[W]e need to ask what is involved in the idea of treating as an object. I suggest that at least the following seven notions are involved in that idea:
1. Instrumentality: The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her own purposes.
2. Denial of autonomy: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination.
3. Inertness: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.
4. Fungibility: The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types.
5. Violability: The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary-integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.
6. Ownership: The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc.
7. Denial of subjectivity: The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Objectification
Martha C. Nussbaum
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 249-291.
[…] woman, one white woman; ‘Neapolitan’ one blonde, one brunette, one redhead. Please see this definition of objectification, particularly the point on […]
[…] (or if he has, he’s decided not to show it). Let’s go with Martha C. Nussbaum’s definition, as I think it is the most […]
[…] dude, read up on what objectification means, it’s not simply about looking at a […]
I want to add this post from NYG:
http://nextyearsgirl.tumblr.com/post/123917987910/im-not-trying-to-be-a-smart-ass-or-cause-problems
And this:
http://nextyearsgirl.tumblr.com/post/123930767570/im-not-trying-to-be-a-smart-ass-or-cause-problems
I have no idea how adding a link is embedding a tumblr post in a WordPress comment, but it looks very good!
(but I wonder what happens if the original post is deleted?)