Talk:Reification (Marxism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 Reification (Marxism), or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Questionable definition
The current definition of reification (specifically, "the consideration of a human being as a physical object, deprived of subjectivity") does not parallel the definition provided by the American Heritage Dictionary, which states that that act of reification is "To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence." Nor does it parallel the definition provided by the Encyclopedia of Marxism at http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#reification, which is "The transformation of social relations into an objective existance". Consequently, I am forced to question its legitimacy, and I will change it unless someone provides me with a reasonable explanation. Firewall62 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The current revision is a big improvement. Firewall62 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence does not seem to make any sense:
"Marx used it shortly[1], having been developed mostly by Lukács in Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat, part of his book History and Class Consciousness."
Rosa Lichtenstein 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etymological origin
Doesn't this section refer to the Etymological origin of ideology and not to that of reification? Ernalve 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
I don't understand how this is in any way an example of reification:
Reification is very visible in advertising when the advertiser or designer deliberately tries to associate a commercial product with all kinds of desirable qualities or contexts, with the suggestion that if you buy the product, that you will have access to or experience those desirable qualities
Reification is treating something abstract as if it were a real thing. Associating a product (which actually is a real thing) with certain "desirable qualities" (which the advertising presumably doesn't claim are "real things," just real qualities) doesn't even remotely qualify under that definition.
Moreover, as a warning notes, there is no citation or verification of this claim.
I'm not an expert on Marxist theory, so I hesitate to rewrite the examples section. It would be great if someone else would take a shot. If not, maybe I will.
Nobunny is an expert on Marxist theory since everybunny is overwhelmed 24/7 with commodity fetishism. Actually, a "product" isn't naturally a "real thing", it's the result of the labor of advertisers that make us think of it as a product fit for use.
Who was the jerk who removed the examples? They WERE examples of what Marx meant by reification!
The American Heritage Dictionary is NOT an authority on what words mean, especially not in Marxist terms, since the editors of the AHD will tell you themselves that they report the common usage of educated native English speakers from the USA. Philosophers don't write dictionaries, since they have been aware since Plato that common use, while significant, doesn't settle questions of truth.
This is worse than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia if convenience store clerks, God wallopers and Randroids can tell us what Marx meant by looking in their handy-dandy pocket encyclopedias. It's the revolt of the most revolting segment of the masses: the lower middle class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.102.245 (talk) 07:42:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On "etimology"
I find that the section that refers to a supposed etimology of reification and names De Tracy does not refer to reification indeed but to the concept of ideology.
Destutt de Tracy was apparently the one who first used the term ideologie, but nothing about reification. Moreover, the concept that Napoleon used to call this enlightenment frenchmen was ideologues; so if someone could explain how are they in fact related we can put that paragraph back. Meanwhile, I'll take it out. Ernalve 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I just SMOG tested this article...it says you would need 17 years of education to fully comprehend this article on the first read. THIS IS MEANT FOR PROLES PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.193.120 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying a 17yr old would do fine? Or someone with a degree?
- P.S. we don't like to be called proles. the unwashed masses will do just fine, thank you DionysosProteus 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
