We all know black’s the color at the opposite end from white where no light is visible. Despite knowing this, if I asked you to look at the following image and tell me which one is black, you might run into some problems:

I recently had dinner with a liberal friend in Seattle. He told me about a co-worker of his who held some conservative political views, views my friend subsequently defined as, Problematic. 

Problematic currently has a lot of cachet with certain liberals. If you lean left and don’t care for something, it’s likely you’ll call it problematic. Conservatives also dislike things, but tend to describe them in words like dying or exposed or under-fire. Probably there are deeper sociological revelations buried there, though I pity the fool tasked with mining them. 

Adj.

Problematic is the adjectival form of the noun problem. Much like black, we all know what a problem is. Problems have a host of objective components, but like black, once we take a closer look we realize some wrangling is required. Specifically, we have to agree that the thing being defined as ‘problematic’ is actually a problem. The key word is that piddly little pronoun, We. More on that in a moment. 

Problem comes to us from the Greeks, who used it to refer to a barrier or obstacle. Like black and problem, we all know what a barrier is. It has a very clear definition. It possesses many objective components, which sounds promising until we notice that defining it also requires some shimmying. 

Shimmying is where we’ll stop, as it’s likely attentive readers have already realized how objectively subjective language is. (Out of curiosity, when you read shimmying did you imagine a carpenter propping-up a sloped windowsill, a woman dancing in a slinky and seductive manner, or something else all together?) Whatever crossed your mind, it should be clear that what we call objectivity, especially in language, is rarely little more than consensus. 

Many people may find that last statement problematic. For them it can be, just as for me it’s not. Who’s right?

The Objective-ish

Pickier readers may take issue with the concept of ‘objective,’ which has been introduced in a fairly freewheeling way. There is a world of difference between consensus and objective, mostly because the latter is terribly challenging to define. If you’ll allow me some license, I’m going to continue using objective and do so in a squishy, subjective manner along the lines of: We know the objective is not empirically-objective, and instead refers only to the consensual, but we’re keeping it around to emphasize the psychological significance that occurs when we elevate something to a purportedly ‘objective’ status. 

Enter the We

I noted above that in order to define something as problematic, we first have to agree that it’s actually a problem. We can accomplish this by focusing on the noun in question — say, someone’s political views — but eventually we’re going to have to back up and establish who We are. To put that another way, we have to ask ourselves, For whom is this a problem?

We is a fun pronoun, especially when used by royalty. In contrast, I is a lonely, mangy, sickly looking thing. The statement, I am the one who finds this problematic, doesn’t carry much water. It lacks substance and would benefit from a We, but who is that we?

We is those of us who know who we are. We shores-up the lonely I’s independence by incorporating him into a larger group, as in, We are the ones who find this problematic. Get a large enough We on your side, and you’ve defined what’s problematic. 

Quibbles and Bits and Bits and Bits

Some may quibble with the word, “enough.” I acknowledge it’s a vague modifier. The problem is that it’s very challenging to define the necessary percentile of supporters to move something from the subjective to the objective, or from the I to the We. Such movements are often complicated by power. Sometimes power reflects the majority of a population while other times it doesn’t; sometimes it refers to those with more guns, though now and then weapons are outwitted by the flimsy pencil recording the definition, or the eraser that subsequent elides it. Further, all of this operates in time, which means the relations involved are constantly changing. To return to the above example: with enough agreement We may claim to have figured out what’s problematic, but that’ll only be the case until enough people leave the coalition, at which point I’ll be stuck in the problematic morass already described. 

Porn!, or What you were waiting for all along!

A useful way to think about this might be via the lens of pornography. In a legal and thus publicly defined sense, there was a time when enough people believed that pornographic books, magazines and movies were problematic. Like consensus, legal and public are several time zones away from the objective, and even when such things were illegal many people had no problems with them. Over time, things changed. Pornography ceased to be legally problematic, and nowadays these materials are legally protected. None of that impacts your right to find them personally problematic. 

The Attempted Upgrade

When my liberal friend called his conservative co-worker’s views problematic, he attempted to upgrade his personal viewpoint (I) to the status of objective truth (We). That’s understandable. As mentioned, that I’s wobbly and needs company. But the move is also also misguided. We know this because he would recoil if the same were done to him.

