When I talk about feminism, sometimes people comment that I am “too passionate.” Passion is subjective, it brings out emotions, and it is one of the greatest indicators that we care. I learned pretty quickly that all of this seems to be bad in a discussion, especially in class. But why are we supposed to be so “objective,” and is there even something like true objectivity?

Humans are social beings, and social interactions lead to our emotional responses. I argue that we as a species are inherently emotional, at least the vast majority of us. I bring this up because I think this is the first flaw in our system of “objectivity”: there can never be anything truly objective because an objective truth does not exist.

Scientific evidence can provide us with valuable empirical evidence. But, let’s think about how this empirical evidence is collected: it is collected by people that have an inherent bias stemming form their upbringing, cultural and social background, and language. If that individual with all their backstory develops a research question, that question already directs the research to have a certain outcome. We also need to look at who pays scientists and has interest in how the public opinion perceives certain products or issues. One example here could be the extensive campaign by the U.S. government to subsidize and support dairy farmers by funding studies and promoting the consumption of milk and other dairy products.

Researchers have inherent biases that are based on their personal background, but are responsible for creating “facts” that are perceived as “normal” or “natural” and influence our opinion. There might not even be one objective truth due to our individual perception, and also because we are inherently emotional beings. All of that challenges our notion of the perfect discourse being only rational, fact-based, and most importantly objective.

I am wondering why, instead of acknowledging that we might not be able to judge a situation objectively, do we try and superficially create an objective narrative. Emotions in many ways determine our reality. Think for example about how, after you lost a friend or a lover, the same activities that brought you much joy suddenly seem meaningless, even though the activity has not changed at all. However, your emotions have changed.

Lastly, objectivity has long been used as a tool to discredit writers that do not belong to the white, cisgender, heterosexual, and often male, narrative. The writing of women, people of color, and other groups is perceived as an opinion piece because for too long has white maleness been invisible and seen as the true objectivity. We have to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a view from nowhere. The perfect observer is inevitably imagined as a white, middle-class man from an English-speaking country because he is the only one whose race and gender and class is invisible. There is a myth that his views are unbiased are from ‘nowhere,’ because they are everywhere.

So maybe, instead of trying to shut them out, we should let our emotions be part of our story. Passion especially can enhance a discussion rather than disturb it. Because if we are passionate, that means that we care and are motivated to change the problem. I will always prefer a passionate person in a discussion over a person that says “I don’t care.” Because if we stop caring, we stop acting. Margaret Mead sums it up when she said, “Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world. For, indeed, that is all who ever have.” So, imagine what could happen if we all cared a little more.