November 16, 2004
-
Objectification
On Sunday daveswaim preached on lust. One of his points was that it objectifies people, making them objects of our lust. We look at them in a two-dimensional way, ignoring their full humanity and moreso God’s image stamped onto them. This incidentally is the theme of The Stepford Wives: a group of men in a small community conspire to kill their wives and replace them with soul-less, will-less — but cute and perky — robots. Too bad neither version of the movie examines the theme very deeply, using it only as a springboard for a standard horror/comedy.
It’s not just men that objectify the opposite sex. Plenty of women want tall, handsome, successful Ken-dolls to marry and sire children.
There is plenty to say against objectification. At heart, it denies our humanity, making us valuable only for the services we can provide for others. It is the root of not only prostitution and pornography, but also racism, slavery, unbridled capitalism, rape, abortion, murder, hate, genocide, torture… actually, we have a word that covers it all: inhumane.
On the other hand, not all objectification is bad. I think of sports and competition. There’s something pure and good and joyful about seeing your buddy not as a full person, but only a quarterback you can blitz and bring to the ground. I have friends I care about as people, but I love to get together, deny our humanity, and all become game-playing machines. Abstracted to a Starcraft race or a Puerto Rico island. Even without competition, there is a time and place for objectification. Recently I had a chance to talk with… uh… pickledave. Now I’d heard he had a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford, which is nearly as good as Berkeley in the field. So I gave him a research problem I’m working on, and enjoyed watching the smoke while he cranked on it. I wasn’t relating to him as a person; I was relating to a problem-solving machine. I could have had just as much fun posing the question to Spock or Data. Maybe I’m weird that way (wired that way?). But I bet most of us (especially men) could find ways we enjoy interacting with each other as objects. If that’s a bad thing, then I have some major thinking to do. Excuse me while I locate my morality module…
Comments (10)
Our pastor preached on adultery. It was a slightly different spin, but the sermon focused on lust as well.
Women do something different… maybe it’s more like emotional idolatry?
women objectify the opposite sex. well, objectify isn’t the best word, maybe “make one-dimensional”. that dimension being the one that fulfills their emotional needs.
just as women are more than their bodies, men are more than a tool to meet women’s emotional needs. just as girlfriends are more than tools to satisfy sexual cravings, boyfriends are more than tools to just make women feel good about themselves.
but of course, this isn’t a widespread thought. i’m shuddering here at the comment that’s inevitable which is some girl that will say something like “but men don’t care if that’s all they are”. i’m not even going to rant about how condescending that is.
hahaha, pickledave? nice….
I would comment, but to me, you are just objectified to a series of letters on my computer screen. I feel embarassed interacting with you even now.
By the way, I stole your molarity module. It’s on ebay if you want it. But the reserve hasn’t been met yet…
My molarity module? That’ll put a dent in my personal chemistry!
HAHAHAHA…
Can’t believe I did that. Ooops. Must be the Chem major in me coming out. That’s so funny. I must have dain bramage.
i want to hear altoz’s rant!
if you want to see some females objectifying dudes like crazy, in the distinctly female manner altoz describes (focusing tightly on her own emotional needs), check out xanga member neutrogena (ask to be put on her protected)
i like changed’s unwillingnes to condemn objectification in principle. it’s a context-sensitive thing. plus it’s a big word. big words are usually bad because they mostly come to us as translations of the ideas of German philosophers (in this case, Hegel) who were overly fond of big and overly general and abstract words
I think Aristotle had it right with the idea of virtue as a mean. Greed is immoderate desire for wealth. You can also be too unconcerned for wealth — that’s call financial irresponsibility and imprudence. The mean is responsibility and keeping the importance of money in perspective vis a vis other goods.
Lust is the same, it seems. It’s an excess, way past the point of healthy desire. But you can also miss the mark on the low side, and be a sexually desireless amoeba. That’s not healthy either, because we’re (most of us) sexual beings. Plus, if you have a wife, it’s good to want to go to bed with her, and bad not to. Aristotle says that virtue is doing the right thing, with the right feeling, toward the right person, at the right time.
changed: I’m not sure your example of objectification with pickledave is quite the same. I’m assuming that you related to him as a person beforehand and “enjoyed watching the smoke” because you knew pickledave would enjoy working on it. I guess it’s one thing to interact with someone as a full person and collapse them to one dimension temporarily, than start off an interaction with only one dimension and never move past that.
But as cesareborgia says, it is context-sensitive. As difficult as it may be, if you’re a field commander and you’re sending troops into battle, I think you’re forced to see them as chess pieces (after a fashion). Remember the old war movies with generals literally moving figures on a board? I doubt they could get the job done any other way…
Mark: that’s a good point. Maybe temporary objectification is good in some cases. It’s doing it at the right time, with the right person and the right intent.
That Aristotle was a smart guy, contrary to what Vizzini the Sicilian said.
ha ha!
I loved that scene of that movie
Vizzini:
I’m afraid so. I can’t compete with you physically,
and you’re no match for my brains.
Dread Pirate Roberts:
You’re that smart?
Vizzini:
Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Plato,
Aristotle, Socrates?
Dread Pirate Roberts:
Yes.
Vizzini:
Morons.