Subjective/Objective Dichotomy an Over-simplification?

The three readings draw a similar argumentative position (particularly Daston): that is, they point to the dubious veracity of representation (e.g characterization and idealization) of objects, cutlures, people. However, to underpin this dubiousness only through differentiation of what is considered “subjective” and what is considered “objective” is, from my view, a simplification. To complicate this tension, it would be necessary (I think) to explore whether outside of the objective anthropological domain, what actually constitutes a notion of the objective, if there even is a notion? In this sense, how can we answer the question of the definite-ness of an action rather than through subjective/objective interpretation? Is it a matter of perspective, of totally relegating the anthropologist to a non-existent, passive role, of solely one who observes and catalogues and presents rather than one who interprets?  Further, in a particular culturally context, is the notion of objectivity synonymous with the notion of what is immutable?