The process of research includes several stages.

It is generally considered that the produced

knowledge must be neutral. The researcher must be impartial, having an attitude of cool
detachment towards the object of study and must try to remove all the preconceptions. But is
this desire of philosophical, political or cultural neutrality possible in science? And, in case we
observe that the detachment is not possible, what is its effect on science? In this essay, I will try
to present two solutions developed by Theodor Adorno and Sandra Harding. I consider that
these solutions can be combined for maximizing objectivity in science and changing the society
for the better. I will also present Sarah Hoagland’s thoughts about disseminating knowledge
and compare them with Harding’s solution.

During the time, natural sciences have been influenced by different practices/ways of thinking
such as mechanism, naturalism, positivism, anti-positivism etc. This also happens in social
sciences, where the most common practices are empirical. There is a common ground for both
types of science which describes that the maximum objectivity in research must be value-free.
However, one can’t forget that every author of a study is an agent in a certain socio-political
environment. The issue appears when this value-freedom shapes how the researchers see and
analyze the object or phenomenon of study. For example, Adorno sees the empirical social
studies grounded in a certain understanding of society which reinforces this understanding.
This empirical research is not really telling what society truly is, it only reflects and reinforces
our current way of managing it. Thus, the one who wants to be distant, becomes very involved.
The researcher offers and hides values from the dominant discourse to the object of study. Our
practices and language generate a reality that we assume, or reinforce a reality which is already
there. There are several examples which confirm this thesis like how the linguistic and visual
metaphors affect the scientific language or how social realities are embedded in different
algorithms (GPT-3 language model produces racist stereotypes or Amazon’s AI recruiting tool
shows bias against women). Science which tries to describe or predict the reality ends up
creating a reality. It aspires to be value-free, but it helps the power by producing and
reproducing the world according to a dominant ideology (Sandra Harding states that historically
value-free science was a political choice).

So, what are the alternatives taking into consideration that the scientific claim can’t be free of
ideology and always contains some assumptions about our society? Adorno gives us a solution
about how empirical findings and theory must change each other. The first step is to adapt the
concept (object of study) with the observation and not rely on what is socially acknowledged
(like different theoretical assumptions). The empirical research must always be interpreted and
understood in relation with the objectivity of society which includes exchange relations,
political institution, dominance ideology etc. The second step, which is characteristic for the
Frankfurt school, is to change the society. The whole project is not only to describe the system,
but to a face bine intr-un mod pompos. In this way, Adorno doesn’t want science to be only
descriptive or objective in an apolitical sense, it must be politically committed. The theory must
have a certain normative point of view, without trying to be ideology free. This political
commitment must be put in a framework that has to do with our normative aspirations. It must
answer “What do we want society to be?” or “How knowledge can promote good human
goals?”. For Adorno, the object of study is the gap between the opinions and what theory
recognizes as an objective reality. These mismatches point out ways in which we can get out of
the dominant cycle, go to a new direction – a better direction. Understanding the gap between
empirical opinions and objective reality is essential. To fulfill the task of changing the reality one
must acknowledge and make use of the tensions relieved by these gaps.

But the methods and language used are embedded in our current society and are related to the
dominant ideology. We try to undermine the dominant discourse, but it shapes our thinking,
language or reasoning. Even for Adorno, if we describe what we see in terms that we already
have, we are stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle. Thus, the solution of Sandra Harding 1 can be
used to better understand these gaps between theory and empirical findings, to complete
Adorno’s solution. In order to maximize the objectivity (to reach what Sandra Harding calls
strong objectivity), the view must be extended by integrating the most unprivileged and
marginalized groups in studies and to negotiate methods, ideas or tools used in research, with
them. It is not only about a politically motivated project or social justice, but the unprivileged
groups have an epistemological advantage: they are bilingual. They know the dominant course
(they are adapted to it in order to survive), but they still have their own point of view, discourse
and ontological system. But this mediation between groups must be done from an equal
position, so their projects and communities must be supported. The project is to find ways to
be on the same page with each other to enable common action. This solution agrees and can be
complementary with Adorno. Thus, it is not only about obtaining a good result, but the social
commitment action becomes embedded in research and in how research is done (through
ideals such as integration of marginalized groups, providing support and resources for
disadvantaged communities).

In contrast with Harding’s support for integrative knowledge, Hoagland promotes separatist
knowledge. Her main thesis is that disseminating knowledge can do more harm than good in
some cases. It is a socially motivated project which, similar to Adorno’s, wants to promote the
human good. But is this a reliable solution? Aren’t the ones in charge powerful enough to
access a specific knowledge if they really want? Aren’t their tools and methods powerful
enough that we can’t hide even minor aspects of social life? I think the problem presented by
Hoagland can be very well adapted to Harding’s solution. Groups made up of different social
categories can negotiate about what should or shouldn’t be stimulated. An example could be a
study about what are the prerequisites for a group of people to dominate another group of
people. Will this study be conducted or published if the group of people is made up entirely of
white male researchers (nuj cum sa schimbaici sa zic ca s din aia care domina)? There is a
chance that the answer would be yes. Now how about the same study, but conducted by a
group made up of intersectional people (different ethnics, feminist etc.)? Negotiating we realize
how inappropriate it’s to publish a study like this in a power-oriented society 2.

1
Adorno and Harding solutions are referring especially to social sciences. However, according to Harding, natural
sciences are social sciences (social institutions which negotiate their power and financial positions). For Adorno,
natural sciences are different than social studies because, in the case of the first ones, the object of study is
homogenous.
2
The first group of researchers even if they don’t want to do harm, they experience the notion of “equal rights
between different social groups” in a different manner than marginalized people.
How about going to the other extreme? How about making all knowledge available for the wide
public? Aren’t some types of separatist knowledge doing more harm than integrative
knowledge? Think about examples like military projects, projects which develop new ways of
spying or manipulating people into making different decisions. I consider that we would benefit
more if the knowledge will become more open and will be adapted to everyone’s language. We
must create specific institutions for these purposes. An example for this case is the Facebook–
Cambridge Analytica data scandal and how the rights of using personal data by different
platforms were changed after this scandal. How many people knew, before this event, that data
from the Internet can be used by political organizations to influence personal decisions for the
elections (and I’m not only talking about lower class people, but also about the people with
superior education)? Nowadays, how many people know the negative impact of the multitude
of ads that we are daily exposed to? How many people are conscious about the economic
decisions that affect our lives directly? Therefore, the knowledge must become more open and
must be adapted for every category of people. However, there should also be a strong interest
in provoking the general curiosity towards knowledge, to make people aware of how important
this knowledge is. In this way we encounter another idea of Adorno about free time, where we
mainly reproduce the class relations and not use it for improving the society.

FARA PARTEA DE JOS:

who is courios about what? are we curious about discovering the basic laws of the universe?
finding the minimum set of universal laws? or suntem de ex curiosi sa reproducem anumite
efecte? si si in cazul asta e vorba de social negotiating + negotiating images of what science is,
and whether we are using one kind of science to justify putting money in other kind of science

when you recognize an illusion an ideology a common error you need to ask not only what
historically caused it but what s the effect on reality of this illusion because when people
believe in exchange value, the social reality changes in certain way, it affects social reality; what
kind of social product/ideaological product/ideas/arguments may change social belief in such a
way that will change social reality

strong objectivity alligns very well with dominant discourse. integrating and appropating,
diversity