Objectivity

The Daston paper asks a very interesting question. "How could it be that the very objectivity that seemed to insulate science from the moral.. simultaneously lay claim to moral dignity of the highest order?" The author then goes on to assert that this is one of the negative qualities of objectivity. 

This is an extremely interesting point, because scientists are always trying to remove themselves from their research. This is especially important in the natural sciences. There should be no subjectivity when conducting basic biology or chemistry research and the reasoning is sound. Any subjectivity would systematically skew any data and objectivity confers additional morality onto the findings. 

However, especially after the lecture on conducting ethnography, this raised an interesting question. Anthropology is the science of studying other people, other cultures. Should the aim of an anthropologist be subjectivity? Is that even possible? Although I do agree that to some extent, anthropologists should try and be objective, I do not believe it is possible to completely remove oneself. I actually believe this would be detrimental, because the science is based on people studying other people and our own lenses and understandings and emotions are key to understanding those of others. 

The major question is, what should be the goal when conducting ethnographic research, and if some subjectivity is warranted or even beneficial, where is that line drawn?