I can get behind or at least validate the concerns of everything here except "…bodies who…"
If this language aims to show the blunt physical way that others dehumanize the people in question… well, that's not clear. Maybe exploitive actors see others as just "bodies", but that's not a good way to see people.
The concept of a "person" is bigger than just their physical body, in the same way that this sentence is bigger than just a bunch of binary numbers.
If you want to highlight the dehumanizing, objectifying way that power sees people, it would be "…bodies that…"
Using "who" makes it seem like you think you can refer to people as "bodies" in a way that is non-objectifying…
Thanks for clarifying. So, if you are writing from the perspective of the dehumanizing system that sees the precariat as mere "bodies", then it is "bodies that…" not "bodies who…"
If this language aims to show the blunt physical way that others dehumanize the people in question… well, that's not clear. Maybe exploitive actors see others as just "bodies", but that's not a good way to see people.
The concept of a "person" is bigger than just their physical body, in the same way that this sentence is bigger than just a bunch of binary numbers.
If you want to highlight the dehumanizing, objectifying way that power sees people, it would be "…bodies that…"
Using "who" makes it seem like you think you can refer to people as "bodies" in a way that is non-objectifying…