An Introduction To OOF Behar OOF TPDF

Katherine Behar
An Introduction to OOF
A Prelude: Bunnies
Spring 2010. I am excited but a little wary as I travel to Atlanta, where
the Georgia Institute of Technology is hosting a one-day symposium,
“Object-Oriented Ontology.” An offshoot of speculative realist phi-
losophy, object-oriented ontology (OOO) theorizes that the world
consists exclusively of objects and treats humans as objects like any
other, rather than privileged subjects. This thing-centered nonan-
thropocentrism has captured my imagination, and I am attending the
conference because I am certain of the potential for feminist thought
and contemporary art practice. After all, both feminism and art have
long engagements with the notion of human objects. The symposium
is energetic and provocative, with an intangible buzz circulating
among people feeling out new contours. Nonetheless, I become aware
that my concern about gender imbalance in OOO,1 while significant,
pales beside a far graver feminist problem: there is not a single bunny
at this conference. How could this be?
The OOO author Ian Bogost, the symposium organizer, narrates
the circumstances surrounding OOO’s omission of bunnies in his
book Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing.2 He describes
how he designed a feature for the symposium website that would
show a single random Flickr image of an object. His software, which
he refers to as the “image toy,” queries Flickr’s database for images
tagged by users as “object” or “thing” or “stuff ” and displays a random
Behar.indd 1 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

2 Katherine Behar
result, with a new random selection overwriting the prior image upon
reload. Its surprising mismatches express a wondrously unpredictable
and nonanthropocentric “universe of things.”
The image toy is significant for object-oriented ontology because
it illustrates the central notion of “carpentry,” a praxis-based, materi-
alist form of philosophical inquiry.3 In Bogost’s words, “carpentry
entails making things that explain how things make their world.” The
image toy generates what he calls a “tiny ontology,” a microcosmic
image of the diversity of being. But it is the sad fate of this tiny ontol-
ogy to appear on a website advertising the OOO symposium. There,
what the toy object makes is a world of trouble. Bogost explains:
The trouble started when Bryant, one of the symposium speak-
ers, related to me that a (female) colleague had shown the site to
her (female) dean—at a women’s college no less. The image that
apparently popped up was a woman in a bunny suit. . . . [The]
dean drew the conclusion that object-oriented ontology was all
about objectification.
This sounds like “trouble,” indeed! And the OOO response is radical—
to reprogram the ontology itself:
[As] anyone who has used the Internet knows all too well, the
web is chock-full of just the sort of objectifying images exem-
plified by the woman in the bunny suit. Something would have
to be done lest the spirit of tiny ontology risk misinterpretation.
I relented, changing the search query . . .
With that, the appearance of sexually objectified women within the
toy’s tiny ontology provokes a decision to eliminate the offensive objects
altogether by altering the Boolean code. Edited, the toy now displays
only images that are tagged as “object” or “thing” or “stuff,” and are not
tagged as “sexy” or “woman” or “girl.”
In what can only be characterized as ontological slut shaming,
bunnies—which is to say, sexualized female bodies—are barred from
ontology. And if, reading this, we think OOO must be joking by com-
mitting to this founding gesture (in print, at that), it is assuredly not.
Now this ontology looks not only tiny but impoverished.
In many ways this episode stands as a parable for the complex
tensions between feminism and object orientation. In their responses
Behar.indd 2 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

An Introduction to OOF 3
to bunnies, both object-oriented ontologists and feminists (if we are

to assume the women’s college dean is one) end up enacting crippling
misrecognitions of the stakes around objects, objectification, and mate-
rial practices. I return to this scenario, and unpack its rich ironies, in a
case study later in this chapter. But first, fast-forward to the fall of 2014.
Many of the authors in this volume are in Dallas for the Society for
Literature, Science, and the Arts conference. SLSA’s interdisciplinary
meetings have provided a quirky and remarkably unpretentious home
for staging six panels over four years that have laid out the foundations
for feminist object-oriented thought: OOF. Now, in Dallas, we are con-
vening a roundtable where Irina Aristarkhova poses a sly question:
Is OOF a joke?
As one might suspect, the answer can only be maybe. OOF—a
grunt of an acronym meant to stand for “object-oriented feminism”—
is, after all, called “OOF.” And faced with situations like these, what
other response can we muster?
OOF
OOF originated as a feminist intervention into philosophical dis
courses—like speculative realism, particularly its subset OOO, and
new materialism—that take objects, things, stuff, and matter as pri-
mary. It seeks to capitalize perhaps somewhat parasitically on the
contributions of that thought while twisting it toward more agential,
political, embodied terrain. Object-oriented feminism turns the posi-
tion of philosophy inside out to study objects while being an object
oneself. Such self-implication allows OOF to develop three impor-
tant aspects of feminist thinking in the philosophy of things: politics,
in which OOF engages with histories of treating certain humans
(women, people of color, and the poor) as objects; erotics, in which
OOF employs humor to foment unseemly entanglements between
things; and ethics, in which OOF refuses to make grand philosophi-
cal truth claims, instead staking a modest ethical position that arrives
at being “in the right” even if it means being “wrong.”
Welcoming wrongness affords OOF a polyamorous knack for
adopting multiple, sometimes contradictory perspectives. Readers will
find that among the chapters in this volume, there is neither an interest
in resolving difference nor an investment in arriving at an ontologically
Behar.indd 3 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

