Object-oriented ontology is a comparatively new concept in philosophy. According to Graham Harman, this concept came into international prominence with three other competing philosophies in April 2007 Speculative Realism Workshop at Goldsmith College, University of London. Harman had been using the term ‘object-oriented philosophy’ since 1997. However, Harman’s other colleagues, Bogost and Bryant did not agree with him in philosophical matters. Hence, Levi Bryant first proposed the term ‘object-oriented ontology’ in 2009 which referred to all their three ideas [1].
I am going to use the abbreviated version of ‘object-oriented ontology’ (OOO) from hereon. Sometimes OOO refers to the experience of the existence of non-human entities [2]. Harman points out how OOO is misunderstood as the philosophy of inanimate objects as it more often serves as half of the modern subject/object dualism. The ‘object’ in OOO takes into account human beings as well as dragons, stones, Dutch East India Company. “Anything that cannot be fully reduced either downward to its components (‘undermining’) or upward to its effects (‘overmining’) counts as an object, whether it be human, immaterial, durable or fleeting” (Harman: Page 401-402). Therefore, OOO is often viewed as a ‘flat ontology’ [1].
The idea that objects may have something to say rather makes sense at a time when scientific developments are giving us a better understanding of animal’s minds and making wonders with intelligent machines [2]. OOO puts things at the center of Ontology. The interesting point here is that nothing has a special status, everything exists equally. OOO steers a path between scientific naturalism and social relativism meaning objects are usually made up of smaller bits or constructed from human behavior and society [3].
Cole says this kind of newer philosophy exhibits a very strong humanism and a rather traditional ontology in that they claim to hear things “speak,” recording things’ voices, registering their presence, and heeding their indifference. He claims such an ontology is so traditional and it is just another instance of logocentrism and ontotheology, those ancient traditions in which things speak their being and call out yearningly to the observer [4].
References
- Harman, Graham. “Object-Oriented Ontology.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television, pp. 401-409. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2015.
- https://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/the_big_idea/a-guide-to-object-oriented-ontology-art-53690
- http://bogost.com/writing/blog/what_is_objectoriented_ontolog/
- Cole, Andrew. “The call of things: A critique of object-oriented ontologies.” the minnesota review 2013, no. 80 (2013): 106-118.
Leave me a Comment