The dimension of action is another absolutely central dimension for sociology. Understanding action as a social event, why it occurs and in what way, is crucial to understanding humans as social beings. Action permeates human life, from political action to the creation and use of tools that shape the world (Arendt, 1998). A central focus in sociology is to examine how humans are both a means and an end in themselves, as well as how they are both subjects and objects in their actions and social contexts (Weber, Marx, Simmel, de Beauvoir, Mills, Haraway, Bourdieu). Weber analyzed action as meaningfully oriented toward others, and his concept of ideal types explains different types of actions, ranging from traditional to rational. Marx highlighted how action is shaped by relations of production and the alienation of labor, which makes humans both creators and creations within the economic system. Simmel viewed actions as expressions of the individual’s relationships with social structures, where even small actions can reveal society’s larger patterns.
Subjectivized self, objectification, sobjectification: Sobjectification (subjectivized objectification) is a balance in using, that is, objectifying, oneself as an instrument without becoming merely an instrument for oneself and others (de Beauvoir, 2018). I borrow the term “subjectivized” from Touraine’s theory in the sense of “the will to become an actor” (1995), which differs from Foucault’s anti, humanistic concept of subjectification. Subjectification here refers to the existence of a subject capable of experiencing and possessing conscious awareness, and who cannot be viewed as “dead” (Heartfield, 2002). Subjectivized self, objectification can be likened to the “cheerful robot” (Haraway, 1985), which uses itself as an instrument without turning itself into a “cheerful robot” (Mills, 1959) but still retains humanity and subjective experience. Sobjectification is a balancing act between creating and using tools without becoming used by the tool, a recurring theme in Illich’s work, for example, regarding how institutions lose their humanity, over, objectify, and lose the subjective (Illich, 1973). The same theme applies to how human, made artifacts shape us and our thinking (Hornborg, 2021; Hacking, 1999; Callon, 2021; Latour, 2005; Bennett, 2010). The counterbalance to de, subjectification is thus to design and use artifacts, tools, and technologies in such a way that the human subjective is not lost. At the same time, these artifacts, tools, and technologies should be able to be used to support the pursuit of the good life. Taylor’, points out that instrumental reason has a “rich moral background” in alleviating suffering; the problem that leads to an imbalance is “runaway instrumental reason” when human subjectivity is not taken seriously, for example, in the encounter between a doctor and a patient (Taylor, 1991).
Mills (1956) viewed the “cheerful robot” as the great danger of modernity, where the desire for freedom beyond alienating bureaucratic environments seemed to have vanished and was simultaneously characterized by a sense of contentment on the part of the subject (Mills, 1956, 171, 175). Mills contrasts this with the Renaissance man, who above all else strove for his freedom. The “happy robot” points toward a direction in which humans become merely objects to themselves, yet find a certain pleasure in it. Instead of the Renaissance man, who is weighed down by a humanist tradition that is somewhat dated, I would rather play with the concept of the robot and instead turn to Donna Haraway’s concept of the cyborg (1985). The critical cyborg is one who engages in a subjectivized self, objectification and breaks away from Haraway’s association with feminism, socialism, and materialism alone (1985). The critical cyborg, or simply the cyborg, sees itself precisely as a cyborg with technologies connected to the self; the cyborg captures this balance as a metaphor. Humans can always be seen as a form of cyborg, in that they create and apply (anthro)technologies to themselves in order to transform themselves and reach greater heights through practice (Sloterdijk, 2013).
Foucault moved from declaring the subject dead beyond discourse at the beginning of his career, but rediscovered it toward the end in the idea that our self can be “authored” by us, and that we can “produce” ourselves as an art of living, with reference to Nietzsche and ancient philosophies, in a “care of the self” (Foucault, 1984). Individuals can “cultivate” themselves through the “arts of existence,” which can serve as a basis for resistance (Danaher et al., 2000: 150 in Webb, 2019, 144) Bourdieu’s “self, fashoning” also opens the door to creating change (Webb, 2019). The existential sociologist Touraine argues that the concept of the subject should be defined as the individual’s will or attempt to become an actor, where the subject becomes a form of resistance, a negation that is always present to a greater or lesser extent (Paulsen, 2013, 21).
We inevitably view ourselves and others as both subjects and objects (de Beauvoir, 2018). Some sociologists in this debate have opposed attempts to view oneself as an object, arguing that this is reified, inauthentic, instrumentalized, and alienating. Objectification can be more or less autonomous or heteronomous. For example, through agency, we can create practices that resist various practices and routines in the world. We can build habits that become new routines in opposition to the routinization of life. We can view ourselves as something that is not necessarily bound by law but operates within certain limitations. We cannot simply will ourselves to do anything; rather, we need to treat o ly if we wish to bring about change and live a moral life, one marked by inertia and the realization that we are unpredictable and difficult to control.
Sobjectification captures the idea that objectification through various technologies, such as self, technologies (Rose, 1999), needs to be approached in a balanced way. For example, quantification is beneficial to a certain extent, as is establishing routines that provide security and striving to improve one’s performance. However, the calculative objectification that is part of a culture where everything is to be optimized through measurement goes too far, for instance, in the realms of health and happiness (Davies, 2015; Cederström & Spicer, 2015).
Sobjectification is a balance between being oneself as an end and having others as ends, while being part of a process in which oneself and others become means to achieve these ends. Macro, meso, and micro, subjects represent creative agency at different levels, where the balance between being a means and an end is maintained. A meso-subject occurs, for example, when professions increase what Fullan calls “professional capital,” in which human capital, decision, making capital, and social capital grow to enhance the organization’s capacity to address various challenges (Fullan, 2011). Macrosubjectivity is a more difficult challenge but occurs when larger groups or entire societies become an actor. Marx’s view that the working class would be the macrosubject has been mirrored by a collective creation of agency in the formation of self-determining nations.