4 Katherine Behar
“correct” master theory. As a result, OOF holds itself in tension with

the many discourses it touches and is always as ready to apply a
thought as trouble it. This variance prioritizes feminist intersectional-
ity, which ontological framings, hinging on totality and exclusivity,
would seem to overwrite. Accordingly, this volume and OOF as a
whole aim to bring intersectionality to the fore, and to unsettle, queer,
interject, and foment more critical work around the resurgence of
objects and all things material in contemporary thought.
Reflecting feminist ideals of inclusivity, OOF forges alliances by
participating in endeavors in theory and practice that share not only
OOF’s commitment to feminism but also its key interests in nonan-
thropocentrism and the nonhuman, materialism and thingness, and
objectification and instrumentalization. For example, work in femi-
nist new materialisms that highlights our common condition as mat-
ter to overcome anthropocentric human–nonhuman distinctions is
compatible with OOF’s concern with object relations (and is explored
in greater detail in the section on erotics below); and this same con-
cern connects OOF with artistic and curatorial practices that estab-
lish representational and nonrepresentational relationships between
objects. Studies of the Anthropocene, exposing the ecological fallout
of utilitarian objectification of the planet, or studies in digital labor,
examining the productivist networking of human and nonhuman data
objects, likewise align with OOF’s object-oriented analysis of exploi-
tation (and are discussed in the section on objects and objections and
the section on politics, respectively). Simultaneously, OOF’s method-
ological stakes in praxis introduce object theory to forms of feminist
and social justice activism that also interrogate and seek to transform
the very power relations objectification describes (and are considered
in the section on being otherwise oriented as well as in a case study,
using the bunny example, in the section on ethics).
Accordingly, while OOO and speculative realism represent im-
portant points of reference (and provide significant points of depar-
ture), they are by no means the only or primary context for OOF.
Indeed, as I show, OOF’s approach to these and all subject areas
involves appropriating certain elements and rejecting others, always
in the interest of cultivating feminist praxis. Though OOF’s sights
are set on broader horizons than the narrow philosophical position
staking that sometimes echoes in these debates, its accordances with
Behar.indd 4 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

and deviations from OOO and speculative realism nevertheless war-

rant special elaboration in the remainder of this section on OOF’s
genealogy.
OOF gladly seizes on speculative realism’s nonanthropocentric
conception of the world as a pluralist population of objects, in which
humans are objects no more privileged than any other. This provides
a welcome respite from theories of subjecthood that many femin-
ist philosophers point out are fundamentally dependent on the logic
of phallocentrism. It also avails itself of the important insight that
in objects we can locate ontic “realism.” This too promises a positive
return to the “real world” after a generation of feminist thought that
has been accused of ascribing gender as a construct in language.4
However, these merits notwithstanding, as its awestruck acronym
might imply, OOO’s tone often appears somewhat too elated by dis-
covering a universe composed of objects. What is more, OOO seems
to relish, in the idea that humans too are objects, a sense of liberation
from the shackles of subjectivity, especially from the “unreal” delusions
of correlationism.5 Finding neither of these positions tenable, OOF
therefore positions itself as a friendly if pointed rejoinder, remind-
ing this flourishing philosophical discussion first, that object-oriented
approaches to the world are practiced in disciplines outside philoso-
phy, and second, that all too many humans are well aware of being
objects, without finding cause to celebrate in that reality.
Thus, by swapping OOO’s gasp for a gutsier grunt, OOF aims
to inject feminism into this discourse, but without dismissing these
notions that, in fact, are essential for contemporary activism. To this
point, a third contention of OOO, developed in the work of Graham
Harman, is that objects are fundamentally withdrawn and sealed off
from one another.6 For feminists, this idea is particularly provocative:
those concerned with activist struggles in late capitalism would do
well to imagine its implications. On the one hand, the separateness of
objects recalls Jean-Paul Sartre’s theory of seriality, an idea Iris Marion
Young applied to the feminist movement to account for political affilia
tion of individuals mobilizing around an issue without being reduced
to group identity.7 But on the other, withdrawn objects suggest an end
to affiliation as such, and with it the neoliberal imperative to network
individuals into populations. This ambiguity should give us pause.
Despite OOO’s disavowal of “object-oriented programming,” it can
Behar.indd 5 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

