Object-Oriented Literature Criticism: Thing Theory’s Destiny- By Thomas K. Johnson

          Humans tend to believe that things that sound logically impossible are incapable of existence. Some of these things—as mentioned by Ian Bogost, video game designer, critic and researcher—might include unicorns, pigs, with wings or a “pink, winged elephant” (Bogost). What makes us assume that such things are impossible is the notion that we have never seen proof of their existence. However, in saying that the things do not exist, contradictions arise, because the things are given existence once we speak them. They are given existence because our thoughts, according to the idea of Object-Oriented Ontology, that suggests that everything that we know, think of, or imagine exists in one form or another. This is the view of Graham Harman, philosophy professor at American University in Cairo, Egypt. With these ideas in mind, the topic I am covering deals with Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), which is the idea that human existence does not prevail over the existence of nonhuman objects. That is to say that objects or things can exist without the presence of humans. This new theory is still in an experimental stage, meaning that it has not been added to the list of theoretical approaches to literature that we currently use today. I will use the knowledge that I possess about this approach, in order to test the direction in which it may go in the future. My ultimate question is whether this approach can be used in a vast array of texts, thus making it a valid interpretative lens for other works.  In what direction is OOO going? How? Why? Other questions that I will discuss include the efficacy and faultiness of the theory, what it can tell us, and what it conceals from us. 

Let’s begin with what exactly is OOO. First, we will start by separating OOO into two sections: Object-Oriented Ontology Philosophy and Object-Oriented Literary Criticism. The difference between the two is that the first is an overall philosophical theory that explains how things can exist outside of human access, whereas the latter is an approach that can be applied to literature. For the first idea, we will use Kantian theory and the ideas of Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher known for his research on the existence of things. Object-Oriented Ontology Philosophy is the idea that all things are considered objects and exist equally in relation to each other. Object-Oriented Literary Criticism is the study of things as they appear in literature and how humans perceive the things. Normally, we focus on the possibilities of objects, gauging an object’s existence by noting whether it is physically present. From determining whether or not the object exists outside of human perception, we find the idea of Speculative Realism; that is, the “philosophical movement opposed to trends that have dominated continental philosophy from its inception” (Harman 184). As we dig deeper into Speculative Realism, we may realize that one of the major concerns—or what is at stake—is the question, as Harman asks, “does a real world exist independently of human access…?” (184).

Kantian philosophy would say that there are two types of aspects to things: phenomena and noumena. Now, a phenomenon is the thing as it appears to a person and is constructed by the mind. For example, the well-wrought hammer embodies the idea that we know the hammer to be a hammer and that its ultimate purpose is to assist in building. Heidegger, as mentioned by Harman, “radicalized phenomenology by noting that most of our contact with entities dos not occur in the manner of having them present before the mind” (186). What Heidegger argues is that we do not really notice the object for its face value, if you will, in the process of using it.

Kant’s idea of noumena is an object—in itself—independent of human access. For this definition, Kant says that “Human beings are finite; absolute knowledge is unavailable to them,” which answers the question that Speculative Realism poses. However, Harman makes note that just because some knowledge is unavailable to us does not mean that the individual objects are “eternal, unchanging, simple, or directly accessible by certain privileged observers” (Harman 188).

As OOO is an experimental theoretical approach at this point, it may be useful to prove its efficacy in a literary text, namely, James Joyce’s “The Dead.” (what happens when the snow is thought of as a metaphor, but as a thing.in and out of perception of Gabriel.  “The Dead” is a popular work that has been analyzed by many other literary perspectives. However, OOO can leave a print in the literary canon just by focusing on things as they appear.  A pure example of this would be the recurring image of snow in “The Dead.” The snow is a thing that not only covers the region of Dublin, but also unifies everything under its white blanket, including the people of Dublin, more specifically, Gabriel, Greta, Freddy Malins, and other mentioned characters in the story. Harman poses a question in his essay on “Object-Oriented Literary Criticism,” about whether or not “a real world exist[s] independently of human access,” and the answer would be yes, in terms of the literature (184). In “the Dead,” the snow acts as a force outside of human control because it moves the city of Dublin from “the general, to the particular, then to a final universal” (Joyce 69). Gabriel thinks that he has dominance over others because of his position as a figure of important, but he realizes through the death of others—whether literal or symbolic—that he, too, has limits and will one day become a part of the congregation of the dead. Once he reaches this idea, the universal aspect begins to take the  place of self-centered attributes, because Gabriel lets go of egotism and notices how the snow “[falls] on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, falling softly…farther westward […] into the dark mutinous Shannon waves” (59). He begins to understand that he cannot change the structure of the Irish society and instead becomes a part of the society. For example, towards the beginning of the story, Gabriel wears galoshes and believes that everyone—Greta, more specifically—should wear them, not only as a way to gain control, but also because “everyone wears them on the continent, which implies an attempt to convert to an abnormal trend in society. No one agrees with his attempt, however, because they believe in uniqueness rather than strict uniformity.

