Wow exactly what I was thinking today nearly word by word!

Disclaimer: Essay ahead. Please proceed at your own risk.

Recently I’ve seen in many forums and drama blogs where many people ask for ‘objective opinions’ and try to dismiss ‘subjective’ or ‘biased’ opinions. I feel that the concepts of subjectivity/ objectivity has been misinterpreted and in its worst case, used to silence/ oppress the voices of people of different viewpoints. I’d like to provide my insights and hope to clear this distinction up a bit for those who care.

So far, subjectivity/ objectivity are concepts associated with arguments and reasoning, and are used the most in fields that require arguments or logical reasoning. Two of them are law and research.
One of the main purposes for argument/ reasoning in law is to prove the truth of a premise, for example, to prove one’s innocence or guilt. Objective reasoning or arguments are based on hard facts and logic, and carry much more weight than subjective reasoning, which is often used to appeal to a listener’s emotions, thus convincing them into believing that the reasoning is ‘logical’ or ‘reasonable’ while it is not necessarily the case. The listener is then swayed into agreeing with an argument because it generally agrees with their deeply ingrained prejudices or preferences, or personal circumstances, which are obviously subjective.

In research, especially in ‘soft’ sciences (i.e. social sciences or sciences that study human behaviour or ways of thinking, such as psychology), objectivity/ subjectivity carry a slightly different meaning. Subjectivity often means the researcher’s intervention in the data collection and analysis, which then can lead to biased data and results (we call them findings). For example, we can now call the data collection method to determine Korean show ratings outdated and the findings ‘biased’, because it does not represent the growing population of viewers who stream TV shows on touch devices, or laptop/ computer. (To be cont.)

(cont.)

In ‘soft’ sciences, because the researchers often work directly with people (observe them or interview them, for example), there is a concern that their presence and proximity with the research subjects will alter their behaviours in some way (you won’t behave the same if you know you are on camera and there are people watching you, for example). That is why sciences in general aim for objectivity by removing the researcher’s influence as much as possible. Research following this way of thinking (valuing objectivity) collect numerical data (for example, rate your satisfactory with Subway PPL on a scale of 1-5) and use statistical tools to analyse them. They do not value textual data (for example, explain in details what attracts you to Korean dramas) or methods of data analysis that requires personal interpretation (for example, I might ask a few more questions to see if your preferences have any cultural or philosophical basis; most people won’t be aware of this, so as a researcher I’ll be the one to spell it out in my findings). ‘Soft’ sciences that value objectivity don’t like this, because they can’t prove the truthfulness of my interpretations. They can’t, for example, repeat (we call it replicate) my findings over 1,000 people, because how many of them are educated enough to be aware of cultural or philosophical influence in something as trivial as their Kdrama watching habits? That’s just an oversimplified example to give you a rough idea. In short, ‘soft’ sciences that follow ‘hard’ science way of thinking call this method of collecting and analysing data subjective and not reliable. (cont.)

Unfortunately, when applied to arguments/ debate in entertainment, the duo subjectivity/ objectivity have lost their fundamental meaning. You ask why?

Because Kdramas are a form of performance arts, and in essence all forms of arts are subjective because they rely on personal interpretations.

When you deal with something as subjective as people’s appreciations of arts (and I don’t mean technical stuff such as what kinds of lenses are used for filming, whether someone’s sageuk tone is done right etc), there is little place for objectivity. Why? Because there is no way for you or any other person for that matter to test the truthfulness of someone else’s interpretations of a piece of art. Remember, objectivity has a lot to do with testing the truthfulness of a premise or statement. You can’t prove whether, for example, someone’s opinion that Hae-Su (Moon Lovers) is a weak and stereotypical character is true or false. You can only state whether you agree or disagree with them, and quote the reasons why you think in a particular way. You may succeed in persuading many people to agree with you, but it doesn’t make you any more right and them any more wrong, in a sense. What Hae Su does is fact, but the meaning of her actions are up for interpretations, hence not fact and therefore not objective.