6 Katherine Behar
be no coincidence that object-oriented thinking is emerging at a

historical juncture characterized by networks, or the capacity for
ordering through code. Programmability is paramount. It remains to
be seen whether this may prepare objects for a feminist conception of
networks such as Donna Haraway’s “integrated circuit,” or whether
“withdrawal” makes objects more or less susceptible to regimes of
control.8 Steven Shaviro and others favor versions of speculative real-
ism that privilege Whiteheadian relation over Harman’s isolated
objects, and in this respect would appear compatible with Haraway’s
notion of a connectivity that reflects and resists the ubiquity of code
toward feminist ends.9 As Haraway explains, “‘Networking’ is both a
feminist practice and a multinational corporate strategy—weaving is
for oppositional cyborgs.”
In fact, we might say the same of branding. On this front, OOF
takes this cue from OOO: it is a brand. As a brand, object-oriented
ontology has leveraged a calculated posture of coolness to make waves
among various communities. OOO struck some as radical partly be-
cause it was largely developed in the blogosphere and could afford a
somewhat punkish attitude toward institutionalized forms of academic
publishing, appearing to buck a blindsided and sluggish philosophical
establishment. However (notwithstanding Timothy Morton’s sugges-
tion that OOO’s politics may be anarchic), the self-proclaimed radi-
cality of OOO’s discursive intervention was not matched by a radical
politics. For this reason, and no doubt coupled with the fact that the
primary OOO authors were four white men (from whom the choice
to not engage politics might appear as an act of privilege), OOO left
some readers with a bad aftertaste and feelings of frustration.
This is where OOF steps in, offering an alternative brand that is,
following Haraway’s vision, both a feminist practice and a multi
national corporate strategy. OOF is a brand for oppositional cyborgs.
So is it a joke? Consider: Object. Oriented. Feminism. Perhaps this
sounds funny? Surely, taken together, these terms are either paradoxi-
cal or redundant. After all, doesn’t feminism already deal with objecti
fication? Or on the contrary, isn’t feminism oriented toward subjects,
not objects? Doesn’t object-oriented thought, at least as espoused in
recent speculative realist ontologies, steer clear of the political, which
is the avowed terrain of feminism? As one must expect, OOF’s sur-
face silliness carries seeds of something serious.
Behar.indd 6 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

Objects and Objections

What is the object of a feminist orientation? Historically, feminism’s
object or at least its objective has been political. Specifically, it has in-
volved inward ways of orienting politics through subjectivity, whether
translating private domestic practices into the public sphere of poli-
tics or advancing inner personal affect as a source of knowledge.
But what if the impersonal is political?10 A better question to ask
might be who is the object of feminism? Feminist politics might also
arise from outward orientation, from looking to the abounding realm
of inanimate, inert, nonhuman objects. In this case, the call for solidar-
ity should be to rally around objects, not subjects. Primarily a white,
male, hetero, abled, rational heir to Enlightenment humanism, the
subject is a red herring. Immersed among other objects, a “personal”
experience of subjecthood, as in culturally or legally viable person-
hood, might proceed for some human objects, but only secondarily,
and given this baggage it is something to be questioned, not prized.
Orientating feminism toward objects means attuning it to the
object world. While at first such a move may seem to risk abandon-
ing the concerns of real human subjects (i.e., women), the object
world is precisely a world of exploitation, of things ready-at-hand, to
adopt Harman’s Heideggerian terminology.11 This world of tools,
there for the using, is the world to which women, people of color, and
the poor have been assigned under patriarchy, colonialism, and capi-
talism throughout history. If, in Audre Lorde’s famous words, “the
master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” how are we, as
feminists, to account for “tool being” as Harman would have it, much
less his notion of “carpentry” developed by Bogost?12
Perceiving continuity with other objects in the world, not as sub-
jects but as subject to subjects’ dominion, allows us to rework assump-
tions about feminist political priorities and the what and who of
feminist ethics. Object-oriented feminism does not abandon feminist
attention to interiority. Rather, as Bogost commented in his response
to OOF’s 2010 panels, the speculative realist philosopher Quentin
Meillassoux’s entreaty to “re-join ‘the great outdoors’” is a metaphor
he ordinarily cites “as a lever to show how big and great the world is
outside our tiny, forlorn minds.” However, Bogost notes that object-
oriented feminism shows
Behar.indd 7 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

