Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory

Theory Redux (Polity)

by Graham Harman

What objects exist in the social world and how should we understand them? Is a specific Pizza Hut restaurant as real as the employees, tables, napkins and pizzas of which it is composed, and as real as the Pizza Hut corporation with its headquarters in Wichita, the United States, the planet Earth and the social and economic impact of the restaurant on the lives of its employees and customers?

In this book the founder of object-oriented philosophy develops his approach in order to shed light on the nature and status of objects in social life. While it is often assumed that an interest in objects amounts to a form of materialism, Harman rejects this view and develops instead an "immaterialist" method. By examining the work of leading contemporary thinkers such as Bruno Latour and Levi Bryant, he develops a forceful critique of 'actor-network theory'. In an extended discussion of Leibniz's famous example of the Dutch East India Company, Harman argues that this company qualifies for objecthood neither through 'what it is' or 'what it does', but through its irreducibility to either of these forms. The phases of its life, argues Harman, are not demarcated primarily by dramatic incidents but by moments of symbiosis, a term he draws from the biologist Lynn Margulis.

This book provides a key counterpoint to the now ubiquitous social theories of constant change, holistic networks, performative identities, and the construction of things by human practice. It will appeal to anyone interested in cutting-edge debates in philosophy and social and cultural theory.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction, Sociology, Academic, Metaphysics

140 pages, Hardcover

Published June 27, 2016

About the author

Graham Harman (born May 9, 1968) is a professor at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. He is a contemporary philosopher of metaphysics, who attempts to reverse the linguistic turn of Western philosophy. He terms his ideas object-oriented ontology. A larger grouping of philosophers, Speculative Realism, includes Harman and the philosophers Iain Hamilton Grant, Quentin Meillassoux and Ray Brassier.

Reviews

[Ana-Maria Deliu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but found that in the staged opposition with actor-network theory I root for ANT, for relations instead of autonomous objects.

[Aditya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nahi aaya samajh

[Serhii Rafalskyi]

Философия хармановских объектов базируется на их имматериализме: непредсказуемости, непрозрачности и избыточности. Таким образом каждый объект является кантовской вещью-в-себе для всех остальных объектов (вещь-в-себе преследует не только человеческих существ, утверждает Харман), но они отнюдь не лежат в поле имманенции, ведь это противоречило бы самой возможности изменения объектов ("изменчивый процесс не может протекать без того, чтобы что-то оставалось вне процесса").

Объекты взаимодействуют в процессе некоторого симбиоза, "особого типа отношения, которое меняет реальность одного из своих членов, а не просто сводится к наблюдаемому взаимовлиянию", При этом "каждый новый симбиоз в жизни объекта дает начало новому этапу". Важно, что симбиоз не может быть рождением/смертью объекта, а является способом "выявления конечного числа отдельных фаз в жизни одного и того же объекта".

У Хармана потенция > становление. И такая потенция будто бы не есть трансценденция. Скорее всего, поскольку трансценденция есть "изъян" мышления человека, а у объектов есть только бесконечность потенций, где человек лишь один из возможных симбиотических этапов.

Наиболее непроработанные участки философии Хармана касаются именно симбиозов и реляций объектов в них. Из-за этого и остается впечатление, что книга обрывается на самом интересном месте.

[Rhys · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting essay - a bit academic, parsing the difference between traditional materialism, human-oriented materialism (Badiou and Zizek), Actor-Network Theory (Latour), and Harman's Object-Oriented Ontology.

"Stated differently, though a relational metaphysics can only handle relations and not objects, a non-relational metaphysics can handle both, since it is able to treat relations adequately as new compound objects. … For whereas the old essentialism thought it could know the essence of things and then use this knowledge for oppressive political purposes …, immaterialist essentialism cautions that the essence is not directly knowable and thus generates frequent surprises. And whereas naïve realism thinks that reality exists outside the mind and we can know it, object-oriented realism holds that reality exists outside the mind and we cannot know it. Therefore, we gain access to it only by indirect, allusive, or vicarious means. Nor does reality exists only “outside the mind,” as if humans were the only entities with an outside" (p.17).

[Griffin Duffey]

first proper reading I've ever done on OOO. it seems to be a continuation of the 20th century journey of dealing with Kant/Hegel/Husserl on subjectivity, ontology, thought-world relations etc. this is super clear and is basically a book about the Dutch East India Company from the perspective of OOO, which got me thinking a lot about history and how pretty much all history I've ever read wasn't serious about delineating the objects in which they are dealing with, which also makes sense of why OOO has been taken up mostly in interdisciplinary spaces. the first and third section are very helpful, with the middle being mostly a case-study (which admittedly I skimmed most of it.) overall, OOO is cool and seemingly *the* alternative to New Materialism, phenomenology, etc. because of it's prioritization off the object (or, perhaps merely lessening the bias of ourselves as thinking objects and *our* relationship to objects)

[C.L.N. · Rating 3 out of 5]

At the opening Harman says, "Since the books in this series are intended to be concise, I have had to omit a great deal that some readers will regard as central." I found this true, however, this book pairs nicely with the two works, The Four-Fold Object and Object Oriented Ontology. In addition, I found it very helpful to outline the life of an object.