‘Biased’ opinions and why people react strongly towards them
First, let me say that there is such a thing as a ‘biased’ opinion, but I’m amused at how it is often used to label others’ opinions and interpretations, especially when theirs do not resonate with a person.

A quick look at the definition of the word ‘biased’ suggests that it has two distinct characteristics: (1) it is unfair treatment and (2) it is based on someone’s prejudice. Then another look at ‘prejudice’ and the dictionary defines it as ‘Dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions’.

So in general, there’s a lot of work for you to do before you can label someone’s opinions as ‘biased’. If that person has watched Actress A in Drama A and was not happy with her performance, and continues to not be happy with her performance in Drama B mid-way through, it is very difficult to decide whether their opinions of her as a bad actress ‘biased’. If that person has watched a few eps of Drama A and was not happy with Actress A, then go on to conclude that she is a bad actress in every single of her other projects without watching them, or some of them, you can definitely tell that they are prejudiced against the said actress. Same goes for people who think highly of an actor/ actress and is convinced that they’re talented, so they must be perfect in everything they do. Biased opinions and prejudice go both way, and are not restricted to only negative opinions. (cont.)

Then there are other strong opinions. They can be positive, or negative. However, just because there are negative criticisms that are strongly worded, it doesn’t always mean these are ‘biased’.

People tend to react strongly to strong opinions, and sociology and psychology can perhaps explain why:

When you like a certain thing and/ or person, you may feel to some degree (well often, a lot) that such thing and person has emotional values to you and become part of who you are. In sort, you identify with them, and attacks on their quality suddenly feels like attacks on your quality and value as a human being. If someone identifies with Doctors, and you say it’s a pointless drama, it is very natural if they think that you, when putting Doctors down, are also mocking their taste. It is easy for them to think that they must have low standard to like a drama that so many people out there criticise.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with your criticism, and there is nothing wrong with them thinking Doctors is great either. The only issue is that they let your criticism hurt their ego. Very often, strong reactions to negative criticism in such cases are a form of defensive mechanism to protect one’s ego. We, after all, as human beings do not want to be associated with anything bad or to be looked down on. There is nothing wrong with wanting to defend what and who we identify with either.

However, there is a distinction to be made when it comes to defending or expression one’s viewpoints. Strong opinions are okay, until they borderline problematic behaviour. Using profanity is one, confusing between the character and the actor that plays them is another. Just as problematic is the attack on other people who like a certain drama or character, unless they are in favour/ support of a harmful behaviour displayed by that certain character (such as killing). It is okay to say that Drama B is pointless and a waste of your time, but it’s definitely not okay to say that ‘there must be something wrong with people who like drama B because it’s such a pointless drama and a waste of time.’

Likewise, trying to shut down opposing opinions just because they feel very strongly about one particular subject is problematic. The most common is ‘if you don’t like it then don’t watch it’ or ‘you are biased’. Trying to sell an opinion as ‘objective’ is another thing I wouldn’t support, because doing so implies that only that opinion is valid, or carries more weight than others. Remember, performance arts are all about personal interpretations. That one doesn’t feel strongly either way about an actor or a drama doesn’t make their opinion more ‘valuable’, ‘objective’ or ‘valid’. It’s their personal interpretation after all!

So next time, if you see someone claiming to be ‘objective’ or attacking your opinion and putting it down on the basis that it is not ‘objective opinion’, don’t ever buy it. At best, they’re disagreeing with you. At worst, they’re trying to oppress your voice. Tell them there is nothing as an ‘objective opinion’ in appreciation of arts. There are only ‘mild’ and ‘strong’ opinions, ‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘balanced’, but none of them are ‘objective’, or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for that matter. There are, however, problematic behaviours that need calling out on, and they themselves are very different from opinions.

Don’t let others silence your voice.