8 Katherine Behar
the value of looking for the outdoors inside. Indeed, one of the
goals and victories of feminism involves making insides and
outsides accessible and welcoming, whether they involve rights,
ideals, identities, or everyday practices. And when we go out-
side, we track that world’s dirt back in, and vice versa.13
Object-oriented feminism’s intervention is to approach all objects from

the inside-out position of being an object, too.
Shifting focus from feminist subjects to feminist objects extends
a classic tenet of feminism, the ethic of care, to promote sympathies
and camaraderie with nonhuman neighbors. For instance, consider
Evelyn Fox Keller’s classic work on gender and science in which scien-
tific “objectivity” is gendered as masculine precisely because it enforces
“the reciprocal autonomy of the object,” forbidding erotic entangle-
ments that confuse boundaries of self and other,14 or Maria Puig de
la Bellacasa’s more recent work on care as ontological as opposed to
moral, as it is more typically understood. Drawing on work by Hara
way, Sandra Harding, and others, Puig de la Bellacasa defines care,
practiced through “thinking-with, dissenting-within, and thinking-for,”
as a central function in relational ontology.15 In keeping with eco-
feminisms and cyberfeminisms, these transfers from subject to object
welcome absurd coalitions and hospitably accommodate asociality.
A feminist perspective imparts political urgency to the ideas that
humans and nonhuman objects are of a kind, and that the nonsub
jective quality of being an object is grittily, physically realist. Recall,
for example, the theory of Gaia as living mother Earth, or Haraway’s
cyborg, a part-organic, part-cybernetic feminist hybrid. These exam-
ples induce what Haraway names interspecies companionship,16 in-
cluding companionship with inorganic “species” of objects, and they
cultivate new forms of becoming other than strictly human.
Moreover, reorienting from feminist subjects to feminist objects
puts critiques of utilitarianism, instrumentalization, and objectifica-
tion in no uncertain terms. People are not treated “like” objects when
they are objects as such from the outset. By extending the concept of
objectification and its ethical critique to the world of things, object-
oriented thinking stands to evolve feminist and postcolonial practices
to reconsider how the very processes of objectification work. In this
new terrain, what does it mean for feminists to objectify someone
Behar.indd 8 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

who is already an object? What is the transformative potential for a

feminist politics that assumes no transformation, when all things are
and remain objects? Bringing such notions to bear makes for a poli-
tics that is real without being speculative, enriching both new theories
of things and feminist discourses.
These feminisms undertake an important political function. Re-
directing feminism from a paradigm of personal visibility toward what
Elizabeth Grosz calls the impersonal politics of imperceptibility,17
object-oriented feminism shifts its operational agencies from a “poli-
tics of recognition,” of standing out, to a politics of immersion, of being
with. Following Grosz, imperceptibility supplants the Hegelian frame-
work of reciprocal identity formation that concerns “the becoming
of being” and is inseparable from individuation and subjecthood, with
a Nietzschean model in which active, self-modifying forces unfurl,
“[seeking] the being of becoming.”18 Here, object-oriented feminism
coincides with perspectives in feminist new materialisms, wherein
our common status as matter makes way for continuity between all
objects, whether human or nonhuman, organic or inorganic, animate
or inanimate.19
To this end, Patricia Clough describes how recent work on
bodies, science, and technology propels feminist theory to “[open] the
study of bodies to bodies other than the human body.”20 For Clough,
this revision forges compatibility, even co-constitution, between bod-
ies and the technics of measurement that support advances in genet-
ics and digital media. Underscoring this same technicity, Nigel Thrift
conceives of a transformation within capitalism toward territorializ-
ing a “new land” on the model of tenancy in which “site, organic and
inorganic bodies, and information are mixed up in an anorganic mass
that is continuously cultivated—but with a much greater turnover
time.”21 New materialist authors along with numerous others includ-
ing Morton and Elizabeth A. Povinelli (both in this volume) empha-
size how this understanding of continuity between humans and the
material world is revealing itself in new ways as we near ecological
collapse on a planetary scale in the Anthropocene, a new geological
era marked by immense human influence on the Earth.22
Similarly striving to shed subjecthood—which is to say, the dam
aging legacy of humanist exceptionalism—object-oriented ontologists
and speculative realists also embrace objecthood. They view the latter
Behar.indd 9 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

