What is reification and why on earth should I care?
You may or may not have come across this term before, and if not, then welcome to the arcane aspects of complexity science and organisation theory.
However, as a leader it is important to understand the tendency we have to treat organisations and other abstract concepts like culture or organisations as though they were actual physical things that respond to natural laws. Why? Because it affects how you approach making changes to your culture or wider organisation.
Organisations and other social objects respond to processes of human interaction, but they do not respond to universal laws the way that physical objects such as balls (speed, direction) or pot plants (colour, mass). Even though pot plants are living, and organisations are dynamic and so seem to have some qualities of living things, organisations are not living systems like pot plants. (By the way, do you like the pot plants shown in our front entrance? I am quite proud of them.)
Reification means the process of taking an abstract concept, something that does not really exist as a physical object, and treating it as though it were an object or a physical thing. In the same way that personification means to treat an object as though it were a person (e.g. "I remembered Sunday’s mistake," as though Sunday were a person who could make a mistake. Or thinking of a storm as grumpy – as though it could have the kind of emotion a person has). I think of "reification" as meaning "thingification."
Naming an abstract concept is an important step in enabling humans to discuss and make sense of it. To a degree, it could be said that if we can’t name something, then it doesn’t exist for human beings.
There is a phenomenon (not often considered) that the process of naming something as "this" simultaneously names everything else as "that." So if I call something a circle, then I am also calling everything outside that circle "not circle." So by naming "circle" I have actually created two categories, ("circle" and "not circle") even though I am only focusing attention on one category – the one I have named. The other category becomes almost invisible in this process. I learnt of this concept from Farhad Dalal, who has drawn on Matte-Blanco in discussing the process of categorisation that occurs in the development of racism.
That is one aspect of naming something that is not often considered.
Naming the concept does not necessarily lead to reification though. So to use the word "culture" as an example, we could, having named the concept of "culture" then go on to treat culture as though it actually exists as a thing that can be managed, manipulated or changed by rational action, and that perhaps has properties such as direction and speed, in a similar way to how you could manipulate a ball and say that it has direction or speed. Of course, culture is not a physical thing that you can touch and discern its shape and direction.
Nevertheless, culture surveys (often nowadays called climate surveys or engagement surveys) do attempt to discern the shape and direction of a corporate culture.
At most culture is an abstract concept created by humans to help to explain certain social phenomena – i.e. the way certain patterns amongst a group, country or organisation seem to be continually perpetuated.
So to me, reification is something that we commonly do in everyday life and in many situations. This is useful to do as it helps us to understand certain things. It can also lead us to think of trying to manage and control such abstract concepts as culture, as though they were actual physical things, and this, to my mind is unlikely to be helpful and that is the danger of reification.
Reify = ‘thingify" – to treat an abstract concept as though it were a physical thing and had the physical properties of a thing. It is powerful to be aware of these tendencies that we have when talking about such abstract concepts as corporate culture. After all, how we approach them can have major effects on the lives of hundreds and even thousands of people who report to you as an organisational leader.
I like the differentiation between naming and reification in your post since sometimes I find it can be a source of confusion.
The process of reification is interesting and I find a good source of discussion in organizations. As you point out, things like culture get reified and this can be problematic. Another interesting part of the process is when people equate an actual thing to a concept and then reify the concept through that thing. For instance if we take your pot plants, someone might say they are beautiful and then reify beautiful as attached to plants in general. It can then become very difficult to get at what has really happened since there is a real thing involved in the reification process. It’s almost like the real object is being used as a transitional object on the road to reification.
Comment by Tom Gibbons — September 1, 2009 @ 6:47 am
The reified world of everyday organizational reality…
Over recent days there have been several lively discussions on self-organization across a number of blogs. The latest comments on the first of my own two posts, #6 by Stephen Billing and #7 by Chris Mowles, have centred on a……
Trackback by informal coalitions — September 1, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Thanks Tom, do you talk about reification in your consulting work? When you talk about the process of equivilating (if there is such a word) the thing with the concept, how has this caused problems in organisations?
Hmmm, transitional objects, sounds like we’re getting into psychoanalytical territory here.
Comment by Stephen — September 3, 2009 @ 12:38 am
I don’t often use the term reification but I try and notice when this is occuring and then will ask a pretty simple question, something like “So where is this THING you have just described” and push fairly hard to get people to really answer that question. Typically this will lead to a realization that the ‘thing’ is actually a process, and usually a process of interaction and then we have something of more value to work with.
I also find identity gets reified as well, illustrated when people say, ‘this is who I am’, or something else along those lines. I like to ask ’so tell me WHEN you became who you are’ and it is very difficult to answer that question, and as it is grappled with it often opens up discussion about the emergent and interactive process of identity. This can help people realize they can change their identity since it is emergent and not static and they are not stuck with being some… thing.
As for the transitional object thing, well I do have an affinity for some of the concepts of psychoanalytical work even though I’m not a fan (anymore) of the overall approach… see my blog on entry on this… http://www.tms-americas.com/blog.cfm?id=292254278
I had the chance to work with a Jungian analyst for a couple of years so it kind of sticks with you…
Comment by Tom Gibbons — September 4, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Tom, When I did my accredtation for the Team Management Profile I was told it was based on Jung, as was Myers Briggs. This didn’t surprise me as I think there are a lot of similarities, and I know there have been published some comparisons. So it is no wonder to me that some of Jung has stuck for you.
I am interested in your comment that identity can be reified, and your question about when identity became set. Obviously people can’t point to a moment when they became who they are. This reflects the idea that there is a process of developing identity compared to the idea that there is some authentic already given self that exist. In your discussion there is an implication that identity can’t (or shouldn’t be) reified – can’t be seen as a “thing”.
