspects, not to kill them. You can't
interrogate or turn to your advantage a dead VC. > > I'd been in VN only two days before John Vann took me to a hamlet (Binh
Long??) where, the night before, a VC squad had come in and decapitated the GVN hamlet chief. Those poor people were scared,
I mean REALLY scared, but when Vann rolled up in his Scout at mid-day, they broke into applause. As near as I can tell, they
and many other villagers kept applauding until 1973, when the VC in the Delta were too decimated to offer much of a threat in
most places. By then the Phoenix program had been turned over entirely to the GVN. > > If we and the GVN had instituted
Phoenix a few years earlier, my guess is that South Vietnam would still be free today. > > Hope this helps. Gotta go. > > BK
> > > > ________________________________ > From: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be nworbd@gmail.com<mailto:MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be nworbd@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:43:18 -0700 > Subject: Fwd: [Vsg]
CORDS (Phoenix Program?) assassinations? > To: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be brucekinsey@hotmail.com<mailto:MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt
from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be brucekinsey@hotmail.com> > > > Bruce, I often see questions like this. What's
a truthful way to set the record straight? Can you direct me toward some good, crisp answers? David > > ----------
Forwarded message ---------- > From: Fox, Diane <dnfox@holycross.edu<mailto:dnfox@holycross.edu>> > Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013
at 5:55 AM > Subject: [Vsg] CORDS (Phoenix Program?) assassinations? > To: "Group, Vietnam Studies"
<vsg@u.washington.edu<mailto:vsg@u.washington.edu>> > > > A film on the Army's current "Human Terrain System" use of
anthropologists in Afghanistan today claims in passing that 26,000 people were assassinated in Viet Nam under the CORDS
program. My students wanted to know more about CORDS than I could tell them. > > An initial Google search (I'm here at home,
my books are in my office at school) attributes that number to the Phoenix Program, not CORDS. > > Comments and clarification
would be appreciated. > > Diane > > > > Diane Niblack Fox > Senior Lecturer > Anthropology > College of the Holy Cross > > >
> > _______________________________________________
n Mar 23, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"If I studied the Vietnam War, I would love to be able to leave all my personal preferences, my history, my culture, all the
baggage behind, consider all the evidence fairly and then write the perfectly objective book about it. I would consider such
a scholar a better scholar. I am aware that this perspective alone rubs some epistemologies the absolutely wrong way and I'll
get some thumbs down. How about you, since you made a conciliatory statement between objectivity and baggage in your post?"
I am unsure if objectivity does require leaving one's cultural background behind; I would rather say that one should be aware
of it, and take it into consideration (as you also insightfully suggested). For instance, I do think that my research on both
North Korea and Vietnam gained a kind of unusual perspective and inspiration from the fact that I happened to be East
European, rather than West European, yet I do lack the perspective of a Korean or a Vietnamese person. This personal baggage
plays a great role in motivating our selection of research topics, and thus we cannot fully leave it behind. This is why I
never could make myself sufficiently interested in the legal labyrinth of European integration.:)
Dear All,
let me add my bit to this discussion. Personally, I do not think that objectivity and emotions are irreconcilable in
scholarly work. During my research on North Korea, whose political system is undoubtedly one of the most repressive that ever
existed in human history, I gradually became aware of the need to be objective in the sense of examining the leadership's
motives from its own perspective, noticing the elements of rationality in their behavior, and paying sufficient attention to
their acts of flexibility or cooperation, rather than merely concentrating on the stupid or criminal nature of the deeds they
committed at home and abroad. It is very tempting to make fun of their propaganda, yet one will step on a slippery slope if
doing that in a scholarly work. At the same time, I do think we have a kind of moral obligation, and if we encounter pure and
unadulterated evil (like the imprisonment of children in concentration camps, and the execution of people for crimes they did
not commit), we should not rationalize it away but show it as it is. My first inspiration to do research on North Korea was
quite emotional in this sense. I saw a Polish documentary film about the country, and wanted to know how those ordinary
people think and feel who are forced to act like marionettes on a stage and as pieces of a chessboard. Now, more than twenty
years later, I am still looking for the answers. And if I come across a person who argues that governments have a right to
treat their citizens (or the citizens of a foreign country) as mere subjects to be bludgeoned into submission, this still
touches a raw nerve in me and gets the worst out of me (as a certain admirer of the late Madame Nhu once found out at the
expense of peace and harmony in the VSG community).
This being said, I would like to call upon VSG members to respect not only each other's emotions but also the rights of
saolas and house-elves, and fight relentlessly against habitat destruction, bushmeat trade, owl poaching, and other Dark acts
of He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Named.:)
Cheers,
Balazs
Dear Friends, I have been trying to think of a way to reply to these comments without being emotional -- but it is difficult.
