The Objectification process as constituting the self.

Miguel Moreno Vázquez.

KU University. Department of Anthropology

Body and Soul, Subjectivity and sociality

Key words: Objectification, Subjectification, Self, Subjectivity, Protestantism

Abstract.

The purpose of this essay is to look at how objectification processes constitute tools that can
be used to define the self and gain a sense of certainty, and how inversely the construction of
a specific subject then creates specific subjectivities from where the individual and the society
then thinks about the material and abstract environment and produces cultural assumptions
about the meaning and hierarchy of values. I mainly look at the modern Protestant view of the
subject drawing on three different ethnographic examples (Keane 2002, Coleman 2007,
Sjorslev 2013), but also take other religious practices that present the same process for the
shake of comparison. The essay tries to reflect the generality of the objectification process and
also show how it then creates specific subjectivities depending on what is being objectified and
why.

Introduction.

There has never existed a human being who has not been aware, not only of his body,
but also at the same time of his individuality, both spiritual and physical (Mauss, 1985)

The idea of “self” is one of the main dilemmas of human existence and the departure point
from where we interact with the world and make sense of it, how this “self” is constituted is
thus a necessary pre-understanding to grasp human socialization at all levels. The idea of a
subject is differently articulated throughout religions and cultures, but all of them have in
common a process of differentiation and identification, either with material objects with
intangible abstract ideas or both. This differentiation creates the idea of “self” as separate
from the apparently outer world but its dependency with it is so obvious that it needs to rely
on it for its self-understanding and definition.

In order to understand the conception of identity that Protestantism and its different branches
uphold nowadays it is useful to look at the development of the idea of self in Europe, mainly
theorised by different philosophers. Charles Tylor (1989) insights into the sources of the self
are pertinent to consider for the purpose of this essay. He explains what he terms, a
transformation of “internalization”, which roots can be traced from Plato’s moral discipline
based on reason and the idea of a unified self without which “the modern notion of interiority
could never have developed” (Tylor,1989:120). Plato stated how a higher moral state could be
gained through reason or thought and the subversion of desires to it, as a result one could
achieve unity with one self and collected self-possession. Plato´s tripartite soul (spirit, reason,
passion) described the soul as both fragmented into locus but unified at the same time, a
unicity of locuses. This representation of the self-based on the soul as fragmented but unified
is still very present in our morality, it can be seen in how experiences are defined in terms of
locations, “been carried away”, and thus fragmented, but the individual that is being judged is
still seen as unified self. Taylor then turns to Agustin´s idea of inwardness as a mean to find
God and emphasizes in the self-presence and radical reflexivity with the necessary adoption of
the first-person standpoint,” by going inward, I am drawn upward” (idem:134), thus
highlighting individual´s importance. The idea of God being inside of us and of the individual´s
will as key factor in finding him is still very present in today´s Protestantism, an assumption
that plays key role in the objectification processes, as I will examine. Perhaps Descartes
influence upon rethinking the self is even more present in the different objectification
processes that take place among different protestant currents, since his epistemological
approach was based on objectifying the body and its experiences, taking an instrumental
stance towards them, placing individual agency and will as central to achieve a good live which
“must come from the agent´s sense of his own dignity as a rational being” (idem.152).

” Rationality is now an internal property of subjective thinking, rather than consisting

in its vision of reality. In making this shift, Descartes is articulating what has become
the standard modern view” (idem.156).

Under these circumstances where the rule of reason, individualism and interiority makes its
path through subjectivities and a strong relativism the self is under new processes of
objectification that define both its own perception and its perception of others and where the
historical philosophical background can be seen in the assumptions that underpin the process.

From Objectification to Certainty of the self.

When I talk of objectification I mean it in a philosophical perspective, where the subject

separates itself from experience (seer/seen) and that which is separated (the seen) becomes
isolated, something that is not part of the self. This process of objectification encompasses
abstracts ideas, institutions and material object. It becomes thus a potential instrument to be
used by the subject. In this case what is being objectified is used to define the very self. Here I
look at two empirical examples that illustrate these objectification processes articulated in
different religious engagements.

