Table of Contents

Hypostatisation

A fallacy of reasoning or abstraction that consists of treating something that is abstract as if it were something concrete.

This is made apparent in statements such as the following:

The central bank has raised the base rate in order to calm the market.

In the sense used here, the “market” is an abstract concept that describes, amongst other things, the interaction of many actors – as such, the market cannot be “calmed down”. Unlike the individuals operating within the market.

Names

Other names

Origin of “Hypostatisation”

The term “hypostatisation” is a direct transfer of the Ancient Greek word hypóstasis [ὑπόστασις], which literally means “to stand beneath”. It presumably originally referred to “sediment”, i.e. the suspended particles that separate from a liquid when it is left to rest (Sedimentation).

The word “substance”, which is derived from Latin, actually also means “standing beneath” and was probably initially a direct translation of the Greek term. Hypostatisation can therefore simply be interpreted as “giving something substance”.

Reification

The alternative term “reification” is actually the more common name for this phenomenon. However, it also has numerous other meanings that are only loosely related to the one discussed here. To avoid confusion, the term “hypostatisation” is preferred here instead. For more information on the various meanings, see: Reification.

Description

Abstraction

Abstractions can help us deal with complex concepts in a simplified way and make them, figuratively speaking, “tangible”. They help us to identify patterns within a complex reality and to generalise our findings (induction).

We use abstractions, for example, to consider certain properties independently of the objects that possess them – such as “redness” as a generalisation of the property “red” – or we use generic terms for groups of individuals – e.g. “human” as a generic term for many individual persons. One can even form hierarchical structures from such abstract group terms – such as “mammal” as a superclass of many species, including humans, dogs, cows and even whales and dolphins.

Misconceptions

On the other hand, one should never forget that these abstract concepts are simplifications which describe something that exists only in the mind and has no direct equivalent in reality.

If, for example, lines of longitude and latitude are shown on a map, one is unlikely to succeed in trying to locate them in the actual landscape. These are merely guide lines representing an abstract concept – namely that of geographical coordinates – which, at least in this form, does not exist in the real world (see also: Map-territory relation).

Likewise, however, the “market” – at least in the sense in which it was used in the introductory example – is something abstract which, despite possibly being embodied by specific things or places (e.g. a stock exchange or an actual marketplace), is itself merely an abstraction of the activity taking place on these markets.

Distinction

Whilst the example of the market is certainly very apt, it also shows that it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between hypostasisation and metonymy on the one hand, and anthropomorphisation on the other. In many cases, the same statement can be interpreted in several ways:

Take, for example, the following statements:

In all these cases, the highlighted terms can be interpreted either as referring to the actors behind the abstract terms (voters, investors, politicians, scientists, etc.), or as personifying these terms – or, indeed, as treating an abstraction as a concrete entity.

In the narrower sense, hypostatisation therefore specifically refers to the phenomenon whereby something that is essentially abstract is (mis)understood as something that is concrete. This remains true even when the same situation also involves elements of metonymy or personification.

Problematic use

The use of metonymy as a rhetorical device is not in itself a bad thing. However, it can also be a sign of an overly simplistic approach to a complex subject. This, in turn, would be a fallacy that should be avoided wherever possible.

Thus, “the market” is not merely the place where trade takes place, nor is it merely the people who engage in it; it is also a network of actions, institutions, rules and, quite often, long-standing traditions. Taken together, all these elements constitute the concept of “the market”. Ignoring this complexity can easily lead to false conclusions.

This is particularly true when the underlying ambiguity of concepts is not fully recognised. For instance, confusing “market” as an abstract concept with “market” as a specific place where trade takes place can lead to attempts to regulate one (such as the “market for drugs”, or the “market for sexual services”) by attempting to control the other (e.g. through a police presence at drug dealing hotspots, a ban on street prostitution), without seeing the “market” as a whole and addressing the causes of its existence (see also: Motte-and-bailey fallacy).

Examples

“Society”

Society is to blame for XYZ.

Everyone has heard statements of this sort, purportedly “socio-critical”, which seek to explain real or perceived shortcomings by referring to the structure and characteristics of “society”.

However, the term “society” again refers to an abstract concept which, as such, cannot bear any “blame”. By objectifying (or perhaps even personifying) the concept, attention is diverted from the fact that there are specific actors within society who are responsible for these grievances and who also have the power to remedy them. Even if this may have been intended as a metonymy, it would make more sense to clearly name these actors.

The same applies to many other conceptual terms; here is just one example:

Patriarchy is to blame for the fact that women earn less than men.

Here, too, “patriarchy” is an abstraction that cannot be held “to blame”. Contrary to employers, for example (not all of which are males, by the way), who pay female employees less than male ones. To remedy this injustice, a first step would be to name and shame those specifically responsible.

Further examples

#TODO This article is still incomplete; further examples will be added in due course.

Possible topics for further examples: ‘History’, ‘Progress’, ‘the Economy’, etc.

See also

Further information