If I were Vietnamese, I would be pretty emotional. From the reading I've been doing about Phoenix, I cannot see how the
program could have been anything but illegal in the view of international law. A targeted assassination program in another
country, where we were at war on what we now know was a mistaken assumption -- can we really claim to have had justice on our
side? Even if the Phoenix program had been well-received by some of the population, that would not have made it legal. If one
wants to get into the nature of Phoenix, then I am afraid that we have to confront the fact that it also included black
operations meant to spread fear of the southern communists. This link to a study of Phoenix by Doug Valentine, whom I do not
know, provides a broader picture of its genesis and nature than has been mentioned on this list: <http://www.american-
buddha.com/phoenixprog3.htm>. I am posting this in the spirit of our mutual search for truth! Sophie Quinn-Judge Temple
University
On 23 March 2013 14:32, Thomas Jandl <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com"
claiming to be thjandl@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oops,
I didn't mean to reply to all. I know Nguyet from AU and wanted to reply to her alone.
This being said, obviously there is a lot to be said and my email was very short. I don't want to create more of a firestorm
than my "reply to all" already did, other than to say that I stand by the position that an attempt to be as objective as
possible (and I even said that it is of course impossible to be objective) is positive. The original post critiqued Pierre
Asselin on this issue, plus I first met Nguyet over a similar discussion, but that is not something I want to drag into this.
So apologies for the public email that should have been a private one.
_________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. School of International Service American University202-363-6810
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be thjandl@yahoo.com
--- On Sat, 3/23/13, Pietro P. Masina <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com"
claiming to be pietro.masina@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Pietro P. Masina <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be
pietro.masina@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] on a different note.....
To: "Thomas Jandl" <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com" claiming to be
thjandl@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Pierre Asselin" <passelin@hpu.edu>, "Nguyet Nguyen" <nn9606a@student.american.edu>, "vsg@u.washington.edu"
<vsg@u.washington.edu>, "Bruce Kinsey" <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com"
claiming to be brucekinsey@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013, 2:00 PM
Dear Thomas,
I am afraid I don't agree with your point. A scholar should not try to be objective - this is impossible even when you deal
with topics that do not involve you emotionally. A scholar should be aware of his/her "believes" and "valuations" as Nobel
prize Gunnar Myrdal wrote long time ago. Even when we try to be honest and rigorous - as I am sure all this list members are
- our research is necessarily influenced by our cultural background. When we try to be "objective" we simply risk to fall
into an ethnocentric trap. What may appear to us as a neutral judgment may appear to others from a different background as
very partial and biased. Thus, it is more honest to acknowledge our "emotions" and take them into consideration when we do
research work (which, I agree with you, is something else from activism). This is the first thing I teach my students when I
start a new course.
I also find quite unfair that you address a student from your own university in such a harsh way and from such a questionable
epistemological viewpoint. I agree with Thi-Bay and Matthew: this aggressive behaviour should not be accepted in this list.
Finally, Nguyet raised a relevant point. The American War is still a very recent and painfully memory for the Vietnamese
population, including our colleagues and friends participating in this list. I found Bruce Kinsey message informative,
although reflecting an anachronistic cold war mentality. But the final sentence - If we and the GVN had instituted Phoenix
a few years earlier, my guess is that South Vietnam would still be free today - is hard to accept. This was obviously a slap
on the face of our Vietnamese colleagues and friends (and to be honest also to the majority of us who consider the America
War a tragedy that should not have occurred in the first place).
Bets regards
Pietro
Prof. Pietro P. Masina Dept. of Social and Human Sciences University of Naples "L'Orientale" Largo S. Giovanni Maggiore 30
80134 Naples - Italy Tel. +39 0816909436 Fax. +39 0816909442
On Mar 23, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Thomas Jandl <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "us.mc1625.mail.yahoo.com"
claiming to be thjandl@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nguyet,
I fear your emotions will make you less of a scholar. It's a bit like being a lawyer and representing yourself in court. Of
course you know you are right and the other side is just plain wrong. And guess what, they know exactly the same thing.
We can never be absolutely objective, that's probably not part of being human. But we should try. And that's why I would
never study anything academically which I know I feel very strongly about.
To answer your question whether academic research can or should be a purely academic exercise, my answer is, I fear it
cannot, but it absolutely should as far as possible. Otherwise you blur the borders between scholarship and advocacy at best,
and those between scholarship and propaganda at worst.
_________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. School of International Service American University202-363-
From: Thomas Jandl <thjandl@yahoo.com>
To: Sophie Quinn-Judge <sophie.quinnjudge@gmail.com>; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>; Balazs Szalontai
<aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, 24 March 2013, 10:58
Subject: Re: [Vsg] on a different note.....
Balazs (and others):
I am not sure how much I should contribute to this after unwittingly starting all this. But here it is.
I agree with pretty much all you say, yet let's discuss this in the original context. Let's say we discuss intervening in
Vietnam and advise the President about it. Personally, I find the arguments for the Vietnam war unconvincing to say the
least, but of course, hindsight is always easier than prediction. What would I have said had I been there at the time?
Whatever it is, as a scholar who wants to be mainstream or policy-relevant (as per the original discussion that started all
this), I would argue that I have to engage with both sides of the argument, and of course there were arguments pro Vietnam
War. Considering both sides makes me a "better" scholar at least from the perspective of effectiveness in policy
recommendation (and from more than that perspective, I'd argue -- see below). Rejecting geo-political arguments for
intervention by resorting to emotional responses strikes me as less effective. And that's what you meant with regard to your
position vis-à-vis North Korea. Your argument would probably engage with a lot more than your emotional, or in Weberian
language, normative, preferences.