[Knecht René · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful introduction to Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). Harman makes it clear how his immaterialism differs from both Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and the New Realism.

- ANT reduces objects to their relations and network effects.
- New Realism treats everything as contingent and in constant flux.
- Harman turns that around: stability is the norm: not everything is pure process.

The central idea is that an object cannot be reduced either to its components or to its interactions. There is always a hidden core, comparable to Heidegger’s "withdrawn being", although Harman, strikingly, never mentions Heidegger. In this way Immaterialism becomes a form of essentialism distinct from the duomining Harman criticizes (the reduction of things both to their parts and to their relations).

Philosophically, it’s a stimulating thought experiment. The book raises questions such as: Can an object itself initiate change? and What does it mean that objects have their own dynamic, independent of human perception?
==> I did miss some more up-to-date examples , from daily live.

Stylistically, Harman usually begins in a clear, analytical manner, but he sometimes gets lost in historical and conceptual details: especially in his overly long case study of the Dutch East India Company (VOC). The history is interesting, yet it obscures the philosophical thread. I noticed the same tendency in his larger OOO book, with its lengthy sections on the American Civil War.

OOO remains a fascinating, speculative perspective, though it leans toward system-building and heavy metaphysics that can challenge the reader. Its proponents are conceptually strong but, as a consequence, often construct a dense web of terms/jargon that demands real concentration and a good memory while reading.

I’m particularly curious now to read Harman’s work on Heidegger, both to understand the background of his ideas and because I find Heidegger inspiring in his own right.

In short: Immaterialism offers an original, concise sketch of OOO, presenting objects as stable, autonomous entities with an independent core. Its strength lies in that fresh approach; its weakness in the expansive, sometimes overindulgent historical case study.

[Yahya · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was expecting a much more detailed treatment of the OOO view on social theory. I didn't get that. Apart from the usual OOO claims such as ontological withdrawal, the only new concept I got was 'symbiosis'. I wasn't particularly convinced with that concept either.

There was some discussion on how the OOO view differs from ANT and New Materialism as well. But, I wasn't satisfied with the book at all. Maybe I went in with too much expectation.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't read this book. It's actually a good read.

Just like any Harman writing, clarity is the main attraction. You can swim through the words without any difficulty. The words flow with you, not against you.

It's a very short book as well. You can read it within a day. One thing I really like about Harman is the high rate of revelation in his writings. He communicates a lot of info within few pages, that too very clearly. That's a really good thing. Especially, in contrast to other academic writings which are harder than Pentagon encryption.

All in all, I'm not convinced by any OOO social theory. I think this is a major weakness for them. I desperately want somebody to write a proper OOO social theory since I think there's some potential to OOO.

[Mitch · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to object oriented ontologies (OOO) and the speculative realist movement in modern philosophy. Building on multiple analyses, Harman describes how things precede what they contribute to interactions. Things accrue histories through collisions with other things. Harman examines his philosophy, in the primary vein of Immaterialism, through the history of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or Dutch East India Company, and its interactions with different leaders, upstarts within the organization, and foreign peoples and powers over its lifetime. He also converses with sociologist-philosopher Bruno Latour, long an intellectual hero of Harman's, about the distinctions between OOO and Actor-Network Theory in its early and current forms. Watching these minds diverge is fascinating, because it illuminates where many new bases for understanding the world deeply informed by recent scientific revolutions in physics, biology, and information science.

[Charles Deicke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great essay - I started reading Graham's work through its recent popularity within architecture schools. Some background on OOO would be helpful to understanding a lot of the jargon featured in this book (undermining/overmining is explained well, and the wine-dark sea Homer metaphor is also expanded upon greatly in his other work and is used to elaborate on some of the more intricate facets of OOO).

Harman often comes off as contrarian by positing OOO as diametrically opposite to competing theories (New Materialism). I am unabashedly fond of this tactic - inversion is a seemingly simple scholarly exercise, but it yields refreshing and stimulating discourse, especially when expanded to a topic such as the VOC.

[el jel · Rating 3 out of 5]

i really wished goodreads had half-stars, this one is an absolute 2,5.
generally, the idea is interesting and it is worthy trying to apply the OO-approach in the social realm, unfolding its consequences, but the truth is that the result is unconvincing. besides some obvious fallacies (distinguishing OOO from "historical" approach but relying on data and evidence produced by the historical discourse, I mean come on), there is not much insight gained from considereng the pre-existence of objects as some dark entities with a certain gravity, when events with their entanglement and material-historical impacts are discussed.

