Picture a journalist, a scientist, or even your neighbour declaring with solemn authority: “I am being objective.” Dignified, is it not? Objective, impartial, fact-driven—like a well-polished broom sweeping all bias into the corner. Only, as with most magical brooms, it has a particular corner it prefers: the one that keeps the powerful comfortable and the inconvenient quiet.

Objectivity is often paraded as a moral or intellectual suit of armour, allowing humans to avoid messy feelings, politics, or ethical dilemmas. But claiming objectivity is rarely neutral. Like neutrality, it carries consequences. Often, it shields those already in power while quietly silencing the vulnerable.

Peering under the cloak of “objectivity” and see what lurks: a dust bunny here, a conveniently ignored atrocity there, all swept neatly under a rug that smells faintly of privilege.

When “objective” reasoning became a weapon

The eugenics spectacle

The 19th and early 20th centuries loved nothing more than “objective” science with the power to ruin lives. Eugenics presented cold, statistical charts on human intelligence and heredity. Figures danced across tables like obedient marionettes, all allegedly impartial. Yet these figures justified sterilisation, segregation, and discriminatory laws, disproportionately harming marginalized communities.

Numbers alone do not a moral compass make. In this case, objectivity became a cudgel in the hands of the already powerful.

Phrenology and the skulls of smugness

Earlier, Victorian scientists measured skulls, nostrils, and eyebrows with a rigour that would impress any overzealous librarian. “Scientific” conclusions about intelligence or criminality were drawn from cranial bumps, delighting racists and colonial administrators alike. The data was impeccable, the conclusions morally bankrupt. Objectivity, you see, had a wicked sense of humour.

Courts in the United States often claimed to administer law “objectively.” Yet, during Jim Crow, objectivity meant: follow the letter of the law while ignoring that the law itself was a deeply immoral invention. Justice, in this context, was objective only in that it consistently oppressed.

The moral and philosophical argument

Philosophers and ethicists have long noted that pure objectivity is a myth dressed in fine linen:

  • Hannah Arendt warned that detachment without moral awareness can lead to complicity, famously analysing bureaucratic “just following orders” logic in the Holocaust.
  • Sandra Harding and other feminist theorists critique “objectivity” as reflecting the perspective of dominant groups, masking social biases as neutral facts.
  • Karl Popper noted that science progresses through conjectures and refutations, not through absolute, context-free truths. Claiming objectivity often becomes a polite way of saying: “I will report the facts that inconvenience no one with influence.”

The illusion of balance in modern contexts

False equivalence masquerading as fairness

Consider climate change denial, where a handful of contrarians are given equal space alongside the overwhelming consensus. Audiences leave thinking the debate is a duel: bulldozer versus feather, while journalists nod sagely. Objectivity has been reduced to a spectator sport.

Neutrality with a twist

Predictive policing, credit scoring, and hiring algorithms often claim objectivity because they run on data. Yet the data carries history’s biases like a grumpy baggage handler. Algorithmic outputs harm marginalized communities disproportionately, all while the company smiles and says, “It is objective, madam, we assure you!”

The velvet rope of rigour

Even scholarly objectivity can be a gatekeeper. Whose research is “credible”? Often it is the work that aligns with dominant norms. Scholars from marginalized groups face additional scrutiny, while mainstream perspectives glide by, carried on a cloud of assumed neutrality.

Courts in fancy dress

Modern courts, despite robes and wigs, still show us the limits of objectivity. When statutes disproportionately target certain groups, judges can proclaim, with perfect objectivity, that they are simply following the law. Objectivity in this case is the fine art of being impartial while helping the system maintain its biases.

Objectivity is not a neutral force

Objectivity is useful—but only if wielded with awareness of context, power, and impact. Left unchecked, it shields the powerful and lashes out at the powerless. Like neutrality, claiming objectivity does not absolve moral responsibility. Rejecting the myth of objective impartiality does not abandon reason; it recognises perspective, context, and consequence. Objectivity is not inherently virtuous. It is only as ethical as the person—or institution—claiming it.

Evidence locker