>>18
OOP is not either of those things, but a set of points at the intersection of them. Languages implement a point somewhere in the space delimited by those three axes according to the goals of the implementor.
What I've read about OOP is usually about structuring a project for a large team of programmers: `The nature of object-oriented programming is such that it is most beneficial for large programs written by multiple authors and are expected to last a long time. The ease of implementing a small, simple program does not much depend on what programming methodology is employed, and onewho has dealt with only small programs may not see any point to the object-oriented discipline.` (David Moon preface to Keene, 1989).
So the scope or OOP isn't really for structuring the way your program behaves, but for structuring how it is put together by a team much in the way that organiations (of people, such as afirm that develops software) do. In fact, OOP reflects the organization of the team that puts it together. Whether you think such an organization ought to exist in the first place is beyond the point, the case is that they do and so OOP has prevailed to solve that organizational need. If it were, as you said, nothing but a buzzword, it would have faded into obscurity decades ago.