04 June 2012

The New Bifurcation? Object-Oriented Ontology and Computation

Alan Turing
There are now some interesting challenges emerging to the philosophical systems described in speculative realism/object-oriented ontology (SR/OOO) [1], such as Alex Galloway's recent piece, 'A response to Graham Harman’s “Marginalia on Radical Thinking”' and Christian Thorne's, 'To The Political Ontologists', as well as my own contribution, 'The Uses of Object-Oriented Ontology'.

Here, I want to tentatively explore the links between my own notion of computationality as ontotheology and how SR/OOO unconsciously reproduces some of these structural features that I think are apparent in its ontological and theological moments. In order to do this, I want to begin outlining some of the ways one might expect the 'ontological moment', as it were, to be dominated by computational categories and ideas which seem to hold greater explanatory power. Although Harman rejects "this association, claiming that “his” OO has nothing to do with computer science’s OO. But that’s a flimsy argument in [Galloway's] view, particularly when the congruencies are so clear" (Galloway 2012). In this regard I think this recent tweet by Robert Jackson is extremely revealing,
Robert Jackson (@Recursive_idiot)
04/06/2012 13:34
I think this Galloway / OOO issue can be resolved with computability theory. Objects / units need not be compatible with the state.

The "Galloway / OOO" issue was, of course, the what Galloway calls "Harman’s anti-political position" (see Note 2 below) and as he further writes, "SR/OOO is politically naive because it parrots a kind of postfordist/cybernetic thought, and that this constitutes a secondary correlation between thought and the mode of production that SR/OOO can’t explain (Galloway 2012).

Revealing, too, are the recent discussions by members of SR/OOO and the importance of the computational medium for facilitating its reproduction – see Levi Bryant's post 'The Materiality of SR/OOO: Why Has It Proliferated?', and Graham Harman's post 'on philosophical movements that develop on the internet'.

It is interesting to note that these philosophers do not take account of the possibility that the computational medium itself may have transformed the way in which they understand the ontological dimension of their projects. Indeed, the taken-for-granted materiality of digital media is clearly being referred to in relation to a form of communication theory – as if the internet were merely a transparent transmission channel – rather than seeing the affordances of the medium encouraging, shaping, or creating certain ways of thinking about things, as such.

Of course, they might respond, clearly the speed and publishing affordances allow them to get their messages out quicker, correct them, and create faster feedback and feedforward loops. However, I would argue that the computational layers (software, applications, blogs, tweets, etc.) also discipline the user/writer/philosopher to think within and through particular computational categories. I think it is not a coincidence that what is perhaps the first internet or born-digital philosophy has certain overdetermined characteristics that reflect the medium within which they have emerged. I am not alone in making this observation, indeed, Alexander Galloway has started to examine the same question, writing,

[T]he French philosopher Catherine Malabou asks: “What should we do so that consciousness of the brain does not purely and simply coincide with the spirit of capitalism?”....Malabou's query resonates far and wide because it cuts to the heart of what is wrong with some philosophical thinking appearing these days. The basic grievance is this: why, within the current renaissance of research in continental philosophy, is there a coincidence between the structure of ontological systems and the structure of the most highly-evolved technologies of postfordist capitalism? I am speaking, on the one hand, of computer networks in general, and object-oriented computer languages (such as Java or C++) in particular, and on the other hand, of certain realist philosophers such as Bruno Latour, but also more pointedly Quentin Meillassoux, Graham Harman, and their associated school known as “speculative realism.” Why do these philosophers, when holding up a mirror to nature, see the mode of production reflected back at them? Why, in short, a coincidence between today's ontologies and the software of big business? (Galloway, forthcoming, original emphasis)
He further argues:
Philosophy and computer science are not unconnected. In fact they share an intimate connection, and have for some time. For example, set theory, topology, graph theory, cybernetics and general system theory are part of the intellectual lineage of both object-oriented computer languages, which inherit the principles of these scientific fields with great fidelity, and for recent continental philosophy including figures like Deleuze, Badiou, Luhmann, or Latour. Where does Deleuze's “control society” come from if not from Norbert Wiener's definition of cybernetics? Where do Latour's “actants” come from if not from systems theory? Where does Levi Bryant's “difference that makes a difference” come from if not from Gregory Bateson's theory of information? (Galloway, forthcoming).