Simon Coleman in his study of the Christian Organization, The Word of Life, shows how the
Charismatic Protestant identity is partly created through an objectification of words, these are
regarded as autonomous from the speaker with its own identity, a spiritual identity, which
transformative power derives from the Bible. In this concrete perception words are treated as
objects in a material sense where they can be consumed and accumulated into the spirit,
charismatic protestant do indeed believe that the accumulation of biblical words produces a
more mature Christian soul, this perspective views Christ as a kind of Mr. Universe as the
author exposes where believers try to identify and acquire Christ identity through practises
similar to that of bodybuilding but instead of working out and expanding muscles it expands
the amount of words one is able to store in oneself . Through a separation of the speaker and
that what is spoken words gain agency and autonomy, words are separated from the subject
and are objectified becoming “thing-like” which allows individuals to use them on their moral
economies as a tools to achieve a more Christian soul. Thus, trying to achieve a more Christian
self by “the appropriation of the performative force contained within the biblical and the in-
filling of the spirit” (Coleman,20017:171). Words are also seen to have healing properties due
to their spiritually charged language which places the “physical self under the control of
supernatural authorities” (ibid.168) and makes the body a modifiable subject to the language
which is spoken.
 A hope of retribution motivates these faith practises, which is also seen in the money giving
as a way of externalizing the spiritual self and a later internalization of that what has been
given in terms of prosperity. In terms of certainty this articulation of faith practices provides a
controlling tool to secure oneself a good future as well as the measurable means to see how
deeply Christian one is in terms of how much one gives money and accumulates words. On the
other hand, “the charismatic self is constituted by becoming materialized through the agency
of words and things” (idem,182)

Igner Sjosrlev (2013) ethnographic examples also reflects on the issue of the production of
certainty through objectification in two different religions in Brazil, Candomblé and the Neo-
Pentecostal Universal Church of the Kingdom of God taking also into consideration the ritual
infrastructures into which objectifications are articulated, these structures “form subjectivities
and sustain efforts to achieve some kind of existential certainty” (ibid.66). In Candomblé an
objectification of the god, an Oxira, is essential to form each personality and to assert
ontological certainty, which is sustained continually by rituals that show the relationship
between the person and the Oxira, and supported by the audience during the rituals that
confirms the Gods manifestation. In this particular case it is quite curious and revelling how the
Oxira although being objectified and separated from the individual is at the same time an
integral part of him, this demonstrates the tightened relation between object/subject where
similarities and differences between them become blurry. In contrast to other objectification
processes where the movement between and externalization and internalization of what is
being objectified is more clearly delimited as in the Neo-Pentecostal church. In the Neo-
Pentecostal church certainty is achieved through the donation of money in which process
certainty is “displaced from the agency of a spiritual entity to the agency of the person”
(Sjorslev, 2013:73). Thus, an objectification of money, as something that is outside the self,
becomes an instrument to form the religious self and direct it towards a desirable position
where it can feel secure and avoid uncertainty, and as an instrument to explain one´s life
situation, moreover this particular view and use of money giving also changes the way faith
itself is understood since is being articulated as a kind of investment. Seemingly, in Candomblé
the Oxira is objectified to assert one´s self and understand one´s behaviour, although with a
more social component due to its ritual´s characteristics and the group approval of the
internalization process which is not needed in the Universal Church. The author also reflects
on how certainty is itself a precognition for objectification in Candomblé a cosmological world
is needed before it can be objectified and in the same way in the Neo-Pentecostal church the
existence of the Bible, a discourse of faith as investment and the assurance of a reciprocity is
needed before banknotes can be objectified and become a mean to achieve existential
security.

What both authors show is the closely intertwined relation between objectification and
subjectification, the former in the form of words, material goods or rituals is used by the
individual to assert its own self and its religious beliefs, thus creating a strong certainty and
providing the tools to cope with existential insecurities. This process of objectification also
shows a dynamicity. First it separates that which is objectified (a god, speech, act of giving),
seeing it as if it wasn´t part of the self (giver/given), later when what has been objectified
occurs and the person feels it has been completed, either individually or socially told as in
Candomblé, it incorporates into his own understanding and it judges every future aspect on
the basis of that objectification that has now become part of the self´s identity.