Now, I want to ask you a question that has been on my mind ever since I first started reading your comments and your own blog posts on complex responsive processes, and seeing what looks to me like a dissonance.
As I understand it from my accreditation process, your organisation promotes a range of profiles in which people answer questions and receive a response (from a computer that has been programmed by a person) that puts them into a category (thruster-organiser etc). Does the profile amount to a reification of the identity of the person?
I have struggled to see how you are able to write some of your perspicacious comments about the social formation of identity and remain in a business that promotes “snapshots” or reifications of people’s identity.
I realise that this comment may sound very attacking of you. I am not intending it to be so, however. I am grappling, perhaps in too public a forum, with my own reality that as I learned about complex responsive processes theory, I couldn’t see a place for TMI or any other profile, even though TMI was the one I liked the best and went to the trouble of becoming accredited in.
I guess my question is this: how do you reconcile complex responsive processes thinking and the concept of profiling, including TMI profiling?
Comment by Stephen — September 6, 2009 @ 2:09 am
Great question Stephen and first of all it did not feel like an attack to me at all; I have grappled with the very same thing since I began using things like the MBTI a number of years ago (not anymore however). I will try and touch on a few things here but probably could write way more than would be useful..
I should also point out that I’m going to focus these points on the TMP which is the primary psychometric TMS profile, not the ones that do not have this component
There are 2 primary reasons why I use the TMS intruments:
1) If used as data (and this is critical) then I find that data can assist in creating more useful interactions between people.
2) I think many people do use profiles like the TMP as part of a reification of indentity and I want to illustrate what I consider to be a much more useful way in which to use this type of data.
I make a big deal of point one whenever I work with the TMP. I tell people that what they have in front of them is data and it is only through discussion and conversation that the data will take on any meaning so the data is secondary to the discussion. I also indicate that I believe this data (preference) changes as a result of our interactions. I ask if they can ’see’ themselves to some degree in the data (profile) and if they can, then it is picking up some recognizable patterns that will affect the way they interact with others and the language used in the profile may assist in better understanding those patterns than the language they are now using.
The reason I moved to use the TMP rather than other similar asessments has less to do with the Jungian connection and more to do with the link of the preference data to the underlying work model. This link is critical in that it relates a preference construct such as Introversion to a Type of Work. This adds a context to discussions about the word Introversion and for me, without context, discussion on preference is pretty much a waste of time.
The above resonates very well I think with how this type of data can be used within the ideology of complex responsive processes.
The second point is also very important to me. Especially since we accredit people to use the instruments in our part of the world. Most people come to us with a very traditional way of wanting to use the instrument and we try and illustrate a different way of making use of the data. At first this can be confusing for some people but as we interact with them over time it can open some doors I think. In some ways it is our effort to alter the reification of identity through the use of these types of instruments which are used so carelessly and commonly.
So if I can find data that helps make interactions between people more useful I will use it and the data from the TMP to me is no different than the data of observations about power dynamics or thematic patterning of interactions. And if used this way it can be helpful.
One quick story as an illustration of one of the things that got me going in this direction.
When I was working with the Jungian analyst I asked him if he ever used things like the MBTI. He said ‘no’ and that very few of the analysts he knew did either. This was because it could distract from the unique context the person brought to the analytical process. So I just had to ask how he could then justify the use of things like archetypes and complexes and we ended up talking about those as frameworks for discussion where the expression of the complex would be unique to the individual but it could be seen as falling into a common framework and that framework was a helpful language and container for discussion. That made sense to me and in many ways is how I use the TMP data.
Hopefully I haven’t been too long winded here and hopfully this public forum is read by a whole bunch of people, some who might use things like the TMP, and now might use them differently.
Thanks for the question…
Comment by Tom Gibbons — September 8, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Tom, thanks for taking the time for providing this illuminating answer. I find myself helping clients interpreting the results of questionnaires or figuring out how best to use them in situations where they have committed to doing them.
In these situations I also take the instrument as a stimulus for a conversation as opposed to the kind of “set in stone” description of an identity.
As I mentioned above, I am accredited in TMP, but I am coming to a point where I am failing to see why the instrument is needed to stimulate certain conversation. I have found that very useful discussion about teamwork can be facilitated through inquiring into what is going on around us now – and I am unsure of why it needs a special instrument to do so.
Anyway, I thank you again for providing such a generous answer to my question.
Cheers, Stephen
Comment by Stephen — September 8, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
[...] Rodgers on Do You Need Personality Questionnaires, Culture Surveys or Team Instruments?Stephen on Be Aware of Reification [...]
Pingback by Stephen Billing’s Blog » Profiles - “Objective” Abstractions from Reality that Only Make Sense in “Subjective” Reality — September 11, 2009 @ 6:59 am
You talk about reification as treating the abstract as real and you’r example of culture demonstrates this.
However doesn’t reification also mean turning the abstract into something real E.g Sir Frank Whittle had an abstract idea that he truned into real thing and built the first jet engine. In this case is reification the engineering process that Whittle and his team employed to turn an idea into a real thing. If so, it must be important to understand reification if we want to engineer something, such as a car, skyscraper, jumbo jet, or an enterprise?
Comment by Michael Milne — October 23, 2009 @ 1:55 am
I should verify with you here, which isn’t one thing I often do! I enjoy reading a blog that will make people think. Additionally, thanks for allowing me to remark!
Comment by veterans lawyers — November 11, 2011 @ 12:20 pm