Firstly, we must say that the title, ‘How Subjectivity Shapes World Events’, is absurd because, of course, world events are not caused by one’s subjective interpretation of it. However, once an event is started, or even prior to it starting, it is subjectivity which is the root and stem of the events and how they unfurl.
Let’s, for example, look at a hypothetical notion. A country which boarders on another country used to be part of the same country. However, with the fall of an empire, the country splintered off and became a separate state in its own right. This country is happy to be self-determining, however, the larger part of the former empire wants it back. This is where subjectivity first comes into this for here we have two conflicting subjective stances. On one hand we have a country who wants to be free and on the other hand we have a country which is angry about the end of the empire and wants to return to its former glory. Again, you might be thinking, that this is absurd, for a country is a mass of land which cares not for anything other than the irritating birds pooping on it (I mean, how rude and humiliating) yet it is important, when speaking of countries, to remember that each country is made up of people, and each person has their own subjectivity. And so, the origin of sentiments of each country stems from the subjectivity of the individuals. If, for example, the leader of the country which yearns for the days of empire once more, is an insecure person (as everyone who needs to dominate is), then it is possible that the person may put actions to their sentiments and invade the other country to try to restore the empire, due to their own insecurities shaping their subjectivity. And thus, we have conflict between two subjectivities which manifests as a war.
The war becomes an empirical truth- there is a war, it is objective. One country is invading another to kill people and take control of the country. Yet, how this actually appears to individuals depends on their subjectivity. Whilst we may think of an individual being an autonomous being who is master of their own self (note: I am using the Latin version of master which is genderless, it is only when the word entered the French language did gender come into the concept, with the advent of the word ‘Mistress’) we must remember that we are shaped by nature and nurture and so the information we receive can determine our subjectivity. If, for example, the people being attacked see the war planes and bodies massing up then they know that they are being slaughtered and they know the reason why: the other country wants their land and will kill and destroy to get it. However, if the invading country controls the media in its own country, then the people of that country may have a different subjectivity. If they see that they were invited in to help make the empire great again and a few people object (as people always do) then this is acceptable as it is for the Greater Good and so the war can continue as subjectively people may not see it as being a bad thing, if, indeed, it is even a war.
Then there is the third-party perspective. This is more interesting and troubling as it shows the core beliefs of a person and/or society. One person may see the war and think that it is justified. Another may see the war and feel repulsed and sickened and another may see the war and think it is bad but create an arbitrary justification for it. For example, one might say, ‘ah, but these are people from a different religion than me. When people from my religion were invaded, there wasn’t this support.’ This may be the most concerning subjectivity of the observers (of course, the most concerning is being the invader) for it reduces human life along lines of subjectivity shaped by arbitrary means, in this instance, religion. One is saying that ‘yes, it is bad, but what about…’ (note: I have written before on whataboutism which is a rhetorical technique people use to justify their support of heinous acts). In this position one cannot see their hypocrisy. They are saying that these lives matter less than others due to religious/cultural subjectivity. They are saying that what they despise in others (often quite rightly) is what they themselves are doing. Indeed, if one was to look through history one could see many examples. For example, Jewish refugees fleeing the genocide (note: the word Holocaust is from Jewish liturgy and means ‘A burnt offering unto God’, and it is important to remove this religious connotation and say that this was not the work of a God, it was humans killing humans) sought sanctuary in the Arab countries and were turned away due to religious differences. Likewise, Palestinians also sought asylum, and were turned away, not on religious grounds, just because they were unliked. Then we can go to Burma and see the Buddhists being repressed only to, once freed, repress the Muslims- also look how Christians treat other faiths in need, etc. History is a litany of people treating others badly due to arbitrary subjectivity whilst others turn away for the same reason. And this is how Subjectivity Shapes World Events, for, objectively, something such as an invasion and genocide are objectively bad, however, people see the world unconsciously through a subjective prism and believe that they are being objective and so, to invoke a historical (and apocryphal) analogy, fiddle whilst Rome burns.
‘till next time
thegreaterfool2016 