Ian Bogost's (2012) Alien Phenomenology is perhaps the most obvious case where the links between his computational approach and his philosophical system are deeply entwined, objects, units, collections, lists, software philosophy, carpentry (as programming) etc. Indeed, Robert Jackson also discusses some of the links with computation, making connections between the notion of interfaces and encapsulation, and so forth, in object-oriented programming in relation to forms of object-orient ontology's notion of withdrawal, etc. He writes,
Encapsulation is the notion that objects have both public and private logics inherent to their components. But we should be careful not to regard the notion that private information is deliberately hidden from view, it is rather the unconditional indifference of objects qua objects. Certain aspects of the object are made public and others are occluded by blocking off layers of data. The encapsulated data can still be related to, even if the object itself fails to reveal it (Jackson 2011).
This, he argues, serves as a paradigmatic example of the object-oriented ontologists' speculations about objects as objects. Therefore, a research project around object-oriented computational systems would, presumably, allow us to cast light on wider questions about other kinds of objects, after all, objects are objects, in the flat ontology of object-oriented ontology. In contrast, I would argue that it is no surprise that object-oriented ontology and object-oriented programming have these deep similarities as they are drawing from the same computational imaginary, or foundational ideas, about what things are or how they are categorised in the world, in other words a computational ontotheology – computationality.

The next move is the step that Alex Galloway makes, to link this to the wider capitalist order, postfordist or informational capitalism (what I would call Late Capitalism). He then explores how this ideological superstructure is imposed onto a capitalist mode of production, both to legitimate and to explain its naturalness or inevitability. Galloway argues,
(1) If recent realist philosophy mimics the infrastructure of contemporary capitalism, should we not show it the door based on this fact alone, the assumption being that any mere repackaging of contemporary ideology is, by definition, anti-scientific and therefore suspect on epistemological grounds? And (2) even if one overlooks the epistemological shortcomings, should we not critique it on purely political grounds, the argument being that any philosophical project that seeks to ventriloquize the current industrial arrangement is, for this very reason, politically retrograde? (Galloway, forthcoming).
He further writes,
Granted, merely identifying a formal congruity is not damning in itself. There are any number of structures that “look like” other structures. And we must be vigilant not to fetishize form as some kind of divination--just as numerology fetishizes number. Nevertheless are we not obligated to interrogate such a congruity? Is such a mimetic relationship cause for concern? Meillassoux and others have recently mounted powerful critiques of “correlationism,” so why a blindness toward this more elemental correlation?... What should we do so that our understanding of the world does not purely and simply coincide with the spirit of capitalism? (Galloway, forthcoming, original emphasis).

Galloway concludes his article by making the important distinction between materialism and realism, pointing out that materialism must be historical and critical whereas realism tends towards an ahistoricism. By historicising object-oriented ontology, we are able to discern the links between the underlying computational capitalism and its theoretical and philosophical manifestations.
Chales Darwin

More work needs to be done here to trace the trajectories that are hinted at, particularly the computationality I see implicit in object-oriented ontology and speculative realism more generally. But I also want to tentatively gesture towards object-oriented ontology as one discourse contributing to a new bifurcation (as Whitehead referred to the nature/culture split). In this case, not between nature and culture, which today have begun to reconnect as dual hybridised sites of political contestation – for example, climate change – but rather as computation versus nature-culture.

Where nature-culture becomes a site of difference, disagreement, political relativism and a kind of 'secondary' quality, in other words 'values' and 'felicity conditions'. Computationality, or some related ontological form, becomes the site of primary qualities or 'facts', the site of objectivity, and is foundational, ahistorical, unchanging and a replacement for nature in modernity as the site of agreement upon which a polity is made possible – a computational society.

Here, the abstract nature of objects within object-oriented programming, formal objects which inter-relate to each other and interact (or not), and yet remain deeply computational, mathematical and discrete is more than suggestive of the flat ontology that object-oriented ontology covets. The purification process of object-oriented design/programming is also illustrative of the gradual emptying of the universe of 'non-objects' by object-oriented ontology, which then serves to create ontological weight, and the possibility of shared consensus within this new bifurcated world. This creates a united foundation, understood as ontological, a site of objectivity, facts, and with a strict border control to prevent this pure realm being affected by the newly excised nature-culture. Within this new bifurcation, we see pure objects placed in the bifurcated object-space and subjects are located in the nature-culture space – this is demonstrated by the empty litanies that object-oriented ontologists share and which describe abstract objects, not concrete entities. This is clearly ironic in a philosophical movement that claims to be wholly realist and displays again the anti-correlationist paradox of object-oriented ontology.

