In this election year, hostility emerges from debate, even between friends. What we bring to the table is the sum of experiences of our own and those we know of others. Yet while we rely on the latter research for the substantive material of our arguments that we hope to be objective and universal; we equally interpret these through a positionality that undermines these ideals. The lecture from Dr Madhavi Manchi manifested this uneasiness in a way that both acknowledged the faults of generalisation and the value of individualism.
One idea that appeased these concerns was the relationship between anecdote and data as the singular and plural, respectively: a criticism of the value of anecdote that is subversive. It satisfied my attraction to scientism that simplified my values and beliefs about reality. Yet this approach lacked nuance and a critical appreciation of the exclusivity that came with dominant modes of thought.
Scepticism has transformed my reasoning and such is reinforced by the lecture from Ms Kate Hannah: particularly ideas of suspicion, subjectivity, and reflexivity. On the value of quantitative research, it is important to note the biases that emerge from the selection of data sources and the imperfect analogies from available data to the subject of debate. Historically the exclusion of minority voices across categorisations of race, class, and gender has been a detrimental factor to the equality of research both in subject matter and perspectives on them. Though the second-generation movement for equal rights has enshrined legally much of the anti-discrimination ideals, there remain barriers to an equal body of research materials.
Regarding the question of the value of emotional response in (historical) research, I found this to be reflecting a lot of the concerns I have earlier expressed. When we engage in debate, it is important to acknowledge where our emotional responses come from. They are something not strictly rational, something individual but that can be understood communally. They arise from our experiences and our origins: this idea, explored by each of us in class reveals the need for empathy in understanding our differences not as an objective truth which only one has discovered but as co-existent interpretations that deserve understanding and compromise if we are ever to diverge from the hostility that seems to be the focus of much modern political discourse.
