There is a prevailing belief among many ideologies that is concerning: that objective truth does not exist. Among social justice and feminist theorists, this idea stems from the fact that the pursuit of objective truth was unfortunately monopolized by white men in the sciences and academia throughout much of history. Due to the lack of voices from women and people of color in the construction of facts, reason and objectivity is then a biased tool used by the white patriarchy to maintain power.
This bias leads people to believe that emotion and compassion must be used over reason and facts to make decisions. Although it may feel that changing the narrative to value emotion over reason would empower women and people of color, this line of thinking is troubling, especially considering that the discrediting of facts is a tool used by President Trump and the alt-right
Let it be absolutely clear: the objective truth and facts exist. The challenge is finding the absolute truth. Biases do exist and can muddle the search for the ultimate truth, but that should not destroy our faith in the power and existence of objectivity. If we give up on establishing objectivity, then any argument is justified as long as someone “feels” that it is true.
This logic is how many Trump supporters operate. For example, feeling that immigrants are taking jobs and creating more crime gives justification for stricter policies even though statistics prove otherwise. Trump’s rallies are nothing but the passions of angry, white men being validated by an opportunist.
Now, if people are claiming something is a “fact” based on new studies that have not been replicated or peer reviewed, then of course the fact should be questioned. The strong case for making sure more women and people of color are in the sciences and academia is that diverse groups replicating or peer reviewing studies can help to ensure that biases are diminished. Once something is concluded with certainty to be factual, there should be little doubt of the validity. Gravity and a round earth are not social constructs developed by white men; they are facts.
We should not dismiss the legitimacy of when people feel hurt or mistreated, but we need to use caution when using emotions to find the remedy. The idea that the more passionate people are the more justified they are in their demands is false. For example, I may feel hungry, but just because I feel like eating junk food does not make it good for me. The science that has determined what foods are generally better for me should guide my dieting.
However, there is a legitimate place for passion in our discourse. Decision making on ethical matters can be, in many cases, without a clear right answer. By being compassionate and empathic for how various people will feel, our emotional intelligence can guide us to figure out what is the most ethical decision. All the same, a good conclusion cannot be reached without grounded facts and objectivity to draw on. When starting with the premise that no fact is truly reliable, there is no stable foundation to even start effective decision-making. There is a time and place for both passion and objectivity; however, we should be cautious about applying them in the wrong situation.