As its two main Parts will evidence, this Comment remains the product of two distinct if overlapping voices. Part II returns to the conceptual origins of Radin's theory in her general critique of objectification and commodification. It asks whether a more positive concept of objectification can be recovered that is distinguishable from reification, the latter seeming to be the more appropriate locus of Radin's criticism. Part III's response to Radin is similar, but it tries to exemplify both our appreciation of and our differences from her work through more detailed analysis of intellectual property law and theory.
George H. Taylor and Michael J. Madison,
Metaphor, Objects, and Commodities,
54 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol54/iss1/8