Beyond the dichotomy of subjective, objective debate

Historically researchers argued on two different views of generating knowledge. Some researchers, especially in the natural science believe that knowledge is objectively produced: that is ‘knowledge without a knowing subject'. This kind of knowledge is gained by analysing the structure, the objective conditions and the objective relationship. These researchers contended that it is through controlled experiments that one can reach the truth. For a long time, such kind of objective knowledge was on the landscape of the social sciences and especially education as well. The researcher in the social science discipline attempted to objectively define theories which could be applied in a broader context or generalized in different contexts and settings. However this proved to be a deficit thinking, because such kind of epistemology ignored human experience and social science has to do with human beings and their subjectivity. Thus researchers then argued for the contrary to be true: that individual construct knowledge subjectively. Researchers in this view contended that this kind of knowledge is subject to context, time, individual, and personal; it is partly intuitive and affective. They asserted that such subjective knowledge may not be relevant to everyone other than the person holding it or the context it is constituted. This was termed phenomenological epistemology. 

For Bourdieu both kind of knowledge generation is true and important. However taking objectivity and subjectivity in its extreme forms will not do justice. He insisted that being subjective (too personal and context-dependent) and being objective (too general and distant from the people and situation under study) is a dichotomy of knowledge which is problematic.

Bourdieu’s theory of practice attempts to go beyond this dichotomy and finds a theory robust enough to be objective and generalizable while at the same time account for individual and subjective thoughts and actions. He called for analysis of the objective structure in order to understand the logic behind. 

Gift exchange: an example 

We can observe a gift exchange between two people objectively as well as subjectively. Objectively it is the physical give and take between two people while subjectively it is the experience that count by the giver and the receiver. Both kinds of views are true in their own place. By looking at it further it is evident that a third order knowledge is developed by the interaction between the two people. Subjectively the gift is received by the receiver and the giver will not expect a return. However in a particular cultural conditions and the value system, this return takes place anyhow. Thus an objective physical return takes place which then qualifies for a gift exchange.  The knowledge to explore here is what is knowingly or unknowingly brought into the decision, thought and action. It requires that the invisible operation to be revealed to understand or explore the motives behind in such a way as to bring forward the ‘unrecognized’ and/or ‘misrecognized’ aspects of the gift exchange.