Objectivity vs. Subjectivity Theme Analysis

When the biologist first arrives in Area X, she prizes objectivity. As scientists, she and the other members of the team rely on facts: they collect samples and measurements, which are meant to help them classify Area X’s characteristics. At the same time, the biologist realizes that Area X is skewing their perceptions of the world around them, and the team suddenly disagrees about basic realities: is the passageway that leads to Area X a tunnel or a tower? Is the tunnel alive or not? That a group of scientists cannot agree on foundational facts makes the very project of interpreting reality “objectively” seem impossible. As the biologist observes, “nothing that lived and breathed was truly objective”—including herself. 

When the expedition first arrives at Area X, the group’s fixation on facts and figures runs into trouble. Early on, the biologist writes of a “feeling I often had when out in the wilderness: that things were not quite what they seemed, and I had to fight against the sensation because it could overwhelm my scientific objectivity.” She wants to observe things factually, but she knows on some level that Area X is distorting how she observes the world around her. This tension between fact and perception becomes more apparent when the team first encounters a mysterious tunnel with a staircase spiraling down into the ground. Initially, the psychologist tries to emphasize that they need to have “faith in [their] measurements,” citing some facts about the height and diameter of the structure. But the biologist suspects that the psychologist is simply trying to “reassure herself” in the face of the tunnel’s strangeness—in fact, the data she collects can’t explain anything important about the tunnel at all. The team quickly realizes that they cannot even agree on basic facts about what the tunnel is, which seriously casts doubt on their ability to see their environment objectively. While the other three members think of the structure as a “tunnel,” the biologist emphasizes over and over that she can only see it as a “Tower.” In hindsight, the biologist marks this as “the first irrational thought [she] had once [they] had reached [their] destination.” The biologist recognizes that the environment itself is causing changes in her perception, preventing her from seeing anything objectively.

Over time, the biologist’s perception becomes even more obviously affected by her environment. On the group’s first descent into the Tower, the biologist inhales spores from the walls. When she and the surveyor return a day later, the tower suddenly seems to be living and breathing—something that the surveyor, who did not inhale spores, cannot perceive. The surveyor comments, “You saw something that wasn't there,” while the biologist thinks in response, “You can’t see what is there.” It’s not clear who—if either of them—is seeing “reality.” Moreover, the fact that the biologist doesn’t press her case suggests that she’s giving up on the idea of shared facts or objective reality altogether and accepting the fact that everyone will perceive their environment somewhat differently. The fact that the biologist’s perception is affected specifically by inhaling the spores makes a subtler point about perception, too: that one can never objectively perceive something of which they are a part. The spores are a physical indication that the biologist is slowly becoming part of her environment, and the more integrated into her environment she becomes, the more her perception changes. “Will I melt into this landscape […]?” she wonders. “Will I be aware that anything is wrong or out of place?” With this, the biologist acknowledges that becoming a part of Area X alters her perception of even basic things about it, like what is “wrong” or “out of place.” But since a person is always a part of their environment, their perception is always somewhat clouded by their subjective experiences and judgments.

This is also related to the biologist’s unreliability as a narrator. The biologist reveals partway through her account that she has not been “fully honest” with the reader, explaining that her husband was on the 11th expedition to Area X, and that his journey heavily influenced her own decision to go. She writes, “I know this information might not be hard for anyone to find out, but I have hoped that in reading this account, you might find me a credible, objective witness.” Withholding this information, then, was an attempt to prevent the reader from thinking that she was biased—but the mere fact that she chooses to reveal information about herself sparingly suggests that she is constantly manipulating her narrative, and that it isn’t truly objective. She later writes, “It may be clear by now that I am not always good at telling people things they feel they have a right to know […]. My reason for this is, again, the hope that any reader's initial opinion in judging my objectivity might not be influenced by these details.” This suggests that “objectivity” is a matter of style rather than truth. To be seen as “objective,” one has to appear to be a neutral and rational party—but one can never be neutral about their own perception, and the experience that the biologist is describing is highly irrational. So, in this light, it would be impossible to present it “objectively”—she can only relay her subjective perceptions. 

In the book’s final pages, the biologist admits that when recalling details about the environments she has experienced, she “remake[s] them in [her] mind with every new thought, every remembered detail, and each time they are slightly different.” In this way, the book confirms that being immersed in something—whether it is an environment or simply memories of an environment—makes that experience inherently subjective.