10 Katherine Behar
as a way to liberate humans from the trap of correlationism, precisely

because correlationism is so deeply entangled with Enlightenment
humanism’s conception of the thinking subject.23 But here we must
tread lightly. For while the intention to slough off the humanist trap-
pings of subjecthood is worthy as a gesture toward feminist camara-
derie with nonhumans, in practice it is likely to remain aspirational;
and while, for those not already accustomed to it, human objecthood
(which is not to say subjecthood) can be illuminating, rarely will it
prove liberating. Certainly examples of objectification’s benefiting the
objectified are few and far between.
Otherwise Oriented
Object-oriented feminism participates in long histories of feminist,
postcolonial, and queer practices and promotes continuity with and
accountability to diverse pasts stemming from multiple regions and
disciplines.24 To wit, the chapters in this book reflect multiple orien-
tations spanning science and technology studies, technoscience, bio-
art, philosophy, new media, sociology, anthropology, performance art,
and more.25 In philosophy, the main foci for object-oriented inquiry
include relations between objects, objects’ phenomenological encoun-
ters, objects in “flat” or nonhierarchical arrangements, relations and
interactions between objects, and assemblages of objects. But of course
these important questions are not solely philosophical pursuits, and
during the past century practitioners of avant-gardism, feminism, and
postcolonialism have frequently found traction in similar ideas. Indeed,
the “object” in object-oriented feminism connects with past and pres-
ent engagements and experiments including nonanthropocentric art
practices,26 queer/postcolonial/feminist critiques of objectification and
marginalization, and psychoanalytic critiques of relation.27
For example, Frantz Fanon famously described the experience of
being “sealed into . . . crushing objecthood” upon realizing that he
“was an object in the midst of other objects.”28 Or, in quite a different
spirit of investigation, the artist Lawrence Weiner wrote of his work,
“ART IS NOT A METAPHOR UPON THE RELATIONSHIP
OF HUMAN BEINGS TO OBJECTS & OBJECTS TO OB-
JECTS IN RELATION TO HUMAN BEINGS BUT A REPRE-
SENTATION OF AN EMPIRICAL EXISTING FACT.”29 By
Behar.indd 10 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

invoking representation, Weiner contradicts what Rick Dolphijn and

Iris van der Tuin herald as new materialism’s antirepresentationalism,
pushing instead for a form of facticity in objects, like Fanon’s “fact
of blackness.”30 In this sense, we can understand what Weiner calls
“the reality concerning that relationship” between human beings and
objects and objects and objects as their orientation.
Along these lines, Fanon’s comment harks back to Edward Said’s
orientalism, the dynamic by which the objectified Other orients and
thus confirms the subject’s central position.31 Here, our pursuit of a
feminist object-orientation brings us unexpectedly to Sara Ahmed’s
“queer phenomenology,” a specifically subject-oriented endeavor. Use-
fully for OOF, Ahmed’s excavation of queer orientations leads her
to parse multiple meanings of “orient” and to distinguish between
being “orientated toward” and being “orientated around.”32 In orien-
talism, and under conditions of white supremacy, we are orientated
“toward” the Orient, the East as visible object (disorientingly over
embodied in the racialized/sexualized/classed other), but orientated
“around” the Occident, the West as transparent whiteness (embodied
in habit, which goes always overlooked). The blind spots inherent to
this dynamic require our close attention, precisely because in its object
orientation, OOF suffers from a similar scheme. We must recognize
that even this volume, OOF’s first effort, contains too little material
on the specific concerns of people of color. So criticisms of OOO,
speculative realism, and new materialism’s whiteness, and of main-
stream feminism’s whiteness, pertain, disappointingly, to this endeavor
Figure I.1. Lawrence Weiner, Notes from Art (4 pages), 1982. Detail of an artist
project originally published in “Words and Wordworks,” the summer 1982 issue
of Art Journal. Copyright 2015 Lawrence Weiner / Artists Rights Society (ARS),
New York.
Behar.indd 11 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

12 Katherine Behar
as well—but can feminist object-orientation help us to understand

why, or what we might do otherwise?
For Ahmed, being orientated toward something is “to take up”
that thing as thing, but being orientated around something is “to be
taken up” by a thing, so that that thing becomes the very “center of
one’s being or action.”33 In OOF, even when we construe ourselves as
objects among objects, we take ourselves up as things, “orientating
toward” our selfsame objecthood. Yet perhaps we are “orientating
around” a larger and still unanswered question of what to do with our
objecthood as such. For example, while the (white) feminist struggle
has made room for postfeminism as one possible answer to this ques-
tion, the antiracist struggle does—and should—not accept postracial-
ity.34 Indeed, these two possibilities for “post” objecthood answer the
question of what we can do otherwise with our objecthood quite dif-
ferently: either claim objectification, giving it heightened visibility,
or deny if not objectification then its salience, further obscuring it.
In the latter, objectification threatens to disappear from awareness,
like another Occidental habit. This sharp divergence signals a serious
pressure point requiring close reflection and demands that future
OOF inquiry “take up” conditions of white supremacy—conditions
that may be so fundamental to our understanding of objectification,
utilitarianism, and exploitation that we have become inadvertently
“taken up by” them, even when considering our own objecthood.
In this, OOF connects with object-oriented work in feminist
indigenous studies, such as Kim TallBear’s revealing studies of Native
American DNA and pipestone, or Povinelli’s work on aboriginal
arrangements and “geontology,” in which race, object-orientation, and
indigenous nonanthropocentrism converge around questions of sover
eignty.35 Indigenous approaches to nonanthropocentrism and object-
orientation forge a distinct line between an artifactual mode, also
employed in object-oriented theory, and a vitalist perspective that also
appears in new materialism. This stance is compatible with OOF,
especially insofar as it is forthright about having real political objec-
tives. Here, again, OOF departs from ontological speculation. For if,
to borrow Weiner’s phrase, this is “the reality concerning that relation-
ship,” then “reality” will require intervention and change. So object-
oriented feminism professes no innocence, but offers a prescriptive
activist practice, rejecting the noninterventionist, descriptive stance of
Behar.indd 12 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

