Monday, May 17, 2021
reify (Michael Schwalbe)
reify (Michael Schwalbe)
1. Michael Schwalbe, 'The sociologically examined life' (reify) [ ]
“reify”
“”
reify [< L. res, thing (see REAL) + FY] to treat (an abstraction) as substantially existing, or as a concrete material object--reification n.
Alfred Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by
(1) the structure of their nervous systems, and
(2) the structure of their languages.
[pp.21-23]
It is not easy to become and remain mindful of the social world as humanly made. For many reason the social world seems to be "just there," as if no one were responsible for making it. So what? What difference does it make if we forget that the social world is a human invention? The difference it makes is like that between using one's tools with an awareness of what they are good for and letting those tools--as if they had minds and will of their own--take charge.
The failure to see the world as humanly made is called reification, which can also be defined as the tendency to see the humanly made world as having a will and force of its own, apart from human beings. For example, someone might say, “Computer technology is the major force behind changes in our economy today.” In this statement, computer technology is reified because it is spoken of as having a will of its own, independent of human beings. It is technology that appears to make things happen.
"Computer technology," however, is only metal and plastic. People forget these materials, turn them into computers and other devices, and then decide how to put such tools to work. All along the way there are people who choose what to build and how to use the results. But if we talk about technology as if it were a force in its own right, the people who do the building ([designing lobbying consulting planning executing inter-acting influencing 'controlling the access']) and choosing disappear. It thus seems as if technology is like gravity or the wind--a natural force about which we can do nothing.
Reification keeps us from seeing that the force attributed to technology comes from PEOPLE choosing to do things together in certain ways. If we don't see this, we may forget to ask important questions, such as, Who is choosing to build what kinds of devices? Why? How will our society be changed? Who stands to benefit and who stands to lose because of these changes? Should we avoid these changes? Who will be held accountable if these changes hurt people? Should we decide to use technology in some other ways?
Here is another example of reification: “The market responded with enthusiasm to today's rise in interest rates, although economists predict that this could have unfavorable consequences for employment.” You've probably heard this kind of statement before. It sounds like a report about a flood or some other natural disaster. Yet a market is just a lot people doing things together in a certain way; interest rates established by people; and employment results from choices by employers. Reification makes these people and their choices disappear.
In a large complex society the tendency to reify is strong because it can be hard to see where, how, and by whom decisions are made. And so it is easier to say that technology, the market or a mysterious THEY is making things happen. Even people who ought to know better get caught up in this. When sociologists say things like “Trends in inner-city industrial development are causing changes in family structure,” they too are guilty of reification. Such language again makes it seem as if no one is responsible for choosing to act in a way that hurts or helps others.
Reification thus keeps us from seeing who is doing what to whom, and how, such that certain consequences arise. This makes it hard to hold anyone accountable for the good or bad results arising from their actions. Usually it is powerful people whose actions are hidden and who get off the hook.
Reification can also make us feel powerless because the social world comes to seem like a place that is beyond human control. If we attribute independent force to abstractions such as "technology," "the market," "government," "trends," "social structure," or "society," then it can seem pointless even to try to intervene and make things happen differently. We might as well try to stop the tides. People who think this way are likely to remain passive even when they see others being put out of work, living in poverty, or caught up in war, because they will feel that nothing can be done.
When we reify the social world we are confusing its reality with that of stars and trees and bacteria. These things indeed exist (as material entities) independent of human ideas and action. But no part of the social world does. To reify is to forget this; it is to forget to be mindful of the social world as a humanly made place. As a result, we forget that it is within our collective power to re-create the world in a better way. If we are sociologically mindful, we recognize that the social world as it now exists is just one of many possibilities.
(Schwalbe, Michael, 1956-, The sociologically examined life: pieces of the conversation, copyright © 2008, 2005, 2001, 1998
)
(The sociologically examined life: pieces of the conversation / Michael Schwalbe.--4th ed., 1. sociology--methodology., 2. sociology--philosophy., pp.21-23 )
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
reify (Michael Schwalbe)
reify (Michael Schwalbe)
1. Michael Schwalbe, 'The sociologically examined life' (reify) [ ]
“reify”
“”
reify [< L. res, thing (see REAL) + FY] to treat (an abstraction) as substantially existing, or as a concrete material object--reification n.
