Podcast


Central Problem

The article addresses the problematic tendency to classify object-oriented philosophy as a form of materialism, a categorization Harman firmly rejects. The central philosophical issue concerns how we understand the fundamental structure of reality: is it composed of material elements (either privileged physical particles or a formless cosmic whole), or is it composed of formed objects at multiple scales that cannot be reduced either upward or downward?

Harman identifies two types of materialism inherited from pre-Socratic philosophy: first, the reductive materialism that identifies ultimate physical elements as the root of everything (Thales, Democritus); second, the holistic materialism that posits a formless apeiron from which all entities emerge as temporary intensities (Anaximander). Both approaches fail to account for genuine emergence and the autonomous existence of mid-level entities like lakes, hammers, and artworks.

The deeper problem extends to aesthetics: how should we understand the relationship between form and its opposites—matter, function, and content? Harman argues that mainstream formalism (as in Greenberg) and materialism are actually “two faces of the same error,” both failing to grasp the withdrawn, formed character of objects that exists beneath both surface appearances and material substrates.

Main Thesis

Harman defends a new sense of “formalism” against contemporary materialist fashion, arguing that reality consists of objects at all scales, each possessing structure or form that cannot be reduced to either material components or relational contexts. The form of an object is precisely “that which hides midway between its material substrate and its concrete manifestation.”

Against Bennett‘s “throbbing whole” of matter-energy containing temporary “swirls,” Harman maintains that objects are genuinely autonomous—they “cut themselves off from their neighbors and their own causal components,” enduring through environmental fluctuation until actually destroyed. Relations between objects are neither automatic nor easy; things are not always affecting each other.

On aesthetics, Harman revives the concept of mimesis but reinterprets it radically: art is imitation not in the sense of fabricating copies, but in the theatrical sense of method acting. The artist “imitates not by producing copies of external things, but by becoming external things.” In aesthetic experience, the spectator herself becomes the real object that does not withdraw—she becomes the cypress enslaved by flame-qualities, standing in for real objects that cannot attend the aesthetic scene in person.

This leads to a striking conclusion: “all art would be a branch of the performing arts,” and sincerity—personal investment and genuine participation—must return to aesthetics against irony, distance, and quotation marks.

Historical Context

The article responds to the “new materialism” movement prominent in early 2010s Continental philosophy, represented by thinkers like Bennett, Barad, and DeLanda. This movement sought to overcome the correlationism of post-Kantian philosophy by affirming the vitality and agency of matter itself, often drawing on Deleuze, Spinoza, and process philosophy.

Harman’s object-oriented philosophy emerged around the same time as part of the broader Speculative Realism movement (alongside Meillassoux, Brassier, and Grant), which shared the goal of moving beyond human-world correlations but took different approaches. While new materialists emphasized flux, assemblages, and distributed agency, Harman insisted on the discrete, autonomous character of objects.

The aesthetic dimension of the argument engages with twentieth-century debates in art theory: Greenberg‘s modernist formalism (which demanded that paintings acknowledge their flat medium), Heidegger’s analysis of the artwork as strife between “world” and “earth,” and McLuhan‘s media theory (which privileged the hidden background medium over manifest content). Harman argues all three theorists ultimately face “the revenge of the surface”—their theories of depth require unexpected recourse to surface phenomena.

Philosophical Lineage

flowchart TD
    Aristotle --> Harman
    Heidegger --> Harman
    Husserl --> Heidegger
    Ortega --> Harman
    McLuhan --> Harman
    Greenberg --> Harman
    Bennett --> Harman
    Deleuze --> Bennett
    Spinoza --> Bennett

    class Aristotle,Heidegger,Husserl,Ortega,McLuhan,Greenberg,Bennett,Deleuze,Spinoza,Harman internal-link;

Key Thinkers

ThinkerDatesMovementMain WorkCore Concept
Harman1968–Object-Oriented OntologyTool-BeingWithdrawn objects, allure
Bennett1957–New MaterialismVibrant MatterThrobbing matter-energy
Heidegger1889-1976PhenomenologyBeing and TimeTool-analysis, earth/world
Greenberg1909-1994FormalismArt and CultureMedium specificity, flatness
McLuhan1911-1980Media TheoryUnderstanding MediaMedium is the message
Ortega y Gasset1883-1955PerspectivismPhenomenology and ArtMetaphor as allure

Key Concepts

ConceptDefinitionRelated to
Object-oriented philosophyPhilosophy treating objects as formed entities at all scales that withdraw from relations and cannot be reduced to components or effectsHarman, Metaphysics
UnderminingStrategy of reducing objects to smaller components (atoms, matter-energy)Materialism, Reductionism
OverminingStrategy of reducing objects to their relations, effects, or social constructionsRelationism, Correlationism
Withdrawn objectsObjects as hiding from all access, including causal contact; possessing surplus beyond any relationHeidegger, OOO
AllureBreakdown of normal object-quality unity; when an object seems to stand at distance from its qualitiesHarman, Aesthetics
Substantial formMedieval/Leibnizian concept of deep structure distinguishing each thing; revived by HarmanAristotle, Leibniz
Throbbing wholeBennett’s concept of unified matter-energy with local intensities; rejected by HarmanBennett, New Materialism
Mimesis as performanceArt as theatrical becoming rather than production of copies; spectator becomes the real objectHarman, Aesthetics

Authors Comparison

ThemeHarmanBennett
Ontological unitDiscrete formed objects at all scalesThrobbing matter-energy with temporary swirls
RelationsRare, difficult, require explanationPre-established in unified whole
FormPrimary; excess is always formedSecondary to matter-energy
DepthPlural (each object has own depth)Singular (one cosmic apeiron)
EmergenceGenuine autonomy at each levelDerivative local intensities
Pre-Socratic affinityAristotle over pre-SocraticsAnaximander, Heraclitus

Influences & Connections

Summary Formulas

  • Harman: Reality consists of formed objects at all scales that withdraw from access and relation; materialism must be destroyed in favor of a deeper formalism where even the excess beneath appearances is always formed.
  • Bennett: The cosmos is a throbbing matter-energy whole containing local swirls that temporarily coalesce into what we call objects; all things are interconnected in the embrace of vibrant matter.
  • Greenberg: Advanced art must incorporate reference to its background medium (flatness for painting); content that ignores its medium degenerates into literary anecdote.
  • McLuhan: The medium is the message; hidden background conditions of any medium make its content irrelevant compared to the medium’s structuring of consciousness.

Notable Quotes

“Materialism is a reductionism that falls short of the true task of philosophy: the study of the elusive forms which are never identical either to that of which they are made or the ways in which they are described or known.” — Harman

“The artist imitates not by producing copies of external things, but by becoming external things.” — Harman

“Each of us as readers becomes the cypress tree, just as method actors are supposed to become the tree or rock they are assigned to portray.” — Harman