ontologists—which remains too redolent of the aloof distancing of

orientalism.
Erotics: Methods by Artif icial Means

Orientalism’s object-Other anchors and guarantees the occidental
subject’s so-called “view from nowhere,” making a further leap from
objectification to objectivity. Yet, as Lorraine Daston notes in her his-
tory of “aperspectival objectivity,” contemporary understandings of
objectivity are founded in the nineteenth century’s distancing of sci-
entific activity from the individualistic artistic or philosophical subject
position cultivated in intellectual solitude.36 Instead, aperspectival ob-
jectivity, which becomes synonymous first with scientific objectivity
and later with objectivity in general, was understood to arise out of
scientific correspondence in burgeoning communication networks: an
anonymous, convivial, (and often deskilled) collective mind. While
we often consider rational, disinterested objectivity to be a hallmark
of humanist subjects, it in fact emerges at the moment when creative
individual subjects disseminate into networks of things.
Hence, in practice, and a shared commitment to nonanthro
pocentrism, OOF also resonates with new materialist thought, in
particular with feminist new materialism.37 OOO and OOF share a
constructivist orientation; in new materialism, methods often mani-
fest around scientific experimentation with all manner of objects. This
includes even minute and slippery objects residing well below the
usual threshold for human access such as those at the undeniably non
anthropocentric level of quantum physics. For example, a physicist as
well as a philosopher, Karen Barad demonstrates how new material-
ism provides opportunities for testing out certain theories about time,
identity, and so forth, in an empirical laboratory setting.38
Object-oriented feminism shares this penchant for experimen-
tation over speculation. Where an ontologist might speculate, describ-
ing the world, “This is the way things are,” object-oriented feminists
and feminist new materialists engage in the world using experimental
praxis, “This is a way of being with things.” Or more simply, “This is
a way of being things.” With experimentation, feminist new material-
ism embraces the agency of things, apart from any human influence.
Like the Whiteheadian “panpsychism” Shaviro identifies in speculative
Behar.indd 13 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

14 Katherine Behar
realism, new materialism defers to the abounding animism in the

world of things,39 as well as to political formations that need not in-
clude humans.40 So, with careful attentiveness to objects, and the pre-
cise orientation of self into a human–nonhuman assemblage, the work
of Jane Bennett yields a material world rife with impersonal affective
power and loaded with thoughtful implications for human–nonhuman
politics. In Vibrant Matter, Bennett describes the independent “thing-
power” of “man-made objects” to “become vibrant things with a cer-
tain effectivity of their own, a perhaps small but irreducible degree
of independence.”41 Encounters with the outside world of things,
including inorganic matter, expose their “vibrant” quality, seducing
and estranging us.
Whereas Barad’s experiments occur against the more rarified
backdrop of a physics lab, Bennett’s are conducted in daily experience,
at such banal sites as an unswept sidewalk. This broad and nonhierar-
chical experimentalist disposition is shared by object-oriented femi-
nism and echoes over the wide range of objects engaged in the different
chapters of this volume. In any milieu, experimentation is always par-
ticipatory, always both observational and interventionist. This allows
for tinkering with received truths, priming us for alliances with hacked
realities, investigative arrangements in living, and radical aesthetic
practices in art.
Anne Pollock has observed that objects in object-oriented femi-
nism, as in OOO, are usually blatantly artificial things, typical of
engineering and art.42 Here, object-oriented feminism and new mate
rialisms may begin to diverge. New materialism’s object of study is
frequently a thing of science, some essential dollop or granular mani-
festation of matter that originates in the natural world. Like the
human-made objects that emit Bennett’s thing-power, or Haraway’s
naturecultures, artificial objects can lay no claim to any purity or the
naturalness that might be associated with proper scientific inquiry.43
Perhaps for this reason, new materialism’s approach often bears a
note of sincerity, of reverence for something that is, in some way,
yet pure.
Contrast this with Aristarkhova’s assertion that humor is a feat
of thought that is becoming increasingly difficult for theorists, phi-
losophers, and even scientists, but can be achieved by artists, immersed
as they are in artifice. Rooted in Friedrich Nietzsche’s nihilistic will to
Behar.indd 14 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