Alfred Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by
(1) the structure of their nervous systems, and
(2) the structure of their languages.
[pp.21-23]
It is not easy to become and remain mindful of the social world as humanly made. For many reason the social world seems to be "just there," as if no one were responsible for making it. So what? What difference does it make if we forget that the social world is a human invention? The difference it makes is like that between using one's tools with an awareness of what they are good for and letting those tools--as if they had minds and will of their own--take charge.
The failure to see the world as humanly made is called reification, which can also be defined as the tendency to see the humanly made world as having a will and force of its own, apart from human beings. For example, someone might say, “Computer technology is the major force behind changes in our economy today.” In this statement, computer technology is reified because it is spoken of as having a will of its own, independent of human beings. It is technology that appears to make things happen.
"Computer technology," however, is only metal and plastic. People forget these materials, turn them into computers and other devices, and then decide how to put such tools to work. All along the way there are people who choose what to build and how to use the results. But if we talk about technology as if it were a force in its own right, the people who do the building ([designing lobbying consulting planning executing inter-acting influencing 'controlling the access']) and choosing disappear. It thus seems as if technology is like gravity or the wind--a natural force about which we can do nothing.
Reification keeps us from seeing that the force attributed to technology comes from PEOPLE choosing to do things together in certain ways. If we don't see this, we may forget to ask important questions, such as, Who is choosing to build what kinds of devices? Why? How will our society be changed? Who stands to benefit and who stands to lose because of these changes? Should we avoid these changes? Who will be held accountable if these changes hurt people? Should we decide to use technology in some other ways?
Here is another example of reification: “The market responded with enthusiasm to today's rise in interest rates, although economists predict that this could have unfavorable consequences for employment.” You've probably heard this kind of statement before. It sounds like a report about a flood or some other natural disaster. Yet a market is just a lot people doing things together in a certain way; interest rates established by people; and employment results from choices by employers. Reification makes these people and their choices disappear.
In a large complex society the tendency to reify is strong because it can be hard to see where, how, and by whom decisions are made. And so it is easier to say that technology, the market or a mysterious THEY is making things happen. Even people who ought to know better get caught up in this. When sociologists say things like “Trends in inner-city industrial development are causing changes in family structure,” they too are guilty of reification. Such language again makes it seem as if no one is responsible for choosing to act in a way that hurts or helps others.
Reification thus keeps us from seeing who is doing what to whom, and how, such that certain consequences arise. This makes it hard to hold anyone accountable for the good or bad results arising from their actions. Usually it is powerful people whose actions are hidden and who get off the hook.
Reification can also make us feel powerless because the social world comes to seem like a place that is beyond human control. If we attribute independent force to abstractions such as "technology," "the market," "government," "trends," "social structure," or "society," then it can seem pointless even to try to intervene and make things happen differently. We might as well try to stop the tides. People who think this way are likely to remain passive even when they see others being put out of work, living in poverty, or caught up in war, because they will feel that nothing can be done.
When we reify the social world we are confusing its reality with that of stars and trees and bacteria. These things indeed exist (as material entities) independent of human ideas and action. But no part of the social world does. To reify is to forget this; it is to forget to be mindful of the social world as a humanly made place. As a result, we forget that it is within our collective power to re-create the world in a better way. If we are sociologically mindful, we recognize that the social world as it now exists is just one of many possibilities.
(Schwalbe, Michael, 1956-, The sociologically examined life: pieces of the conversation, copyright © 2008, 2005, 2001, 1998
)
(The sociologically examined life: pieces of the conversation / Michael Schwalbe.--4th ed., 1. sociology--methodology., 2. sociology--philosophy., pp.21-23 )
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
No comments:
Post a Comment