This dynamic involves to my understanding, at least in the protestant examples, a division of

the self into that which one already is and the one that one expects to be via the incorporation
of the object. This division of the self, is what Coleman saw in the elderly woman that gave him
money, she engaged in a kind of exchange similar to Mauss notion of the gift where the
spiritual essence of the donor is placed and it expects a compensation, but the spiritual
essence in the exchange was being placed in her faith, in God, thus she engages in an exchange
where the receiver is not the one who needs to reciprocate, he is just the medium and the end
is to achieve a better relationship with God who is the real symbolic receiver.

The Protestant examples also reflect the underlying assumptions of Agustin idea of
inwardness in how the focus of the objectifications is to enrich the inner spiritual self of the
participants by the appropriation of words, as well as Descartes idea of the importance of
agency and will to achieve prosperity in how intentions, donating money, are highly valued in
the construction of a faithful self. Plato´s rule of reason over desires as a mean to achieve unity
can also be seen in how believers submit their desires as could having more money to reason
as a mean to achieve unity with God, understanding reason from a relativistic view since they
follow their own religious reasoning.

From Subjectification to Subjectivity.

When forming the self through processes of objectification, a definition of the subject takes
place creating specific links with the material and cognitive world around, those same
objectifications that we use to define ourselves are applied to others, thus cultural assumption
are created about abstract ideas, persons and material objects, as well as the relations among
them.

Keane insights into Euro-American ontological assumptions explain this multi-directional

process quite eloquently in how Sumbanese Protestants find difficulties in accepting
ceremonial exchange, due to:

“Christian reinterpretation of marriage exchange, the separation of the person from

things and of concrete things from their symbolic value entails a dematerialization of
the person and concomitant despirutialization (and subordination) of the material
object” (Keane,2002:73)

He argues how this reinforce the shift in the individual making impossible for Sumbanese
Protestants to understand material objects as meaningful, transforming the representational
economy in which they are embedded and interpreting it from the individual´s will and
abstract values as “social solidarity” or “tradition”, and how this “shows how the modern
subject must be the source of its own value” (idem.74). Euro-American’s ontological
assumption of what is the self and how is valued result in an impossibility to understand the
equivalent of material objects and persons that takes places during ceremonial exchanges
among many cultures and that are denounced by western societies arguing that persons are
treated as commodities and hence not being valued as humans, which value must come from
its distinction from the material world. A clear distinction between the subject and its
distinction from the world of objects is required in order to convert individuals into Christians,
a modern western perspective of the self is needed where individual´s agency, inwardness and
freedom are taken as a perquisite of the self are fostered and highly valued. This view of the
modern man implies and abstracted self that differentiates itself material forms and social
relations.

This distinction is also hierarchized; animals are considered to have a kind of self which value is
to be taken in considerations although not at the human level since apparently they lack of
reason but still different animal organizations fight for the recognition of animals rights which
even are thought to have a certain self, dignity and value are still treated as material objects
and are commercialized, animals may represent a borderline example between material
despirutalization and personal dematerialization. It also seems as if these two dialectics are
somehow related, religions such as Budism or Induism by negating the existence of a self at all
enhance the value of other material forms which are not consider to be superior to human
while in contrast Christianity by separating and reinforcing their specific cultural idea of the
self from materiality decrease their appreciation of the non-human world. By affirming one´s
self and value other living and not living things are demoralized while by negating one´s self
they are moralized and gain the same value as human beings.

Eastern religions such as The Tao or Budism are also quite interesting when talking about
objectification as forming the self since what they do and foster in their religious texts is an
objectification of the self itself where through different techniques as meditation one looks at
his idea of self and tries to transcend it and realize of the illusion the self or ego, going as far as
affirming that one may wake from the egotic dream and achieve the nirvana but that such an
experience cannot be expressed through words due to their individualistic nature and it can
only be experienced through present experience. They objectify the self, which is understood
as an illusionary identification with memory and thought and use it to deconstruct the self and
not reaffirm it as in the Condomblé or Protestant examples above, moreover by trying to
deconstruct the self through its objectification the idea of uncertainty is thought not to be
something we should be scared but something we should now to live with.