This ontological directive also points thought towards the cartography of pure objects, propositions on the nature of 'angels', 'Popeye' and 'unicorns', and commentary on commentary in a scholastic vortex through textual attempts to capture and describe this abstract sphere – without ever venturing into the 'great outdoors' that object-oriented ontologists claim to respect. What could be closer to the experience of contemporary capitalist experience than the digital mazes that are set up by the likes of Facebook and Google, to trap the user into promises of entertainment and fulfilment by moving deeper and deeper around the social ontologies represented in capitalist social networks, and which ultimately resolve in watching advertisements to fuel computational capitalism?

Galloway rightly shows us how to break this spell, reflected also in the object-oriented ontologists refusal to historicise, through a concrete analysis of the historical and material conditions of production, he writes:
One might therefore label this the postfordist response to philosophical realism in general and Meillassoux in particular: after software has entered history, math cannot and should not be understood ahistorically... math itself, as algorithm, has become a historical actor. (Galloway, forthcoming, original emphasis).


[1] "The ‘speculative realist movement’ exists only in the imaginations of a group of bloggers promoting an agenda for which I have no sympathy whatsoever: actor-network theory spiced with pan-psychist metaphysics and morsels of process philosophy. I don’t believe the internet is an appropriate medium for serious philosophical debate; nor do I believe it is acceptable to try to concoct a philosophical movement online by using blogs to exploit the misguided enthusiasm of impressionable graduate students. I agree with Deleuze’s remark that ultimately the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity, so I see little philosophical merit in a ‘movement’ whose most signal achievement thus far is to have generated an online orgy of stupidity" (Brassier quoted in Rychter 2011).

[2] "My several previous attempts to address "the political question" in OOO have all been met with, shall we say, some skepticism by those involved, whether it be on Facebook, on blogs, or in personal correspondence. When they're not accusing me of bad faith or attacking me personally they usually either (1) put their head in the sand and pretend the political question will go away as they hunker down with the ontological purism argument (La trahison des clercs!; "ontology shouldn't be polluted by politics in the first place!"), (2) position themselves as "victims" of a leftist faculty cabal who forced them to read too much Haraway and Butler in graduate school, or (3) simply ignore me and go play somewhere else. So let me issue a preemptive challenge to OOO: surprise me! how about an *actual* response that *actually* addresses the political question?" (Galloway 2012).


Bogost, I. (2012a) Alien Phenomenology: or What It’s Like To Be A Thing, Minnesota University Press.

Galloway, A. R. (2012) A response to Graham Harman’s “Marginalia on Radical Thinking”, accessed 06/06/2012, http://itself.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/a-response-to-graham-harmans-marginalia-on-radical-thinking/

Galloway, A. R. (forthcoming) The Poverty of Philosophy: Realism and Postfordism, copy supplied by the author.

Jackson, R. (2011) Why we should be Discrete in Public - Encapsulation and the Private lives of Objects, accessed 04/06/2012, http://robertjackson.info/index/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Aarhus-presentation.pdf

Rychter, M. (2011) I am a nihilist because I still believe in truth, Kronos, accessed 06/06/2012, http://www.kronos.org.pl/index.php?23151,896


  1. Some further thoughts on Harman's OOO and its inability to account for change:


  2. Could we draw a bi-dimensional ontological space to locate technological objects? After all, technology is not the mastery of nature, but the mastery of humans' relationship with nature, as Walter Benjamin pointed out. So, on one axis, we would have the opposition between anthropocentrism (culture, society) and biocentrism (nature). On the other axis, we would have the binary uncomputationality (absence technology, pure acceptance of natural phenomena) versus perfect computationality (ideal state of technology, total control of nature). Could OOO & computationality make use of such a matrix in a fruitful way, or am I missing something?

  3. As a short reply (seeing as I've now posted a paper today which kind deals with this) here [http://robertjackson.info/index/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/particmaterial.pdf] - I'd say that your position of only addressing that one should 'think computationally' doesn't really work. Computation doesn't think - it executes, and it does so pretty well, often exceeding knowledge in tandem.

