Inasmuch as physical constraints represent a dimension of reality in which we are mere objects we face a fundamental problem. A multivalent scientific approach to the world is simultaneously reductionist and fragmented. The linear heirarchy of paradigms according to scale is supposedly complete in spite of their wildly different approaches to the same phenomena. First, if this is true we become objects in total. Second, if this is false we must understand the origins, implications and possibilities of these paradigms. They would then represent a truly subjective experience. Whether this divergence from realism represents a phenomena independent of reality is a question better left for another day. Regardless, individual awareness appears to range from one extreme to the other - from the purely physical to the quasi-physical to the paradigmatic. Respect for only physical constraints objectifies a man. More precisely, he is considered an animal and we consider animals to be mere objects. Thus another range appears to exist, whereby respect for non-physical constraints becomes coincident with subjectivity. The recognition of social mores is fundamental to humanity. So far as these expectations act to guide our action, we are objectified by our own subjectivity.
(I think in this situation 'we' represents a strange object. This object is the encapsulation of a very specific idea - the average person. Choice still appears to be relevant. People act in disregard to physical and non-physical constraints. These people, however, suffer the consequences. Death - be it social, economic, biological, etc - serves to regulate behavior. Thus it becomes possible to speak of the group of relatively average people... as long as we admit that deviation is a normal phenomenon in many settings.)