There is a fundamental reason I don’t like vilifying the objectification of people. In order to understand the world in terms of abstract systems, we can’t do without a minimal gesture of objectification. For example, if poor people are not objects, then it trivially follows that either they have freely chosen to starve or evil lizard people are freely choosing to oppress them. Why not? People are subjects, not objects. What is happening to them without external interference are their own free choices. If, despite the absence of interference, starvation is occurring without anyone desiring such an outcome, then surely we must be objects interacting in the world.
This outlook leads to a Tragedy of the Commons.
The other danger here an uncritical objectification of people. If people are simply objects to be manipulated, then what is wrong with a totalitarian dystopia? The whole thing is just an object that is incapable of being imbued with subjective meaning.
This outlook leads to tragedies like Stalinism.
My proposed solution is that systems thinking is only possible on a foundation of abstract iconicity. Instead of subjectifying or objectifying people, we must imagine the world in the form of a mathematical grid like in a video game. People are neither subjects nor material objects but icons occupying positions in the grid. How the grid evolves over time is dictated by laws of the material system it models. The middle region where the abstract model magically “represents” material reality corresponds to a territory of true ambiguity that is best explored using the tool of literature.
This approach underlies any attempt to identify the abstract relations delineating social systems.
In practice, if we are told to think of people as pure subjects, many of us will accuse you of trying to involuntarily induct us into a monastic order. On the other hand, if you say that people should be free to choose their own icons on the world grid, that is just neighborly regard, not asceticism. The shape of their icon has nothing to do with the factual truths that the model entails.
In contrast, the “common sense” solution is to systematically think things without saying them. I feel that is dishonest. How can you trust me when I’m routinely thinking things about you but not saying them just because I think they will offend you? Under those conditions, who knows if I’m the person you think I am? That move is okay within reason, but if it’s being proposed as a basis for social interaction, then we should at least be on the lookout for better alternatives.
Snapshots of the Labyrinth 