[Jesse Couture · Rating 3 out of 5]

A (deceptively) tough read. Wow. Took much longer to get through than I imagined it might. Harman takes his reader on a wild ride into the metaphysics of objects and, more specifically, introduces the theory of object-oriented ontology (OOO) as a response to and rethinking of new materialist and action-oriented ontologies such as (but not limited to) Bruno Latour's influential work on actor-network theory. Will likely have to revisit this one again, and maybe again.

[Brandon Stariha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought I wrote this already.

Nice little book on a new approach to Ontology that being Object-Orientated-Ontology (OOO) and applied to Social Objects (although I think there are none).

Definitely not a book for beginners without prior context but also it is not a difficult book.

I agree with so much and enjoy and think it’s correct in it’s attack against the opposing view of New Materialism but I also disagree with it in many important aspects mainly, its move away from the human subject being the center point of ontology.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

More interested in Dutch imperialism than OOO

The focus on the VOC as an exemplar “object” to demonstrate an OOO mode of social theory (so-called “immaterialism”) was disproportionate. If you want to find out about OOO try something else. If you are curious about 17th century Dutch Southeast Asian expansionism this is for you.

[James Payne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The discussion of the VOC was great, but the prescriptions for using OOO as an analytical tool—especially Harman's undercooked concept of symbiosis—were unconvincing, even to someone amenable to OOO.

[Yokusun Basi]

Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory (Theory Redux) by Graham Harman (2016)

[melancholinary · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been interested in Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) recently, since it frequently circulated in the art scene. Apparently I might need to catch up on this idea (OOO) and Harman’s work before reading Immaterialism—quite lots of the ‘language’ used in this book that I’m not quite familiar. However, this is still a good read.

This book divided into two sections. After Harman explains the difference between Latour et al’s ANT and New Materialism with his idea on Immaterialism in one section, he then dissects VOC as a model for his theory—in which makes Immaterialism interesting since VOC is an entity (or object) that has been pretty familiar with me as an Indonesian. In my understanding, this book is an extension of Harman’s OOO idea and its relation to social theory.

If other (I assume outside the circle of OOO) assumed what count is important is ‘significance for human practice’ then what is ‘important’? For whom it might important? These are maybe an interesting question I asked myself by drowning to the OOO and Immaterialism that Harman offered—first section of this book reminded me to those questions as Harman attempts to distinguish his approach of Immaterialism with New Materialism and ANT. An object must exist in order to act rather than act in order to exist claimed Harman.

There is an interesting insight on this book regarding the existence of VOC (object) and its action. If the Spice Island (Maluku)—that claimed at the time as the only place in the world that nutmeg and mace could be found—was never there, will the VOC exist? What would a VOC without humans be like? All of these question emerge when Harman explains ‘symbioses’—which I think a very profound and intriguing concept. Harman argues that we should focus on the way that humans are themselves ingredients in a ‘symbioses’ rather than just privilege observers looking on from the outside.

At some point this book provided with many of historical account of the VOC that is so intriguing that I forget I’m reading a philosophy book about objects—the second section of this book is an ontology of VOC. In the end, all of this OOO somehow for me could also related to the much debate Anthropocene and its milieu. Anyway, although it might not be the right decision to read this first before I read Harman’s earlier work on OOO, but surely I will revisit Immaterialism one day.

[Toni]

Great! This is surely needed in Harman's ongoing project. Much of the content will be familiar to anyone who's read Harman before, but the slight change of topic is revealing. The most important contribution is the concept of symbiosis – an object-oriented way of dealing with relations as new, emergent objects in themselves. I find this extremely useful for talking about many of the dilemmas from the old, boring (but so far unresolved) question of structure or actors as determining factors. As Harman point to in the title, this is also a good response to the overly "physical" obsession that much OOO-inspired art, philosophy etc. has taken. Object-oriented ontology is not a "new materialism", quite the opposite. For Harman, materialism is just one version of the many ways objects can be undermined or overmined. We certainly don't become more object-oriented by obsessing about printers, chairs, rugs and water-coolers when dealing with the very immaterial object of a financial corporation. So the title here is a little tongue in cheek I guess. Oh, and Harman is not really a brilliant social theorist (which you can apologize him for, becuase he is such a good philosopher!) and I look forward to someone really applying his principles – and probably change them too.

[Cliff]

Particularly good on the idea of how an object changes but remains that same object.

[Mer Less · Rating 5 out of 5]

Harman brilliantly argues that OOO is entirely different than ANT and new materialism..

[Julia · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5

[Lt. Columbo · Rating 5 out of 5]

good content