User Tools

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
abstraction:objectification [23.01.25, 23:23:36] – external edit 127.0.0.1abstraction:objectification [14.07.26, 12:12:07] (current) – sascha
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Objectification (of human beings) ====== ====== Objectification (of human beings) ======
  
-A [[abstraction:index|fallacy of abstraction]] that consists in regarding people as objects or abstract concepts (and treating them as such).+A fallacy of reasoning or [[abstraction:index|abstraction]] that consists of viewing people as objects (and treating them as such).
  
-For example:+Here is an example of a form of business speak that many of you will no doubt have heard or read before:
  
-> The available <u questionable>resources</u> should be better utilised in order to carry out the work effectively.+> “The available <u questionable "objectification of human workers">resources</u> should be utilised more effectively in order to effectively carry out the required tasks.”
  
-What is objectified here as "resources", are in fact people. They should also be referred to as such.+What is being objectified here as “resources” are //people//. They should be referred to as such. In this case, for example, as “employees” or “colleagues”. 
 + 
 +One might dismiss such language as “management jargon” – and indeed, in most cases, it is likely to be nothing more than an unreflective adoption of terminology encountered in a professional context. However, such a choice of language can equally be a symptom of a mindset in which workers and employees are no longer perceived as human beings, but primarily in terms of their function – namely as “resources” – who can be hired and fired as needed, moved from one position to another, etc. – without having to take into account any possible consequences on a human level. 
 + 
 +For comparison, here is the same statement phrased in a way that, at the very least, does not //immediately// give the impression that employees are perceived as nothing more than objects to the management:  
 + 
 +> “We want to ensure that our colleagues are placed in roles where their skills are put to the best possible use.”
  
 ===== Other names ===== ===== Other names =====
  
   * Dehumanisation   * Dehumanisation
 +  * [[hypostatization|Hypostatisation]]
   * [[abstraction:reification|Reification]]   * [[abstraction:reification|Reification]]
  
-<aside info> +On this website, “objectification” is used as an umbrella term for situations in which people are, in one way or another, regarded or treated as “things” or “objects”. In other contexts, the above terms can be used as synonyms, or referring to specific aspects of the phenomenon. However, this usage is not very consistent, as each of these terms can also be found to have other meanings. 
-**Note:** The term "objectification" is used here for a form of fallacy of abstraction that specifically consists of (primarily) viewing people as if they were objects. The term [[abstraction:reification|reification]] is also occasionally used in this sense, just as conversely the phenomenon described there is also described as "objectification". +
-</aside>+
  
-===== Description =====+==== Hypostatisation / Reification ====
  
-In a modern society, one will always have to manage people in large crowds – be it government or employees in large companies, pupils or students, participants in a demonstration or a large event, and so on.+The terms “[[abstraction:reification|reification]]”, borrowed from Latin, as well as “[[hypostatization|hypostatisation]]”, derived from Ancient Greek, both essentially mean “turning something into a thing”.
  
-There are also situations where it makes sense to consider them primarily at a certain level of abstraction, i.e. as a crowd. For example, when planning the capacity of a venue, catering, escape routes, etc., it hardly makes sense to look at each individual, but instead one should look at the crowd and its behaviour as a whole.+In some publications, these terms are therefore also used as [[glossary:synonym|synonyms]] – often even as the preferred terms – for precisely the phenomenon that this article refers to here as the //objectification of human beings//.
  
-It becomes a problem when this view is also used in a context where this abstraction is no longer appropriate: the workforce of a large company, for example, consists of individuals with different life situations, abilities, potentials, and experiences. Reducing them to their role as "resources" does not do justice to these differences and is more likely to lead to less efficiency (through dissatisfaction, fluctuation, inefficient use of labour, etc.).+However, just as “objectification” could also be understood in a general sense as “turning //something// into an object” (i.e. not necessarily referring to people), “hypostatisation” is used here on this website to refer to the mistaken understanding of //abstract concepts// as something concrete (<span maniculus "For further information, see:">[[hypostatization|Hypostatisation]]</span>). 
  
