I had always thought of myself as an egalitarian seeing that women are men’s equals I grew up in an environment seeing that as the norm.
In the past I would compliment a girl I know saying she looks good today since I observe she has put on extra effort compared to normal and wanting to be friendly. Harmless at first it seems but I am reinforcing societies view on conformity of how to look creating a object-subject relationship and also increased body anxiety, heightened mental health threats (depression, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and sexual dysfunction), Vice-versa for men being complimented by women.
People define “objectification,” most of which centre around the idea of treating another person as a means to an end, without being conscious of their feelings and goals and preferences. I’ve always felt this is an odd definition for two reasons.
First, it seems like an incomplete definition, in that there are many cases that match that definition perfectly but which no one would call instances of objectification.
Second, if objectification is “using someone as a means to an end,” it isn’t clear why objectification is inherently bad, even though the word typically carries a strong connotation of condemnation. After all, we all use each other as means to an end all the time!
When I order pizza, I’m treating the delivery guy as a means to the end of getting a pizza. I’m not really thinking about his feelings or goals — and I don’t think he expects or particularly wants me to be.
Objectification’s not necessarily a problem at the individual level. When Person A uses Person B as a means to an end, as long as B’s not being harmed, then it’s ethically unproblematic (at least for those utilitarian-minded folks). The tricky thing is that when you have a lot of A’s systematically treating a lot of B’s as a means to an end in the same kind of way, it can start to become a problem. Because at that scale, it can affect the way A’s and B’s think about each other — people’s attitudes are influenced by the way the people around them think and act. So it can have this self-reinforcing ripple effect that ends up stifling other kinds of interactions and relationships that many A’s and B’s would’ve found fulfilling.
Another analogy would be pollution if there are many who already pollute then one more person doing it wouldn`t matter but when you multiply this individualistic mentality you have the whole issue of global warming in front of you.
This theme of utilitarianism and how it is related to being an individual and living an authentic experience can be best appreciated in German philospher Heidegger’s (video).
Where does this objectification come from?
Objectification when converted into gratification is only a short buzz and serve as an ego boost.
In psycho-analytics the need of object driven gratification becomes the drive between the inner and outer world and boundaries first drawn at early childhood. The shape in how this ego takes form is in sensory and motoraffective experiences. When the infant loses the nipple other object are needed to suckle those are typically rocks toys etc. New objects are constantly searched for.
The ego-duality is especially potent in the western worldview and knowing about the problem the solution seems to be in escaping the illusion of the simplistic dualistic thinking. In everyday terminology the best way of thinking of this would be ‘othering’.
René Descartes who gave dualism its classical formulation. Beginning from his famous Cogito, ergo sum (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”). Good thing this being made redundant now as it causes issues like how to explain how immaterial mind can causally influence the physicochemical processes going on in my material brain.
Solution was in non-dualism
My fav argument against dualism there are no straight lines in nature.
The last remnants of subconscious objectification also have to go the most mulish part.This video greatly explains non-dualism.
Objectification also goes to inanimate objects as well as women objectifying men.
Lets not forget that.