laugh at truth, OOF’s humor is in keeping with traditions of radical

feminist laughter.44 Moreover, and key for object-oriented feminist
methodologies, humor is a creative, constructivist practice. Humor,
too, is a form of making—making ourselves laugh.
For example, Annie Sprinkle’s Public Cervix Announcement
crystallizes object-oriented feminist humor through performance art.
Sprinkle, reclining with a speculum inserted into her vagina, invites
audience members to approach her with a flashlight to familiarize
themselves with the cervix’s hidden beauty.45 For OOF, this perfor-
mance is seminal (pun intended) first and foremost for placing the
object of the cervix, quite literally, on center stage. Moreover, as a
former sex worker and porn star, Sprinkle is uniquely self-possessed
of her own status as a sex object, and by objectifying herself in her
performances, she foments radical laughter, joy, and pleasure. Writing
with characteristic cheeky cheeriness about this project, Sprinkle
states, “I adore my cervix. I am proud of her in every way, and am
happy to put her on display.” To those who call her work demystifica-
tion, she quips, “You can never demystify a cervix.”
This generative aspect of laughter brings to mind the erotic, pre-
cisely as it complicates science’s truth claims. Fox Keller writes, “The
image of science is antithetical to Eros.”46 She perceives a connection
between the desexualization of science and its masculine gendering,
which, she observes, “connotes a radical rejection of any commingling
of subject and object . . . consistently identified as male and female.”
And so Isabelle Stengers laments, “Our sciences no longer make us
laugh.”47 Like the preference for lowbrow artificiality over purebred
knowledge, Stengers’s laughing science aspires to the passion of ama-
teurism and the promiscuity of outside influences. “Scientists,” she
affirms, “might ally with other passions.”
The serious endeavor of science as such hinges on prohibiting
both erotic generativity and nonheteronormativity. To this end, Angela
Willey calls for “new conceptual resources that problematize biology
as the locus of claims about the materiality of bodies” that she finds
problematically invoked in feminist new materialisms.48 The existing
methods will not do. Willey draws on Audre Lorde’s expansive erot-
ics: inclusive human–nonhuman intimacies that “[postulate] . . . no
qualitative difference between the experiences of building a bookcase,
thinking about an idea, making love to a woman, listening to music,
Behar.indd 15 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

16 Katherine Behar
and writing a poem.”49 All of these “other passions,” as Stengers puts

it, revivify joy.
Although Lorde’s eroticism accepts nonhuman entanglements,
it remains life-and self-affirming. Perhaps surprisingly, then, OOF’s
erotics are better aligned with a version of eroticism theorized by
Georges Bataille, as the radical surrender of self in becoming other-
than-subject. Through physical, emotional, and religious eroticism,
“discontinuous” individuals attain continuity with the object world.
Forgoing the subject’s instinct for self-preservation, eroticism heeds
no boundary, neither the boundary between self and other, nor even
the boundary between life and nonlife, putting connection and con
tinuity with the world above self-annihilation. “Eroticism,” Bataille
writes, “is assenting to life even in death.” Bataille’s eroticism remains
grounded in a humanist subject-position of sovereignty (doomed
insofar as it is precisely the position eroticism seeks to overcome), a
transformational aesthetics that assumes movement between subjects
and objects rather than a flat ontology of objects alone, and a gen-
dered dynamic that cannot begin to hold up to contemporary femi-
nist analysis. Still, Bataille’s erotic ideas about eschewing subjecthood
through excess, unholy alliances, and nonlife are influential for object-
oriented feminism. Like laughter, fomenting erotic fusion with an
object, as a means of becoming object, is a creative, generative act.
Such important prehistories for today’s object-orientation also
include feminist practices around the body, like fetishistic subcultures
and body art. While as we have seen, with Sprinkle’s performance,
some strategic, erotic reclamations of objecthood can make us laugh,
others are plainly politically resistive. For instance, in an expanded
cinema work, Touch and Tap Cinema, the artist Valie Export became
an object, twice over.50 Attaching a cardboard maquette of a movie
theater to her bare chest, and offering passersby a free grope, she
used her body to embody the cinematic apparatus. Export turned her-
self simultaneously into the architectural object of the theater and
the filmic object of the male gaze, later canonized in feminist film
theory by Laura Mulvey’s 1975 essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative
Cinema.”51 The erotic affirmation of being both and presents viewers
with an internal contradiction, and has the effect of doubling down
against objectification, making clear that her political statement, even
when disguised as half-kidding, is entirely serious. Returning then to
Behar.indd 16 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

