"A commodity is therefor a mysterious thing simply because in it the
social character of men's labor appears to them as an objective
character of the products of that labor, as social natural
properties of these things; because the relation of the producers
to the sum total of their labor appear to them as a social relation
among objects, a relation existing outside them."
Thus reification is not a category of psychology but a very distinct
consequence of the extension of capitalist exchange to all domains of the
life-world. In the first volume of "The Theory of Communicative Action",
Jurgen Habermas point to a further statement of Marx to characterize
reification: " . . . the condition of their [the producers] standing as
independent private persons in a social context." One interpretation of
this: the concept of the individual in capitalist society is a reification
of one aspect of a social relation. I think this can clearly be observed in
mass media/advertising's manipulation of the consumers self-image. Although
Marx never used the term "reification", he summarized this
social-->individual process in the same analysis of commodities:
"The transformation of the commodity relation into a thing of "ghostly
objectivity" cannot therefor content itself with the reduction of all
objects for the satisfaction of human needs to commodities. It
impresses its structure and abilities upon the whole
consciousness of man; his qualities and abilities are no
longer an organic part of his personality; the appear as
"things" that he can "possess" or "dispose of" like the
various objects of the external world."
Thus reification is a social process that objectifies consciousness for the
subject itself, not an individual process that objectifies subjective
qualities of consciousness. The "ghostly objectivity" is precisely reified
subjectivity or in more modern jargon a state of "disempowerment."
Throughout the years I have found the confusioon of the social process of
reification with some psychological process to be a common misunderstanding.
I recognize that some might tell me that this word has more uses than the
one I am describing; a simple response which I believe the Cheshire Cat
first gave to Alice concerning what words mean. Be that as it may, the
process of reification that Marx identified and Lukacs and successive
proponents of Western Marxim expanded upon has never been so obviously
dominant as it is today--especially in most circles of academic discourse.
I don't know Vygotsky well, but I would be surprised if he were not aware of
these analyses, given his dialectical materialist point of departure.
Insofar as one wants to dig into the problem, however, starting with Marx
and Lukacs, looking at some of the early issues of the journal TELOS might
prove to be extremely productive.
Paul H. Dillon
dillonph who-is-at mail.tidepool.com