Imbalances
Below are various imbalances in this dimension.
Robotized
The “cheerful robot” is an example of objectification and instrumentalization taken too far. Mills viewed the “cheerful robot” (Mills, 1956) as the great danger, where the desire for freedom beyond alienated bureaucratic environments seemed to have vanished, and where there was a certain contentment in this state (Mills, 1956, 171, 175). Equivalents can be found in concepts such as functional stupidity (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012) and false consciousness (Marx). One example is a quantified life that the person finds comfortable. Various apps that promote good health and support life in different ways (King et al., 2019). These may include algorithms that curate good content in various apps (Seymour, 2019). The unhappy robot, is the objectified person who finds no happiness or pleasure in their submission. The unhappy robot oscillates between cynicism, despair, and grim pessimism.
Oversubjectification
Oversubjectification is the state of viewing oneself as merely an end in itself, and a reluctance to treat oneself as a tool or means. It creates a reluctance to do anything other than what is coded as “self, actualization” or to simply have to perform work. Work becomes something viewed solely as oppression. Being part of a collective is also seen as something dangerous or burdensome. The desire for agency becomes disconnected from other people. This ties into the imbalance of entrenched autonomy, a solipsistic existence of over, individualization and atomism.
(Over)-objectification or misobjectification occurs, for example, when one is treated solely as an object or tool, such as in sexual objectification or slavery. In ABT, objectification is considered balanced if it is genuinely autonomous, for example, objectifying oneself as a tool by striving for the good life.
Technologized
Technologized refers to when the objects, technologies (technical and cultural technologies), and instruments we use begin to influence us, rub off on us, or shape us. Our tools can become our masters. Various artifacts and tools created by humans, in turn, shape humans. Some of the most dominant ones today are written language, the printing press, television, email, the computer, medical innovations, ships, sewage systems and water treatment, nuclear power, the smartphone, the car, money, digital algorithms, and the factory with its various technologies. New technological innovations bring with them the consequence that those who can most quickly learn and utilize the new technology can, through that technology, control other people. Those who can program can, through technology, control other people via algorithms and, through behavioral design, shape specific behaviors that maximize profits for the companies they work for. Money is a means of facilitating trade and transferring debt. But that tool can itself become an end in itself, something that serves as a means to free oneself from obstacles and increase one’s pleasure. Yet money can be seductive; when one realizes there is always more to be had, money itself becomes the goal. The smartphone is meant to facilitate communication, but its major effect is not to improve communication, but rather to intensify communication on certain topics, which are primarily trivial. Few people view the cell phone merely as a tool anymore, but rather as an object with a strong influence on one’s behavior. This requires reflection, willpower, and the creation of habits and rules for living in order to manage it. “Technologized as imbalance” refers to being exposed to technologies that have harmful effects. For example, the “slow violence” of living near a factory that emits various hazardous chemicals, leading to premature death from conditions such as cancer.
Technologized” also
“Technologized” also refers to the way in which the cultural and bodily techniques or technologies we use against the self reduce us to mere objects or shape our behavior in ways we did not originally intend. Nicholas Rose is a sociologist who has studied how technologies directed against the self shape us (1999). The technologies we direct toward the self are, in today’s world, often derived from psychological thinking (Rose, 1999). These are essentially different ideas about how we should influence ourselves. These ideas can then be used to influence our behavior. A central technology is individual responsibility. Sociologists have raised concerns about this, because when this technology is directed toward the self, it brings both opportunities and risks. The opportunity is that one can recognize one’s own agency and the ability to change one’s life, but the risk is that one develops excessive hope for major change and, if one succeeds, places all the blame on oneself (Rose, 1999; Berlant, 2011). Another aspect of the “technological society,” according to Jacques Ellul, is that efficiency becomes an overriding dynamic (1964). Everything is to be made more efficient, but this leads to irrational consequences. “Efficiency measures” can be a term that masks the fact that responsibility for caring for the elderly is being shifted back to the family, a family that is unable to care for its elderly members because they themselves have jobs that take up a great deal of time.
Flawed cyborgization is another imbalance
The cyborg was the analogy that philosopher Donna Haraway proposed as a suitable metaphor for understanding humanity (1985). The cyborg is a metaphor for the fact that we already have technologies connected to our bodies that have shaped us. The danger is that, on our journey toward even greater incorporation of technologies, these may negatively impact humans, as many recent forms of cyborgification have done, such as smartphones and AI, which, when used, can have negative effects like cognitive atrophy and social impoverishment.
Malicious belief
Malicious belief is an imbalance in which one views oneself as lacking agency (Paulsen, 2013; Touraine, 1995). This most often occurs today when we view ourselves as dependent chemical beings over whom we have no control (Rose, 2006). We do not possess perfect agency, it is partial, but we still have room for agency (Touraine, 1995).
Enriched
The wealthy person has prioritized their own flourishing over that of others. The wealthy person suffers from a sense of dissonance within their body. They feel entitled to have vast amounts of money while others suffer. This is often justified by liberal ideologies held by the wealthy, which fail to take societal dynamics into account. The wealthy attempt to create artificial purposes, such as charity for specific causes, but these lack radicalism. The wealthy are socialized into indifference toward other people’s suffering and a sense of entitlement to their own status and pleasure; in psychological terms, the wealthy are always a form of sociopath. Enrichment is a form of elitism, but you can be part of an elite without being rich. Enrichment shapes an individual’s practices, materialities, and socialities in ways that reinforce the established chains of thought.