Keane goes further and analyses how the subject in seeking to be the source of its own value,
it relies on its own interiority fostering a linguistic ideology of sincerity that places a distinction
between words and thoughts, where the authority of words is predominant over thought.
Which is also associated with an “understanding of religion that centres on truthful
propositions” (idem.74). Sincerity is both individual and social and has an interactive
dimension, one can lie to oneself or to others becoming “a certain kind of public accountability
to other for one´s words with reference to one´s self” (idem. 75).

This language ideology brings to the fore ideas of the speaker intentionality and looks for
complete transparency, he reflects how Sumbanese Protestants seek for authenticity in speech
prayer searching for the inner autonomy of the human subject, and how conversation into
Christianity implies an entering into modernity and the acquisition of freedom which is a
requisite to be sincere. Furthermore, a problem exists in how words are supposed to come
from oneself and be and individual expression but language social load cannot be negated as
words and their meanings have origins that are beyond one control and can´t be eluded which
challenges the distinction between what is an interior individual expression or and exterior
social one. How can a sincere speech not be “contaminated” by the outer world? and How
judges if the speech is sincere if not the social other? Even the intentionality of such a need to
be sincere is based partly on an offer of transcendence that is managed by religious institutions
that also go beyond the individual.

Hence, “Protestantism and modernity seek to abstract the subject from its material and social
entanglements in the name of freedom and authenticity” (idem.83), but this attempt to
abstract the individual is necessary linked to the material and social world, since “agents
continually constitute themselves through signifying practices that contain an irreducibly
material dimension” (idem.84).

What this analysis reflects is the other side of the objectification, when separating ourselves
from a particular aspect of an experience through rationalization we shape the meaning of
material objects, ourselves and the relations between the self and the social domain creating
cultural assumptions and subjectivities. On the other hand, it exposes the impossibilities of
absolute abstraction from the material and social world, and as much Protestantism tends
towards immaterialized ideas of freedom and authenticity from where to constitute a
characteristic idea of individual, it will always have to adapt to the materiality and sociality of
our existence.

Conclusion.

Objectification as a mean to create identity and an idea of the self is probably a necessary
process without which thinking wouldn´t be possible since there would not be a subject from
where to think. This process can be understood in terms of boundaries that separate what we
think forms part of our self and what does not, the movement of such a boundary creates
different subjectivies and ways to relate with the outer (Wilber, 2000) Moreover,
objectification creates a sensation of certainty and understanding of both oneself and others,
and a certain control over our lives, although it could also be used to deconstruct the self as in
Budism and Tao teachings. On the other hand, it also creates particular subjectivities from
where we construct ideas about the world around us and how we relate to them. The
deconstruction of such a subjectivity is vital to understand the social reality as objectively as
we possibly can. The study of this complicated cognitive process is structures by opposites
such as subject vs object or external vs internal that are now seen as mutually interdependent
as the analyses above shows, forming an interwoven continuum, a single event with multiple
aspects (identification, subjectivitaion, socialization…).

References:

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.115-158.

Inger Sjørslev. (2013). Is Form Really Primary? Or, What Makes Things Authentic? Sociality and
Materiaity in Afro-Brazilian Ritual and Performance. In: Th. Fillitz and A.J. Saris (eds.) Debating
Authenticity. Concepts of Modernity in Anthropological Perspective. Oxford, Berghahn Books,
pp. 111-127.

Marcel Mauss (1935) Techniques of the body. Journal de a psychologie normal et

pathologique, Paris, Année XXXII pp. 271-93

Simon Coleman.(2007). Materializing the Self. Words and Gifts in the Construction of
Charismatic Protestant Identity. In: F. Cannell (ed.) The Anthropology of Christianity, Durham
and London: duke University Press, pp. 163-184.

Ken Wilber. (2000). No Boundry. Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth.
Shabala

Keane, W. (2002). Sincerity, "Modernity," and the Protestants. Cultural Anthropology, 17(1),
pp.65-92.