-==== “Verdinglichung” ====+The term “reification”, on the other hand, has a different problem: it is also used to describe several phenomena which, whilst related, are nevertheless clearly discernible. To avoid confusion and inconsistencies with other publications, this term was “merely” given a summary entry in the glossary: <span maniculus "For further information, see:">[[abstraction:reification|Reification]]</span>. 
  
-A sligntly different perspective is found in Marxist philosophy and related fields, which describes the reduction of human relations to the exchange of commodities with the German word “<i :de>Verdinglichung</i> ”.+==== Reification ====
  
-More specificly, the term can refer to the phenomenon that workers in an industrial context are //objectified// to solely stand for the products they manufacture.+In particular, the term “reification” can be understood to refer to a specific form of //objectification//, which is that //human labour// is understood as a necessary resource for the //production// of goods.
  
-<aside info> +The term then refers specifically to the fact that an object is being produced, and that human activity is reduced to its contribution to the production of that object.((Unsurprisingly, this usage is found most frequently in the context of [[wp>Marxism|Marxist theory]].)) 
-**Note:** The German term “<i :de>Verdinglichung</i> ” is usually translated as “reification”, and there is no objection to this translation here. However, because of the way this website is organised, the phenomenon that Marx describes is described here in this article as “objectification”, because the article on [[abstraction:reification|Reification]] already describes a different (albeit similar) phenomenon. + 
-</aside>+==== Objectification ==== 
 + 
 +//Objectification// can also be a direct synonym for “reification”. The term is however most commonly used in the context of “sexual objectification” to describe the reducing of people to their sexual aspect. 
 + 
 +The most compelling example of this is, of course, the portrayal of women in particular in [[wp>Pornography|pornography]]. The stereotype of ever-willing and always available sexual partners is so firmly established in this context that it could be regarded as part of the genre’s definition. But objectifying portrayals – particularly of women – are also commonplace in advertising, as well as the fashion and the music industries.  
 + 
 +<aside info>**Note:** Although this issue is predominantly discussed in public discourse in the context of the “sexual objectification of women”, one should not assume that this is the only form objectification can take. Women also objectify men, men other men, and indeed women objectify women.</aside>
  
