I notice that I tend to draw all kinds of connections between readings and classes now.

When I was reading the 5th Chapter about feminism, Barnard’s interpretation of Attfield’s opinion of design history captured my eyes:

The facts of design history do not exist ‘out there’, objectively and independently of the design historian’s consciousness.

Also, just a few lines below, Attfield quotes Bourdieu’s idea about the attempted ‘objective’ investigation:

[is] always bound to remain partial and therefore false, so long as it fails to include the point of view from which it speaks and so fails to construct the game as a whole.

These make a lot of sense to me and make me think about something Shaowen has talked about in Methods class. The issue of bias is discussed nearly each class. When considering about bias, Shaowen will always say that she believes bias cannot be eliminated. As long as we are human beings, we will always have bias. What we can only do it to take this bias into consideration, and this is exactly the same idea with Bourdieu’s. I have read about another discussion on objectivity in a Chinese journalist’s book. What she says is that she thinks only when one understands one’s own bias and also the bias of the interviewee can one approach objectivity more. To understand is very difficult, but probably it is the only way.