This piece is my way of introducing Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) to an audience who I assume has never heard of it. Of course, it is not meant as a comprehensive account of OOO – just something which touches on its main ideas, associations, and debates surrounding it. The first thing to be said about OOO is that it contains a mish-mash of thoughts which is very much in the process of developing. The main thinkers associated with OOO – such as Graham Harman, Timothy Morton and Levi Bryant – are middle-aged and likely to be writing for decades to come (and who knows how it will progress beyond their lifetimes). The term “Object-Oriented Ontology” was coined in 2009, while associated terms like “Object-Oriented Philosophy” and “Speculative Realism” have been floating around since closer to the new millennium turn. OOO is best described as a school of thought – not so much a “school” like an academy or university but more like a school of fishes, swimming together in the same direction but whom one or a few may break off and swim in their own direction at some point, perhaps finding a new school. Frequently individuals involved in OOO have been known to “swim off” and join other schools for a while to exchange ideas before returning “home”. If we look at the recently published books by Graham Harman, for example, we see a collaboration with an archaeologist in 2023, considerations of what OOO and architecture can offer each other in 2022 and 2020 (Harman also currently works at the Southern California Institute of Architecture), the same for OOO and art in 2021 and 2020, and inclusions of history, literature and philosophy going further back. Harman is worth spotlighting, since he is often thought of as the school’s flagship philosopher, but he purposely seems to avoid sticking to the term OOO too much – with recent books having “Object-Oriented Philosophy”, “Speculative Realism”, “Object-Oriented Architecture”, and other terms in their titles. Because of this, the “fish” can be thought of as relatively independent: here I have used the term “OOO” to describe them for simplicity’s sake. It is also worth pointing out that this introduction is rather Harman-centric, as that is where my reading background mostly is. Some other factors from my own background which are likely to have also influenced this introduction are that I studied archaeology at undergraduate level, and that I discovered OOO through autodidact philosophy around three years ago, being fairly spellbound ever since.
OOO is best understood as the theory and practice of presupposing the value of “objects”. When it comes to practice, this often means focusing on everyday things to an unusual extent, seeing them as having an intrinsic je ne sais quoi or allure (which is Harman’s favoured word). The focus on everyday things, however, can and has been frequently overemphasised – especially when we look back at Harman’s books and find that focuses on philosophical ideas, works of literature, art and other things are more rudimentary. Rather than a focus on certain categories of things, I think it is best to understand OOO as focused on a rapidly-expanding diverse group of things. This can be glimpsed in OOO’s frequent stylistic use of long lists of diverse things which have been argued to serve: “a conceptual purpose of demonstrating the diversity of entities that can be assimilated into his [Harman’s] theoretical position, including physical objects, mathematical concepts, fictional characters, historical figures, real people, etc”1. That being said, OOO does have a tendency to focus on things which seem closest to everyday or mundane objects within these more rudimentary categories – like conceptual artworks which seem mundane, or artefacts which the same can be said for. Perhaps the most prominent debate surrounding OOO, usually beginning with a critical stance, is that by not focusing on humans as much as other schools, OOO is not useful (and perhaps distracting) in responding to ethical issues. I think the best way to reply here is to say that by not focusing on humans as much, OOO is actually more useful in responding to particular ethical issues. The ecological crisis is the most prominent example – both in theory and in practice, as Timothy Morton for one has wrote numerous books focused on it – since it is indisputable that non-human things (such as carbon dioxide, cars, polar bears, the sun, scientific information and its dissemination, animal-plant relations, ideology and more) are useful focuses when responding to the issue. It is well known in applied ethics, usually considered a sub-field of philosophy, that those focused on one issue usually do not have much to say to those focused on another, but that is okay since each issue is worth responding to. Thinking this way, I hope it can be seen that OOO has much to offer those of us seeking to act ethically. Another similar but different debate concerns the claim that by emphasising humans as no more special than, say, trees or fish, an irresponsible let it be attitude emerges in response to particular ecological issues. This is true for ecologies which have been destroyed, but there are also many where humans currently play a small role, where a let it be attitude is useful. Further, when it comes to observing ecologies before deciding whether humans should play a different role, this attitude is indispensable. Overall, this paragraph has demonstrated some of the things that have tended to emerge in the practice of presupposing the value of objects, touched on some of the debates surrounding this practice, and shown what is missed by some of the critiques of OOO in practice.
The theory of OOO is the advocation for presupposing the value of objects. As such, it is important to emphasise that it does not itself presuppose this. Instead, its theory presupposes the existence of “the subject”. What this means is very abstract and difficult to explain. I would describe it as the perspective which comes when one steps fully into the shoes of another. An alternative way of explaining it which I find useful is to imagine being a psychotherapist. Here, you are supposed to understand the person in therapy better than they understand themselves. In other words, your perspective is supposed to contain what is conscious to them and what is unconscious to them. In this situation “your perspective” is the subject. Supposing this, you might also imagine that there are various things in the room. There may be a lamp, a sofa, a person, and a light breeze. The question of what is meant by a certain term, how you can help the person in therapy, or even a stray memory from last winter may cross your mind. For OOO, these things are all contained in your perspective (the subject). OOO asks nothing more than for us to orient our focus toward these things. Another prominent debate around OOO, again often beginning with a critical stance, is that it does not focus enough on the right “shoes” to step into. Different shoes fit in different situations – for example, if there is a leaky tap we should step into the shoes of a plumber, becoming the subject of the task of fixing the pipes. This is, to me, a really interesting debate. I think my response to the critique is that, indeed, in many situations we should step into the shoes of the subject which is most capable of fixing the problem. However, there are also many situations in which the problem is not quite clear yet, and in the future we can bet on there being new shoes which are a better fit in that situation. What OOO offers, in comparison with this critique’s approach, is a way of suspending the impulse to fix when it is better to let things be. To sum this paragraph up, OOO offers a theoretical approach which advocates for the unfittingness of all things, but where shoes that fit may emerge in the future.
I think the main challenge of reading OOO texts and thinking along its lines, swimming with the school so to speak, even if to break off and swim in one’s own direction later, is that there is no obvious way of telling when presupposing the value of objects is being advocated for, and when it is being applied. This is the case for everything which presupposes the existence of the subject. The reader must themselves find the right shoes for the challenge, and this is something which takes courage and willingness to experiment. It may also be that in some situations or times, the right shoes may be worth waiting for. Because of this, I think it is a good idea to continually return to OOO even if one does not “get it” straight away. I hope, even if the right shoes were not present this time, that the reader has got something out of this piece of writing – particularly the main ideas, associations, and debates surrounding OOO as I currently see it. Of course, there is no guarantee that I am wearing the right shoes, and because of that I will myself be returning to OOO to see what more can be discovered. Thanks for reading!
From Vivek Santayana’s review of Harman’s ‘Immaterialism’ which can be found here: https://www.bsls.ac.uk/2017/06/graham-harman-immaterialism-objects-and-social-theory.