 ==== Dehumanisation ==== ==== Dehumanisation ====
  
-An extreme form of no longer considering people as such is called "dehumanisation": in this extreme case, humans are no longer recognised as such, but are labelled with terms or abstracted to such an extent that they can be denied their basic [[wp>Human rights|human rights]].+In an //extreme form// of objectification, known as “dehumanisation”, people are no longer seen as human beings. In this sense of the term, humans are described using terms or abstracted to such an extent that they can be denied their [[wp>Human rights|human rights]]. 
 + 
 +Political propaganda, in particular of the more radical kind, likes to employ rhetorical or visual devices to portray opponents in a dehumanising fashion. But also social groups (like homeless, prisoners, people of colour, nomads, immigrants, etc.) may also be subjected to such dehumanisation – and treated in an inhumane manner as a result. 
 + 
 +Dehumanisation can also be concealed within abstract terms that serve to obscure human life or suffering. The term “collateral damage”, used to describe //unintended// but //accepted// casualties of military operations, is an example of this. 
 + 
 +===== Description ===== 
 +==== The Abstraction of People ==== 
 + 
 +In modern societies, there are many reasons why people are regarded as abstractions in one way or another. Some of the best examples can be found in statistics, where aggregated data from entire populations – such as a country or a city – is examined, for instance to compare average indicators or track trends over a longer period of time. In this process, people’s individual experiences are reduced to an abstract figure, behind which the individual people disappear. In itself, there is nothing wrong with this. 
 + 
 +In certain situations, it can also be sensible to adopt a more detached perspective towards individuals. For example, an emergency doctor or surgeon, particularly in life-threatening situations, should maintain an emotional distance from the patient in order to be able to make clear and dispassionate decisions. For this reason, a surgeon, for instance, should avoid performing surgery on close family members wherever possible, as it will be particularly difficult in such cases to set aside the emotional aspects. That, too, is not a bad thing. 
 + 
 +Even when the management of a larger organisation discusses high-level aspects of human resources, it is usually useful to do so at an abstract level, for example with reference to staff costs or similar statistical characteristics. 
 + 
 +It becomes a problem when this abstraction is no longer purely functional and limited to a specific context, but instead people are reduced solely or primarily to certain functions or aspects. An example of this is when employees are reduced solely to their role as workers, rather than being understood as individuals with different life circumstances, abilities, experiences and opportunities for development. 
 + 
 +<aside info>**Note:** The above example is explicitly not about replacing a //poorly worded// phrase with a more //diplomatic// one. The problem that needs to be addressed is the mindset expressed by such language, in which people are regarded as mere objects. 
 + 
 +Little would be gained if the HR department of this organisation were now to ensure that the reifying statements made by senior management were translated into a “more employee-friendly” version, whilst HR policy continued to be based on such a mindset. This would remove the indicator, but the problem would remain (<span maniculus "also of interest in this context:">[[glossary:goodharts_law|Goodhart’s law]]</span>).</aside> 
 + 
 +===== The issue ===== 
 + 
 +Clearly, there is a //moral dimension// that makes such objectifications, at least in certain instances, controversial. Most people would certainly not want to be equated with objects, and accordingly, one should not do this to others either. 
 + 
 +However, as far as the topics covered on this website are concerned, the moral aspects are less important than the fact that inappropriate reification can easily lead to a //mindset// that does not correspond to reality. Consequently, decisions may then be made on the basis of this unrealistic //mental model//, which do not lead to the desired outcomes. 
 + 
 +This already applies to the related fallacy in which (abstract) concepts are (mis)understood as (concrete) things (described here in the article “[[hypostatization|Hypostatisation]]”). Unlike abstract concepts, however, people have the capacity to act and react. And if they feel misunderstood or even treated unfairly, this is bound to provoke a reaction. 
 + 
 +If, for example, a company’s management neglects the human aspects of its HR policy too much, it will certainly soon find itself grappling with problems such as high staff turnover, a lack of commitment among employees, a greater willingness to strike, and many other issues associated with a dysfunctional organisation. 
 + 
 +Or, if one reduces potential romantic partners primarily to their role as sexual objects, one is bound to find it difficult to build a meaningful relationship on that basis – or, if this is accompanied by unrealistic expectations of said partners, to find anyone willing to enter such a relationship at all. The modern “[[wp>Incel|incel]] movement illustrates all too well how projecting oversimplified idealised images onto potential relationships can lead to an unhappy life.  
 + 
 +Generally speaking, //abstractions// can help us maintain an understanding of complex phenomena. However, if one loses sight of the fact that they represent a //simplified view of reality//, they can also be very misleading. This is particularly true when attempting to use such abstractions to describe phenomena as complex as human beings, who, unlike //actual objects//, do not passively submit to everything but are capable of actively acting and reacting.
  
-Especially in political propaganda, rhetorical or graphic devices are often used to portray opponents as "non-human". This is often applied to specific social groups, such as homeless people, prison inmates, ethnic groups, etc.) as a pretext or justification to subject them to inhumane treatment and discrimination.+==== Reversal ====
  
-Such //dehumanisation// can also be hidden in abstract terms that conceal human life or suffering. A good example for this is the term "collateral damage" for unintentional (but accepted) victims of military operations.+Ironically, the same mistake – having an unrealistic view of reality – can also be made in the opposite direction. When something non-human is understood as a human being or as possessing human characteristics, this is referred to as “<span maniculus "See also:">[[abstraction:anthropomorphisation|Anthropomorphisation]]</span>”.
  
 ===== See also ===== ===== See also =====
  
   * [[abstraction:reification|Reification]]   * [[abstraction:reification|Reification]]
-  * [[abstraction:anthropomorphisation|Humanization]]+  * [[abstraction:anthropomorphisation|Anthropomorphisation]]
  
 ===== More information ===== ===== More information =====
Line 54: Line 98:
   * [[wp>Dehumanization|Dehumanization]] on //Wikipedia//   * [[wp>Dehumanization|Dehumanization]] on //Wikipedia//
  
 +{{page>templates:banner#Short-BG-Article&noheader&nofooter}}

This website uses cookies. By using the website, you agree with storing cookies on your computer. Also, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy. If you do not agree, please leave the website.

More information