Remember, the key emphasis here is psychological, not epistemological. I believe my friend knew his co-worker’s views weren’t problematic in any empirically-objective sense, but in using the word how he did he sought to imbue it with a We-meaning instead of an I-meaning. I think he was trying to say: I’m part of a group of people who knows and defines what is and is-not problematic; by calling this problematic, We’ve drawn a line that divides us-who-know from those who stand on its opposite side; that line is drawn horizontally, and We who stand on the proper side are situated on a level of humanity well above those below. 

Curiously, some people still scratch their heads and wonder why we’re such a mess.

The Wobbling I Explored Further

Let’s explore the attempted upgrade by taking a moment to consider the I’s attempting to make this transcendent move. This happened to me earlier today: I walked down the hallway to the bathroom intending to clip my fingernails. Along the way I noticed the bed was unmade. I stopped to make the bed, only to realize the sheets were dirty. I wrangled them free and stuffed them in the laundry machine, and after pressing Start I noticed the cats’ litter box was full. In the spirit of a plucky, aspirational miner, I dug out several nuggets and transported them to the garbage outside. As the lid clattered down and the cold rain smacked my cheeks I suddenly wondered, Wait—what was I supposed to be doing?

Now, do you honestly think that wobbly, unfocused little I can elevate its wobbly, unfocused little opinions to a status greater than its wobbly, unfocused little life? Neither do I. Or should I say, We don’t think so either.

An Alternative Phrasing

As is often the case, when it came to his co-workers’s political views, my friend would’ve been better off couching his statement in something that indicated the subjectivity inherently involved, such as I think… I find… I believe… In my opinion…

Many people wince at this sort of talk, especially when it comes to subjects near and dear to our hearts — God, sexuality, politics, language, baseball’s designated hitter rule. They find subjectively-grounded language to be soft, wishy-washy and opaque. It can sound that way, but speaking in this manner has one significant upside: it’s truer to reality. 

Chartsengrafs

Anytime you’re discussing a noun, it’s extremely likely your opinions about it are that and only that: your opinions. To make this more clear, compare the differences between the following statements:

 

I believe Jesus is God	(We know) Jesus is God
In my opinion gay people are sinful	(We know) Gay people are sinful
I think X-politician is a jackass	(We know) X-politician is a jackass
There ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter	There ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter

 

The left column reflects the reality of your relationship to the nouns in question, while the right wrongfully elevates your subjectivity to a level it’s incapable of obtaining. Attentive readers have likely noticed the exception proving the rule. We all know there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. We’ve seen what Ohtani can do — let the pitchers bat!

The Human Element

If you’re human, your constant temptation will be to move the left column right. You’ll try to upgrade your opinion to knowledge by shifting from I-alone to We-as-collective. If you don’t believe me, or if you’re not a human, I recommend trying the following:

Pay close attention to how you think and talk. If you’re honest — and I realize that’s asking a lot, especially for the humans — but if you can pull off some honest self-reflection I think you’ll quickly find that the majority of your speech typically follows this pattern: you take a personal opinion, belief, assumption, hope or fear, twist it inside out and all about, and then try to make it TRUE FOR ALL AND FOR ALL TIMES!

A Concluding Caveat

I can see how someone could misread the above and conclude that I’m suggesting everything in life is subjective. I think the DH rule proves that true objectivity is available. Further, to claim everything is subjective would be to commit the exact error I just cautioned against. Instead, I’m saying this: based on personal experience, I believe the gross majority of what crosses our minds and passes our lips is an attempt to plonk our wobbly little selves on a pinnacle of objectivity we simply do not have the strength, coordination or balance to stand upon.

A crankier way to describe this would be to say that we’re prideful, delusional beings with a failed understanding of our selves and our locations in the cosmos. Since nobody enjoys the cranky stuff, you can ignore that sentence. But please remember this: until you can persuasively argue for their relevance, your opinions are just your opinions. As such, they’re valid only for you. Making them into anything greater is — well, problematic.