Talk:Reification (Marxism)

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)

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)

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)

hello there actually i'm not happy with [q]Examples include the creation of false desires by the real labor of advertising. This is the construction of nouns naming parts of reality as intrinsically desirable "products", where the legal system of the capitalist country provides in "fit for use" presumptions and legislation allows the entrepreneur to create, for example, a reified and indeed fetishised noun, from "Hula Hoop" to "Windows Vista"[/q]. if the term just = pathetic fallacy + reification fallacy + items [a reification as a rhetorical/scientific point? ignore that] themselves assuming control of actions and items like the economy then that should be stressed; does that sound right i haven't read much marx but i could rewrite it a less odd style e.g. this [q]Marx argues reification is an inherent and necessary characteristic of economic value such as it manifests itself in market trade, i.e. the inversion in thought between object and subject, or between means and ends, the quote assumes that advertising[/] is slightly baffling thereby muddying the following elaboration of 'reification' [q]reflects a real practice where attributes (properties, characteristics, features, powers) which exist only by virtue of a social relationship between people are treated as if they are the inherent, natural characteristics of things, or vice versa, attributes of inanimate things are treated as if they are attributes of human subjects[/q]. not very clear at all. giving a name to a product is not obviously a fallacy and neither is liking its name; yes advertising does in a way lead to us being controlled by objects but then what doesn't? it's unclear as an exposition of the term and i don't see how it's a noteable otherwise. advice welcome as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.99.65 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the fact nobody came up with any examples an example of reification? People valued the concept of reification highly enough to give it a Wikipedia page and add it to a project but the concept is so abstract there are no concrete examples of it?

Netscr1be (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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)


 * Actually an example of the reification of Marxist theory itself, in other words instead of demystifying it, artificially making it complex, inaccessible and the province of an elite of illuminati. As with the life and teachings of Jesus, a fairly simple set of precepts that got turned into a complex mystical thing in a foreign language, the hoary cult of the medieval church and its caste of wretched priests, or to a lesser extent as with the fetish of insisting Shakespeare's plays remain in their original vernacular etc.  Tom Cod (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out what I was thinking as well. I find it incredibly ironic. There should be very accessible examples, especially considering how prevalent it supposedly is. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thingification?
That is not a word to be used in an encyclopaedia. It's childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:52DA:3100:F4E8:145B:B8EB:E400 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

First sentence
Hi, the first sentence of the article is: "reification is the process by which social relations are perceived as inherent attributes of the people involved in them, or attributes of some product of the relation". I.e. reification can be a process by which social relations are perceived as inherent to the people? This seems to me to be the "correct" position from which reification deviates. I think a correct statement is "reification is the process by which social relations that produce commodities are seen as inherent to the commodity itself, and by which social relations come to be seen as relations between material objects." or something along these lines. I think this sentence is in particular contradictory with Petrović's quote later, so someone who is more confident than I may want to change it. Baldersmash (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Separation from fallacy article
Is it really necessary for this article to be separate from Reification (fallacy)? They describe the same concept, though said concept has been important in Marxist thought. It would seem more appropriate to have a section in the fallacy article about its place in Marxism. Nicknimh (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to rename Reification (Marxism) to Reification (sociology), as not all sources cited are Marxist, and keep Reification (fallacy) intact. The latter describes reification as a fallacy used in discourse, whereas the Marxist/sociological accounts are more about it as a social process, for which I think there's a lot of space for independent, and in part historical, elaboration. NicolausPrime (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)