Objectivation 'In Itself' and 'For Itself'

Definition

Heller's paradigm for classifying the social world, adapted from Hegel's 'in itself', 'for itself', 'in and for itself' and 'for us'. Species-essential objectivation 'in itself' is the empirical human universal: the unified though articulated system of (1) tools and products, (2) custom, and (3) language. It is "the fruit of human activity, and, at the same time, the pre-condition of all human activity" (Heller, p. 118) — activated by teleological human acts but confronting each person as 'given'. Its cardinal property: without it society would not exist at all; its realm is necessity; its appropriation requires only average competence, little or no specialist training, and proceeds as 'taken for granted'. Its common properties are repetition, rule-character and normativity, the sign system, economy, and situatedness. Objectivations 'for itself' (science, art, philosophy, moral norms, religion) are ontologically secondary — societies can exist without some of them (Sparta had no philosophy) — and embody "that degree of freedom achieved by humanity at any given time" (p. 119); they exist only through conscious intention towards them and require homogenization for their reproduction. 'In and for itself' objectivations (integrations, political structures, law) mix both components; 'being-for-us' is not an objectivation category but the internalization of contents as adequate — the state in which reality and personality become an object of conscious, right action. "Alienated everyday life is the realm of the 'in itself'"; non-alienated everyday life is the realm of the 'for-us' (p. 121). And crucially: "No Great Wall of China separates species-essential objectivations 'in itself' from those that are 'for itself', or the particularistic person from the individual" (p. 122).

Key Thinkers

• Agnes Heller — the paradigm's author: "It was in this book that I worked out a specific version of the paradigm of objectivation: the paradigm of the sphere of objectivation 'in itself'… Since this sphere of objectivation is an empirical universal, all social categories can be understood by having recourse to this objectivation" (preface, p. ix).
• G. W. F. Hegel — the fourfold of 'in itself', 'for itself', 'in and for itself', 'for us' that Heller applies to the three spheres of objectivation and their appropriation.
• Karl Marx — objectification (Vergegenständlichung) in the Manuscripts: man's essential powers externalized in objects; alienation as the objectivized world standing over against its producer.

Related Concepts

• Species-Essentiality — the qualifying principle: all three spheres are species-essential, differing in mode of appropriation.
• Repetition — the first common property of the 'in itself': reiterated activity, repeatability 'by anyone'.
• Homogenization — the criterion of emergence from the everyday into a homogeneous 'for itself' sphere.
• Everyday Life — the everyday as "the territory par excellence for the appropriation of species-essential objectivation 'in itself'… and the basis for species-essential objectivation 'for itself'" (p. 117).
• Particularity and Individuality — the particularistic personality is the subiectum 'in itself'; the individual personality the subiectum 'for itself'.

Source Support

Sources in the wiki that discuss this concept:

• Everyday Life (Heller 1970) — the primary source: ch. 6 (the categories), chs. 7–10 (the 'in itself' sphere and its properties and appropriation schemes), and the conclusion (the personality as subiectum).
• 'Everyday Life:' a sui generis ontology? (Paolucci 2015) — the 'in itself' paradigm as Heller's alternative to transcendental deduction.
• Outline of a Theory of Practice (Bourdieu 1977) — a parallel (non-identical) account of objectified structures appropriated pre-reflectively (the habitus and doxa).
• The Social Construction of Reality (Berger & Luckmann) — objectivation as the process by which human products become an objective, taken-for-granted facticity.

Open Questions

• Heller calls the 'in itself' sphere "an empirical universal" and claims her paradigm thereby avoids transcendental deduction (p. ix) — does the appeal to the empirical escape the historicism she rejects, or does it merely re-describe it?
• How do tools, custom, and language rank? Heller argues they are ontologically co-primary and inseparable, yet assigns each a functional dominance (manipulative activity, social postures, thinking) — is the unity real or stipulative?
• Can the 'critical limit' of normative fields be mapped architecturally — the point at which a building's norms (a door's swing, a room's proportions) stop functioning?