Talk:Objectification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Objectification, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Does someone know the origin of this term? Two rather different concepts of "object" seem to be mixed up in its usage; I'd love to find out what was originally indicated, and by whom.
The simpler meaning seems to be "treating a living being as if it were an inanimate object"--particularly an object for which there is low regard, minimizing any sense of ethical responsibility. (Of course some people treat things better than they treat other people; with them, "objectification" might be a step upward!) The other, perhaps more subtle meaning seems to be "treating another person as a foil, a role-defined 'other' to whom we relate in terms of our agenda and desires," i.e. as the opposite of "subject". The latter definition has more of a psychological than an ethical emphasis. A person for whom we feel consuming passion may be someone we choose to treat rather well--at least as long as we have some hope of satisfaction. In the latter sense we might also say that newborns "objectify" their parents to some extent, and that good parents are happy to oblige (one hopes temporarily).
If the first meaning is the original one then objectification is always an ethical lapse--while if the second meaning is authentic, objectification is a facet of human life with inevitable risks and dangers, with the biggest risk of all being to deny how prevalent it is. Thus I'd really like to know whether one or the other definition (or both!) comes from some kind of revisionism. DSatz 19:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
"treating a living being as if it were an inanimate object" - objectification does not nessicarily require inanimation. for instance you could treat a human as an animal which is clearly animated, and is definitly objectification. while you could treat a human as a rock, or a stirring bowl, there are infinitly more ways to treat them as animated objects. therefore i dont think that quote above is relevant to this query. objectification is not to elevate or demean, it is a natural process of human efficiency, if we could really treat all aquantiences as truley autonomous beings with no sense of using others as tools than we would not survive in this capitolist world. the elevation and demonation comes from different parties taking offense which relys too much on ego; treat objectificatino as it is: a survival tactic. Jamesym 06:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Objective
What about the deciding on objectives. 87.194.35.230 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Omission
This article fails to account for the philosophical meaning of objectification, which carries no ethical or moral valences--objectification of labour in the production process, for example (especially as a general class under which alienation of labour falls as an historically-specific type). I objectify myself in producing a work of art, in the sense that a part of me becomes part of an object that isn't connected to me.
DionysosProteus 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
