Issue 45: Human Relationships Part One: Beyond the World of Objects
Why we need more than science when comforting the sick and ordering lasagne
In this series I address some key elements of human relationships and interpersonal connection. In this first essay I will explore the way we have become fixated on viewing others materialistically, that is seeing others merely as objects. When we objectify another person we reduce them to something far less than they are, this act denigrates the one treated as an object and it diminishes the person who treats the other materialistically. Later in the series during in Part 2 I will look at the nature of human interaction and how it progresses from surface attraction to affection. Finally, in Part 3, I will discuss the divine element in human connection and how being conscious of God is a key element in the formation of deep human relationships and being free from a life of objectification.
Over the last century, monumental scientific progress has led us to a preoccupation with scientific thinking in our everyday interactions with each other. Increasingly humans view each other as mere objects when we should be seeing each other as much more. The consequences of this over-objectification are vividly captured in a scene from the movie Patch Adams, where a senior doctor provides a detailed yet impersonal explanation to trainee doctors about a patient with gangrene. After a technical query from one of the trainees, the patient, clearly stressed by the technical medical discussion, receives some relief when Patch Adams asks a question—"What is her name?" Learning her name is Marjory, Patch greets her, "Hi, Marjory," eliciting a smile and significantly improving her demeanour. The lesson is that humans need to be treated as more than just an object in the material world, they are also subjects.
While it is true that we exist in the material world as one of many objects, we also inhabit a cognitive, emotional, and spiritual world filled with thoughts, feelings, opinions, and convictions. This is a subjective world and it is a very important part of human existence.
The notion of objectification is linked to the act of being objective. To be objective is to remove personal feelings from our judgments and evaluations, which is necessary when examining and explaining the material world. For example, in a 5,000-person medical trial, we want researchers to observe and classify findings without their personal values or relationships influencing the results. Objectivity involves careful classification and quantification, resulting in quantitative data.
On the other hand, to be subjective is to make judgments based on personal views, feelings, tastes, or opinions. Subjective judgments belong to a realm beyond the reach of science or empiricism. For example, objectivity is not required to express love or the benefit of a helping hand during a difficult time—these are human interactions relevant only to those involved. The relevance of the subjective reality can be seen when ordering a meal. Do you want the lasagne or the ravioli? The answer will depend on your personal preference. Maybe you want something light to eat because you are not that hungry. Or perhaps you love making your own lasagne and want to compare the restaurant’s version to your own. These preference dynamics are situated in the subjective world. They cannot be explained or encapsulated by science.
Often there is confusion between the objective and subjective worlds. We are told to trust science because it has the answers, but science can’t have all the answers because it does not have all the questions. For example, "Should a country lockdown during a pandemic?" is not a scientific question. While science can inform the decision, this question also involves weighing risks and rewards, inevitably drawing on personal and collective preferences.
At times, it is appropriate to treat a person as an object, such as in the aforementioned medical trial. However, at other times, they must be treated as a subject, for example when facing a debilitating disease as Marjory was.
A subject is very different from an object. As Roger Scruton1 pointed out, a subject has a face that is unique and recognisable in a crowd, while objects are faceless. We may know an object's physical attributes, but we cannot know his frustrations, preferences and joys unless they have been conveyed face-to-face, subject to subject.
We have become overly programmed to measure and classify human activity objectively, resulting in a series of depressing life goals. We constantly aim to improve statistical representations of life—better achievement data for schools, more income for the poor, lower crime rates. While improved statistics are ultimately beneficial, the relentless pursuit of better data sets is a miserable experience and often does not bring about the desired changes. The power of personal interaction between subjects is what truly changes lives. Treating another human as a mere object can be denigrating and detracts from these interpersonal experiences.
Nowhere is over-objectification more apparent than in the distortion of sexuality in our societies. Erotic attraction and associated behaviour can be one of life’s most enriching experiences, but it can also cause tremendous pain when misdirected. The distortion of erotic energy often stems from a lack of deep, genuine love between people. For example, short-term hookups are a denigration of another human being, reducing at least one person to an object used for gratification. The face of the "other" becomes irrelevant, with only body parts mattering.
This diminishment of humanity is not limited to sexual freedom, it also manifests in places where sexuality is tightly controlled. Fundamentalist Islamic law, for example, distorts sexuality in a way that leads to the denigration of women. In many Islamic societies, women lose their social identities by covering themselves completely to curb men’s urges. In states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, people can lose their lives for engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct. Erotic behaviour is tightly controlled, with even consensual sexual relationships considered both immoral and illegal. Women are often forced to hide their bodies and faces, their behaviour tightly monitored (usually by men) to prevent sexual impropriety. Women lose their identity with each person shrouded in the same attire.
Many fail to comprehend that while a human body is an object in the material world, a human being is a subject who cannot be fully encapsulated materially. Humans belong to a realm where thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are not just physiological responses but expressions of individual and collective consciousness. A human being is so much more than a material object.
In New Zealand, the over-objectification phenomenon is particularly evident in how groups are evaluated and treated. Māori, for instance, have been recognised as an underachieving group in education. Quantitative studies aggregate individuals to reveal the problem, showing how far behind Māori lag and in which areas. Experts then roll out educational initiatives to meet the needs of this large group. However, education is a deeply subjective experience. In these initiatives, Māori are not treated as subjects but as objects—faceless members of a large, homogeneous group. Educators are told how Māori learn and how to shift the dial of underachievement, as if all 900,000 Māori in New Zealand learn in the same way. However, humans differ along a multitude of dimensions. A Māori boy gifted in sport who lives with both parents might learn completely differently from a Māori girl who loves music, lives with one parent, and has dyslexia. Formulating an educational initiative based on one human dimension—such as race—is to objectify a person and group of people.
Objective thinking will continue to be vital for our collective progress. However, an obsession with numbers, results, unbiased dispositions, and “moving the dial” has caused us to lose sight of the fact that we are more than just objects in a material world. We are subjects, each with a unique view of the world. Scruton noted that subjects are "unobservable," which is true because they do not belong to the material world. Yet, they are recognisable. Once a person gazes at another’s face and stares into their eyes, they become aware that we are not just a number, we are each a someone—a human being with our own identity, looking at the world through our own set of eyes.
Humans have a deep need to be recognised as subjects and to express themselves to others. Such expressions are found in the meaningful connection between people. Human connection and relationships have become distorted as we increasingly view issues materially and others as objects, leading to a neglect of the beauty and importance of the human subject. Until we see others as subjects, genuine human connection is impossible. The nature of such relationships and connections will be the focus of Part 2 in this series.
NOTE: The ideas in this article have been inspired by the 2010 Gifford Lectures delivered by Roger Scruton.
COMING UP:
A THEORY OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS PART 2: ATTRACTION, AFFECTION AND CONNECTION.
AND
JOKING IN THE USA: I LEARNT THINGS ABOUT THE PERILS OF WORKPLACE BANTER, WORK CULTURE, AND PLENTY MORE DURING A RECENT TRIP TO AMERICA.
Scruton, R. (2012). The face of God: The Gifford lectures 2010. Bloomsbury Academic.