In Daston’s article, I was intrigued by the juxtaposition of objectivity and subjectivity. This idea of “moral objectivity” seems to be one that pervades throughout many different fields and contexts. It is generally looked up as favorable to be objective, to not insert one’s own opinion where it doesn’t belong. It allows the reader or the analyzer to draw his/her own conclusions and preserves the nature of the topic.
What I thought was interesting, however, is that this piece was coupled with the Dumont article at the end. I found this article to interesting as it dealt with an anthropologist that didn’t seem to take objectivity into much account during his fieldwork. It was written that he would often position people to take their pictures and would wear guns and eat beef, despite that not being the custom. It would seem to me that an anthropologist would want to observe the most natural and normal way of life in the place that they are studying, and not insert so much of their personal ideas or themselves into the equation. It brings up the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity that Daston wrote about. Is objectivity always better? Is Dumont’s research less-worthy or accurate because he did not take a completely hands-off approach?
I actually found this idea of subjectivity in Daston’s work to be refreshing. I think sometimes we try to focus on being completely objective and in doing so we take away a human element in our research. Daston came to study the people in Tengalapatti, but he did so in living with them. He brought his own habits and customs to the people in Tengalapatti, as he too was human. Therefore, he learned from the people of the Tengalapatti, and they also learned from him. To me, this signifies a more real and natural human interaction, even though it isn’t entirely objective. How can we know how much is too much when it comes to subjectivity?
No comments:
Post a Comment