Another interesting idea that we can look at in terms of the OOO philosophy is Harman’s argument about the well-wrought broken hammer. Harman argues that we only use an object without paying attention to our preconceived ideas of what the object can do. However, one it breaks or is devalued, we being to notice the object for its face value, because it is no longer useful to us.  Similarly in “The Dead,” we can argue that the weather produces an abnormal outcome when the snow decides to fall even though Mary Jane, one of the aunts in the story, notes that Dublin “[hasn’t] had snow […] for thirty years; and [she] read this morning in the newspapers that the snow is general all over Ireland” (Joyce 50). So while the weather produces an abnormal outcome, Because this region in Ireland barely receives any snow, it could also be possible that the snow serves as a catalyst for social change. Perhaps what the snow represents is about death as a positive and compelling force, the positive force being new life under Irish constructs.

The last thing that I want to cover in this post is the efficacy of the approach as a whole. Unaligned with more conventional approaches, Object-Oriented Ontology differs because rather than relying on a historical or cultural influence on a literary text, like New Historicists, OOO focuses on things as they appear in literature, for face value, and challenges how the existence of such objects impact characters or other objects. For example, the animal criticism would have focused on the role of animals—including humans—and the interactions between them that help the reader develop an understanding of the story. Essentially, that would be the only thing covered in the criticism. In the same way, if a New Critic wanted to analyze Joyce’s work, he or she would say that readers cannot paraphrase the text, because then the meaning would be devalued or depreciated. However, OOO would say that “the irreducibility of reality to literal presence applies as much to the sciences as it does to poetry, as is demonstrated (among other things) scientific theory changing over time,” which means that paraphrasing is, in fact, okay and does not take away from the general meaning because literature—or more specifically, poetry—is not any different from the sciences, for it, too, changes with time.

One advantage that OOO has over all of the other criticisms is that it can be used interchangeably with those criticisms because, again, Object-Oriented Ontology addresses the presence of things and how they are used in literature, whether through historical-cultural, animalistic, Eco critical or cognitive perspective. Are there limitations to the approach? Yes, of course there are! One very distinct limit, because this is an open theory as of now, is that there are some people outside of the realm of advanced academia who—as Mark N. noted in Bogost’s post on “What is Object-Oriented Ontology?”—believe that “trees don’t ‘really’ exist independent[ly] of the human experience of trees” (Mark N., 9:07pm; Bogost). I can agree with this because if popular demand cannot understand or believe the approach, then it would not make sense to include it along with the other great theoretical approaches.

Aside from the argumentative aspect of OOO, what intrigues me the most about the approach is that it helps me see the story in different ways than before.  First off, in the example of the well-wrought hammer, we do not notice the actual object until it is broken or does something out of the scope of what it is designed to do. With that being said, because it does not snow as often in Dublin, the object that is acting out of character is the weather; the snow is a product of the weather’s abnormal behavior. This helps me see the snow as a catalyst for some sort of social change, than just as a white blanket that covers everything.

As a whole, I believe that this approach could become a part of the many approaches that we have now, because as I have stated before, OOO, uses different theoretical criticisms to help readers understand the argument that it makes.

Works Cited

Bogost, Ian. “What is Object-Oriented Ontology: A Definition for Ordinary Folk.”

08 Dec. 2009. <www.bogost.com/blog/what_is_objectoriented_ontolog.shtml.>

Harman, Graham. The Well-Wrought Broken Hammer: Object-Oriented Literary

Criticism. New Literary History, 2012. 183-203.

 Joyce, James. "The Dead." Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Ed. Daniel R.

Schwarz. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1994. 21-59. Print.