Barrington Moore has pointed out that revolutions are always costly in terms of blood and tears. But then he adds that
sometimes, not having a revolution can have the same effects. His example is India -- the fact that the social structures of
caste were never overthrown has caused grievous harm to millions, maybe even billions of low-caste people who could never
throw off the subjugation that comes with their ascribed status. So, just knowing the pain and sorrow of war alone is not an
argument against one.
Of course, nobody can be fully objective or emotion-free. But that was not Pierre Asselin's argument at all. (Let's remember
that his post and the response to it was how all this started.) His argument was that we need to respect positions even if we
disagree with them.
So, as you imply, a call for "objective" research is not one for a superhuman scholar who can leave experiences, culture and
what not out of the equation and find the unadulterated truth. Instead, it is one where a scholar is aware of one's own
baggage and tries to address it in a research project whose end goal is not to become an activist, but to add some new facets
to a debate -- hopefully ones give us better insights as we make decisions. What you write about your work in North Korea is
part of that -- without any claim on your part that you have left your subconscious behind.
You haven't tried to answer the question Nguyet posed: Would it be better if one left one's baggage behind (desirability
regardless of ability to get there). My answer is yes, because I make the clear Weberian distinction between "politics as a
vocation" and "science as a vocation."
If I studied the Vietnam War, I would love to be able to leave all my personal preferences, my history, my culture, all the
baggage behind, consider all the evidence fairly and then write the perfectly objective book about it. I would consider such
a scholar a better scholar. I am aware that this perspective alone rubs some epistemologies the absolutely wrong way and I'll
get some thumbs down. How about you, since you made a conciliatory statement between objectivity and baggage in your post?
_________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. School of International Service American University 202-363-
6810thjandl@yahoo.com --- On Sat, 3/23/13, Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] on a different note.....
To: "Sophie Quinn-Judge" <sophie.quinnjudge@gmail.com>, "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 23, 2013, 9:08 PM
From: vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu [vsg-bounces@mailman1.u.washington.edu] on behalf of Jason Morris-Jung
[morrisjung@berkeley.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group
Subject: Re: [Vsg] on a different note.....
I am feeling a bit compelled to respond to this debate, as it touches both my scholarly work and my emotions.
The first point is that I think it is worth noting that this is something of a debate between disciplines, namely those that
enthusiastically endorse "scientific objectivity" and others that have been more skeptical of the concept. Hence, while our
exchanges may sometimes come off as a bit personal, both positions have been substantially argued within the academe. (It
reminds me a bit of a stormy relationship I had a long long time ago. My girlfriend and I used to get into vicious debates
with one another about one's relationship to God, only to discover several years later that we, in our ignorance, were
basically pitting against one another the basic tenets of Catholicism and Protestantism except in very personal and vitriolic
terms!)
The second point I would like to make is about how we understand objectivity. Conventional scientific objectivity has been
extensively criticized by science studies (i.e., those people who study scientists and scientific practice). It is not only
that objectivity (as an entirely detached perspective on truth) is an elusive ideal, but rather that it is an illusion. In
Donna Haraway's words, it is the "God's eye view" or the "view from nowhere." Sandra Harding, among others, has developed a
notion of "strong objectivity," which is more reflexive and accountable to one's various subject positions, cultural
backgrounds, gender, etc., as others on this lists have mentioned. Taken together, Haraway and Harding's view on
"objectivity" is that it becomes strong not by extracting out these things, but rather by compounding them into one's
understanding of an object. They are, to continue Haraway's metaphor, lines of sight. They describe an object from
different angles, different ways of seeing, different subject positions. The more lines of sight there are, the stronger the
rendition of that object (i.e., stronger objectivity). However, this does not mean that all lines of sight are equally
valid. Strong objectivity is not a position of relativism ad absurdum. That is the work of argument, reason and debate to
work out which lines of sight are more or less valid.
The third point I would like to make is on emotion. I have to confess that I cannot remember off the top of my head to what
degree these or other theorists have considered emotions. I am sure they have, but I can't put my finger on anything right
now (others have suggestions?). But I would also like to add that there are different kinds and degrees of emotion. Emotion
is not just a barbaric "yawp!" Emotions are like ideas, in the sense that they can be more or less developed, more or less
reasoned, and, indeed, more or less justified. But, I believe, an emotion is real and it is an important element of thought.
We have a duty to make that visible, without, as I mentioned, reducing our scholarship to an exchange of primal screams.
For my friends in history, many of whom, I think, embrace the ideal of the "dispassionate researcher," when I see you toil
tirelessly through archives for days and months on end, I have to ask what drives you if not passion? And I have to think
that it is more than just a passion for the "truth," no? If so, then, as mentioned by Pietro Masina, does it not make the
research more accountable by rendering that passion visible in the scholarship rather than negating it as if it did not exist
altogether?
jason morris-jung
UC Berkeley