    I'm a big advocate for computationally (as you put it), mainly as I have a decent justification to claim that even proprietary companies can't even control general computation. No one can - not even themselves. Computation is too complex, too unwieldy to be handled with any pre-existing theory of social production or 'history'. I can't be bothered to match general computation to an already existing theory of thought, I want to build theory by tracing the surprises of computation.

  4. Given the dimension of depth that Harman claims for his objects, I think that you could call this sort of position Deep Computationality. The bifurcation you speak of can be seen very clearly in THE THIRD TABLE where Harman claims
    1) His objects are the only real objects; the objects of everyday life are unreal, "utter shams"
    2) His philosophy, and perhaps some artistic practices, give real knowledge; the "knowledge" of science and common sense is illusory.
    We see then that Harman's discourse on objects is foundational, and it is "flat" only after the bifurcation and the purification, which themselves are based on the non-flat vertical dimension of depth, and thus of transcendence. I talk about this purification towards transcendence here:


    Harman's object-space, which David Roden calls the Harmiverse (here: http://enemyindustry.net/blog/?p=1122), contains only purified, unknowable and untouchable, objects (or "harms"). All familiar objects belong to the nature-culture space you describe. All real objects belong to a deep, hidden network capable of manipulating any manifest network.

  5. @terence This can be easily put to bed.

    1.) No he accounts for sensual objects. Sham isn't the right word - they are translations, the result of pluralising Husserl intentionality.

    2.) Harman has never claimed to have real knowledge of objects - he is committed to unknowable essence. Any knowledge gained in science and common sense is equivalent to other types of knowledge (including aesthetic) This is the Latourian influence - knowledge doesn't really exist or is the result of negotiation.

    Harman's ontology is not flat - something he has stated so many times before its not even funny pointing this out AGAIN.

    Lastly there isn't any form of network in OOO either, (networks by their etymology i.e. interconnectivity, aren't hidden).

    Try and at least read the material generously before you start cranking out half-baked comments and posts that don't go anywhere.

  6. Hello Robert Jackson,
    before reading the material generously, one must first read the material.
    I have given a close reading of THE THIRD TABLE. Read it, I encourage evryone to buy it
    and read it.
    Read my comment, I make no mention of "sensual objects". The qualification "utter shams" is Harman's, not mine (THE THIRD TABLE, p6). I am glad to see that you have the intellectual courage to contradict him and to tell him that "sham isn't the right word". To claim that objects are unknowable essences is one of a number of knowledge claims about objects, philosophical knowledge claims. One of these knowledge claims is the opposite of what you assert. In THE THIRD TABLE, Harman says that table number three, his table, is the only real table, and that the arts can attain this "deeper" table, and that philosophy by "being transformed from an art into a science" (p15) can too. So there is no equivalence between aesthetic knowledge and other types, for Harman, in this book. If you have any textual citations to back up your "channeling" of Harman I would be glad to examine them. Harman's ontology is not flat, I agree. He has no ontology, but an ontoepistemology that is flat and lumpy, but you would have to read my blog for the arguments there. Philosophy is about texts, and arguments, and concepts and not channeling. I do not talk about OOO, it doesn't exist. For the moment I talk about Harman's OOO. Your "argument from etymology" is as erroneous as the rest, an intelligence network is hidden from the enemy and may itself contain hidden elements. A net is not composed just of nets but of holes too, and some connections may exist without veing attainable from all starting points. As you can see, my comments come fully-baked with quotaions and arguments. Your raw channeling may be swallowed by a subordinate, but this is not my relation to you. I did not know your intellectual personality before, but now it seems I do. Thank you for condescending to me, and I hope you find some texts to quote one day. Don't worry that my posts aren't going anywhere, look and see! they are. It is good that laymen like yourself are taking an interest in philosophy, but you must try to get beyond the superficial cherry-picking of ideas that appeal to you, this is a beginners error. You really must read and not take someone's word for it, and work hard to see the arguments. Then you will get much more out of your prestigious hobby, I can assure you.

  7. OOOps, I mistyped. The correct quote is of course "What if the counter-project of the next four centuries were to turn philosophy into an art?... In being transformed from a science into an art, philosophy regains its original character as Eros" (THE THIRD TABLE, p15).
    We may note the use of the Zizekian "What if...?" which is not in fact a question but a polite way of saying "I, Harman, the truth-sayer declare..."


Disqus for Stunlaw: A critical review of politics, arts and technology