OBJECTIVITY

There is a very important issue regarding anthropological fieldwork and that is the question of OBJECTIVITY. From all of my readings in this course, I have concluded that objectivity was something that was expected, desired and constantly striven for in anthropological fieldwork, from the ethnographer himself. In recent years, however, the trend seems to be a general admittance to the fact that true objectivity in the field is impossible and completely unattainable. More relaxed versions of anthropological fieldwork have appeared as well as an acceptance of the simple fact that we are all humans. Above all, in order to become an anthropologist, you must obviously be a socialized human being. Socialization is something that ingrains us with morals, values, personalities and our own histories and by no means can this be completely dropped. True objectivity remains an ideological impossibility. It's a nice thought though! I still do believe that it is something to strive for or at least get as close as possible to, (says the novice), BUT we can never fully help who we are to some degree. I believe, however, that we have more capabilities to add/drop personality traits, however, to try to do this while in the field would have to be utterly confusing to do while simultaneously studying the "other" in full detail.
This desire for objectivity requires some self-identification in order to differentiate between what is for example truly grotesque and wrong or just by American standards: "Between the ostensibly diverging objectives of self-realization and self-transcendence lies a common prerequisite task of self-identification". (Dyck, p.36). Our experiences and personality traits work as a filter for what we see and how we interpret what we see. If we make ourselves go through some sort of self-identification, maybe even in the ethnography writing itself, what we see and how we have interpreted it might make more sense and give the reader a chance to try and see it another way?
In chapter 4, Knowles makes to very interesting and valid points on this intimidating subject of objectivity: 1) "There is no neutral position in which we can stand in the field". As I have mentioned before, I personally agree but that the current anthropological trend today is ato also agree> 2) " 'Ethnography requires a personal lens' (Okely and Callaway, 1992: xiii) and the ethnographer self...is a resource in making sense of others". (p. 57). This brought me to an interesting realization at the conclusion of my readings that instead of fighting the fact that true objectivity in the field is in fact impossible, it should not only be embraced but perhaps also by reinventing the definition of fieldnote/ethnographic writing to include the process of self-realization and more importantly the use of the ethnographer's mind, (autobiography), in the analytic process. That way the ethnographer can cover his/her bases, but also to give an even clearer definition as to how the conclusions and interpretations were reached with the ethnographer acting as a "lens".
Needless to say, I will be coming back to this subject as it is something that almost all the authors of these readings cover to some degree.