Disclaimer of Subjectivity
“I think…”
“I believe…”
“I feel…”
“...for me.”
“...in my opinion.”
“...according to me.”
“...from my experience.”
Disclaimers of subjectivity, often used and impulsively invoked as if they are disfluencies, serve a few major functions. The functions weaken the meaning of what is expressed in terms of reason. Importantly, the functions dismiss any natural impulse to look for an argument. Many individuals speak them pre-reflexively, politicians employ them strategically, and the next generation parrot the practice compulsively unless they stop to examine the meaning and cause of what they are doing through these expressions.
Excusing Argument
Closely related to and based on the other functions, excusing responsibility is a bit less self evident and more pre-reflexive, but still an intentional move. When the phrase is removed, suddenly the statement is laid bare—missing something, awkwardly existing in space, naked. It does not conform to reason and language rules. What is missing is the argument. This absence of argument was weakly hidden, thinly veiled by the presence of the disclaimer. The expression of the statement now exists in the world and clearly lacks warrants. But the disclaimer served as the argument—nothing too strong, but a powerful positioning. The weakness is desired, since reality is difficult to pin down and the responsibility of providing an argument is heavy.
Avoiding Reason
While making a clear statement is an affirmation of what is thought to be common sense, when we insert a disclaimer of subjectivity common sense is abandoned in preference to a claimed unique perspective. It is difficult to carry out a dialogue since there is basically no interaction of ideas, only a juxtaposition of them. If the interlocutor points out a problem in the author’s idea, the author will be able to avoid the challenge to examine it, to appeal instead to the right to opinion in order to maintain it, dismissing or refusing to participate in the problematization. When the author is functioning in personal logic, anything can be claimed, irrespective of soundness or groundedness. Any counter-arguments or problems pointed out can be attributed to the interlocutor’s “lack of understanding”, because the meaning of what has been said is not common but very particular to its author. Although this lack would more socially be labeled lack of empathy or lack of desire to belong.
Expressing Compulsively
Compulsive expression is a common move in a culture which employs social niceties to cover for a lack of respect for individuals and ideas in civil discourse. Each individual feels a desire to be acknowledged, conflating freedom of speech with entitlement to be heard. The phrases declare that what is stated is not meant to be something the speaker states as fact, not claiming objectivity, not engaging in reason. There is no need for warrant in the expression of the position, the phrases want to claim, since any conflict is undesirable. In this moment, from limited experience, an idea is pressing to be expressed, like verbal diarrhea. But maybe the position will change from new information, from someone else’s expression of perspective, or from the next whim. Compulsivity is usually a kind of unconscious ritual that is meant to relieve anxiety—perhaps the anxiety that so often accompanies responsibility.
Diminishing Ideas
“This is only my view” sounds like a very kind claim—the author does not wish to impose his idea, there may be problems with it, it should be treated as “only a view”. In this way the author himself discounts the importance of his claim. Social norms bring groups to agree that something asserted can be assumed to be believed, with credibility, warrants, and reason, at least probably, rationally, reliably true. A disclaimer decreases that assumption into a speculative and unreliable degree of certainty. The statement could be an excellent idea, but because it was presented with a disclaimer of subjectivity it has been diminished. A response just as natural as engaging with the idea is for the interlocutors to respond with disinterest in personal whims. Good ideas can be easily dismissed too soon with the very help of their author. This is a commonly used positioning: in habit by those with low self worth, in reverse psychology strategically by those seeking affirmation, and in defense by those who are passively surviving.
Maintaining Persona
Disclaimers of subjectivity are considered by the author as a way to avoid looking ignorant by distancing the author from the idea. When something is asserted confidently as fact, there is a psychological association the author and listener make between the reliability of the statement and the character of the author. If later the statement is proved to be wrong, the author and the listeners to some degree discredit the author as ignorant and wrong. By diminishing the idea with the disclaimer in the first place, the author believes they preemptively create a clause for disassociating the idea from the author. It was the single idea that was wrong, which should not reflect on the one who spoke it, the disclaimer is intended to assert. Although if the idea is proven to have value, the stipulation allows the author to later claim the statement as his own, a nice little trick. With a disclaimer, the belief of the author is that it is more the fault of the listeners for interpreting the statement is reliable than the author for expressing it when the idea is found to be fallible.
Positioning Ideas
Building on other foundational functions, the phrase positions the idea as existing as an expression of personal belief, not something to argue against as a rational idea. It is revealing of the self, a vulnerability which takes courage and daring. In social roles, conformity is desired and dissent is deviant. So a response is supposed to affirm in order to fulfill a social role, to support the individual, to acknowledge sameness, to identify belonging in the group. The idea is not proposed to be considered and challenged. The disclaimer seems respectful on the surface, since others are welcomed to share the position or not. But the position comes with a rather difficult challenge: no argument, just a personal belief, which means any counterargument is an attack on the person and therefore offensive. Counterarguments against personal positions are automatically hostile since they would be ad hominem, insensitive, usually failing to move the dialogue to the realm of rationality. The other is welcomed to respond with their own expression of position, but reason seems inappropriate in a space of sharing, not thinking.
Imposing View
Drawing on a right to have an opinion, the author renounces any requirement to support his claims and demands confirmation even from those who disagree with him. “I disagree with him, but he’s entitled to his opinion” is the polite response rarely voiced. It is a common phenomenon in most liberal societies: a tolerance of diversity is misunderstood as an imposition to accept without explicit justification, what dissenting others maintain as “true for someone”. Even if opposing views can be supported with argument and evidence, when someone inserts a disclaimer of subjectivity they demand to be allowed to contribute their position. The argument can be missing, or present but unsound, or present and sound but problematic, yet the author will take it personally if his idea is rejected. He will experience a response as a rejection of himself and accuse the others of imposing, when actually he is imposing to be allowed to participate in rational dialogue without adherence to the rules of reason. The attachment of the disclaimer of subjectivity is supposed to prohibit others from, or blame them for, a personal attack.
Fearing Potency
When an individual makes a statement they cause some idea to exist in the world, and ideas have consequences. The effects can be at least partly undesirable, so the author will be to blame. Thus mentioning that he made the claim humbly or for himself is an affirmation meant to excuse in advance any effects—the speaker is afraid of his potency. Disclaimers of subjectivity can be a way to speak moderately, as opposed to the powerful tone contained in a daring statement expressed like an undeniable truth. The individual who uses such disclaimers may intend to present himself as not too proud or confident. A manifestation of humbleness is meant to be inviting the other to agree or to doubt. It is something like a proposal to enter partisanship even if it is about something apparently true. Manifestations of potency are likely to provoke emotional reactions: rebellion, dissent, obedience, or compliance. So adding a disclaimer of subjectivity is sometimes a way of expressing humility and minimizing the perception of responsibility.