One of the more obnoxious trends of the past several years has been STEM fetishism, the widespread assumption that particular fields of study are inherently more real, useful, or productive than others. Although it is often unspoken, the crux of the argument in favor of STEM fields is that they do not resist quantification — and hence are more applicable, measurable, and accountable than those hazy, contradictory social sciences (to say nothing of the humanities).

So strong is the assumed discontinuity between qualitative study and jobs, in fact, that we now have a feverish, bipartisan push to churn out STEM graduates even though we don’t actually need them. But this tendency to favor the objective over the subjective, the definite over the indefinite, is not a new development. Neither is the tendency for rational empiricism to lapse into unthinking ideology. Marxist theorists have long noted the affinities between quantification and mystification. Lukács, for instance, saw capitalism’s need to rationalize and reify the world as an outgrowth of the fetishism of commodities. As the commodity-form becomes universal, he argues, the qualitative, social aspects of life (including consciousness) succumb to the quantitative equivalence implicit in exchange value, becoming vehicles for greater capital accumulation.

In the current era, in which we are subjected not only to capital but to the tyranny of the wonk, it’s important to remember that empirical data still lends itself to mystification, especially when cited by mainstream politicians. Luckily, though, you don’t need dialectics to pierce through the “objective” façade of most reified facts — just some critical thinking skills and an awareness of the class struggle. (It also helps to have some data of your own.) As a Floridian, the slipperiness of statistics is never more apparent to me than when Rick Scott gloats about the state’s “recovery,” stressing the number of jobs created while ignoring their quality. If a recent report is any indication, Florida’s “recovery” is less notable for its quantitative improvements than for radical, qualitative shifts in the structure of the state economy — and not for the better.