At the center of feminist theory is the notion of objectification. Generally defined objectification is seeing and treating an individual as an object or a tool for use. Objectification has mostly been defined in relation to women than to men. Sexual objectification occurs in the context of sexuality. In the pornography debate, it’s been argued by anti-pornography feminists that, by men consuming pornography, women as a whole are reduced to the level of mere objects for use by men. Traditionally the view has been that only women can be sexually objectified, however, feminist authors Naomi wolf and Christina Hoff observe that with women sexual liberation, women too do view men as sex objects.
The views of Immanuel Kant on sexual objectification have in particular influenced the contemporary discussions about this topic. In his thinking sexuality when not exercised in the boundaries of a monogamous marriage it becomes extremely problematic. He further argues that such are the cases when sexuality leads to objectification. According to Kant objectification is when a person is lowered to an object status. Specifically he explains that objectification violates the humanity of a person. For Kant, it is crucial that the humanity in others is respected by everybody, and people should respect their own humanity. In his view both men and women can in theory be objectified, however, in practice the greatest victims of objectification are women. He is explains this in his discussions of concubines and prostitutes, where he views women being used as objects meant to satisfy the appetites of men.
Like Kant, feminist Andrea Dworkin views there to be a tight link between inequality and objectification. In the eyes of both Dworkin and Kant, there exists a powerful objectifier (man) on one side and on the other side a powerless victim (woman). According Dworkin the gender inequality that is perverse in the world today is so tightly linked to women objectification. According to her the consumption of pornography by men creates and sustains this gender inequality. Dworkin’s like Kant view objectification as a disrespecting a person’s humanity. Using Kantian language she states that objectification is when a person is seen and/or treated as a lower or less human. Thus Dworkin can be considered Kantian since she uses Kantian language in her description of sexual objectification.
According to Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) there are seven features involved in objectification of a person; instrumentality, denial of autonomy, fungibility, violability, ownership, inertness and denial of subjectivity. Sexual objectivity, occurs when an individual’s personality is separated from their physical attractiveness and sexual attributes, thus, meeting the features of objectification as described by Nussbaum. However, the philosopher acknowledges that the concept of objectification is indeed difficult to define as it can be ‘multiple’ and ‘slippery’ (Nussbaum 1995, 251). Like Kant she emphatically focuses on the instrumentality feature in the description of objectification. This can clear when analyzing her description of pornography. Also she shares the same view that inequality in our society is the main cause of objectification. She too can be considered to be a Kantian since her description of the topic borrows largely from the fundamentals laid by Kant.
Garry holds the same view as Kant on objectification. She accepts that this phenomenon is indeed morally unacceptable. However, she question what exactly this means. She argues that ‘respect’ does not mean the same thing to everybody in society. So whereas she hols the Kantian view she challenges fundamental assumption that the view holds; that of a uniform definition and understanding of ‘respect’.
Works Cited
Nussbaum, Martha. "Objectification." Philosophy and Public Affairs 4.24 (1995): 249–291. Print.