Aristarkhova’s lucid question, Is OOF a joke?, object-oriented femi-

nism maintains an always charged relationship with earnestness and
the seriousness of sovereignty. Erotic nonsense breaks down ideolo-
gy’s common sense. Problematic erotic pairings provoke insights into
things’ innards. And perhaps most important, erotic agility sidesteps
the weighty burden of truth claims.
This last concern, with truth, is equally crucial for object-oriented
feminist methods, ethics, and politics. It is often the case that humor
carries a note of truth, but at least on the face of things, object-
oriented feminism appears to keep its distance, remaining aligned
with artifice and unconcerned with being complete or being right. On
Figure I.2. Valie Export, TAPP und TASTKINO (Touch and Tap Cinema), 1968.
Document of performance action by Valie Export. Tapp and Tastfilm—street
film, mobile film, body action, authentic woman film. Photograph by Werner
Schulz. Copyright 2015 Valie Export/Artists Rights Scoeity (ARS), New York/
Bildrecht Vienna.
Behar.indd 17 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

18 Katherine Behar
the one hand, object-oriented feminism draws from a postmodern

legacy in which truth is first and foremost radically relativized. On the
other, it recognizes that insisting on the salience of post-structuralism,
capitalism, and psychoanalysis to explain everything turns those rela-
tivizing gestures back into master narratives.
While a constructivist edge coupled with rhetorical levity are fea-
tures that object-oriented feminism shares with both art and OOO,
the latter remains invested in philosophical truth claims about an
accurate ontology. Likewise, new materialism claims truths surround-
ing nonanthropocentric science and the nature and inherency of mat-
ter as such. But based as it is on a redundant paradox, and riddled
through with artifice, object-oriented feminism is on track for being
beyond untrue, in an erotic sense, in excess of singular truth. So it
strives to be wrong, but not in the sense of being incorrect. Its promise
is to be wrong as in being botched, as in “girl, that’s all wrong”—flat
indifference to correctness. Being wrong in this way is radical, politi-
cal work. It means setting aside truth and correctness in favor of being
artificial and botched, all to make room for an erotics of generative
thinking and doing. The underlying wager is that right thinking gets
worked out in the doing of the making.
Only in willingness to be all kinds of wrong can we arrive at
being in the right, in the ethical sense. In her film work, Povinelli
points to how variance in truth claims produces varying worlds, which
is to say, an array of differing political arrangements. Philosophical,
fictional, scientific, and everyday truth claims all wield social power to
different degrees, such that power relations and unevenness emerge in
what the OOO author Levi R. Bryant calls a flat ontology.52 Bryant
refers to a “democracy of objects,” but notions of democracy are com-
plicated by uneven power everywhere that objects are systematized
into arrangements. Biomedicine and datafication are cases in point.
For example, although the research of the geneticist Rick Kittles
reveals that 30 percent of African American men have a Y chromo-
some indicating European descent, Kittles emphasizes that you can-
not show a Y chromosome to a policeman who pulls you over.53 From
new science comes new objects, but old problems persist.54
Wrong truths and reclamations of objecthood often reveal that
feminist objects are inaccessible, at once obdurate and retiring. By
removing the cinematic screen and providing “access” to her body
Behar.indd 18 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

as object, Export’s performance exposes the emptiness of cinema’s

promises: the haptic experience is equally dry. Likewise, the Y chro-
mosome keeps quiet, refusing to speak until it becomes woven, in
Haraway’s sense, in just such a way as to form specific fabrics bind-
ing genetic research and the Atlantic slave trade. OOO’s conception
of objects as fundamentally withdrawn and self-contained resonates
with feminist objects that resist us, and the feminist notion that as
objects, we resist. Yet, forsaking that ambition for exclusive or conclu-
sive truth in truth claims (and for grandeur in all such grand claims)
makes for a modest theory and a humble practice. Like assenting to
erotic self-erasure, insistent self-implication and meticulous modesty
are methodologically necessary if the hope is to achieve anything
resembling nonanthropocentrism. And this is the hope on offer: to
be objects, generously and generatively, together; to recognize how
fraught that position is, always for all parties, as power articulates
itself through each and every arrangement of objects; and from this
recognition about objecthood, which is to say self-recognition in
objecthood, to cultivate a praxis of care.
Ethics: Out of the Closet or under the Carpet

So, as a case study for OOF analysis, let us return to that earlier “trou-
bling” example pertaining to feminism to ask, how exactly did the
bunny come to be swept under the carpet of carpentry? Something is
wrong about this.
The truth claim of ontologies is to account for being; as such,
they profess completeness and suggest neutrality. An ontologist will
assert, “This is the way things are.” But is an ontologist also alleg-
ing something more? “This is (just) the way things are.” In short, are
ontologies subject to ethics? OOF submits that they are. Recall that
carpentry, OOO’s mode of thing-praxis, “entails making things that
explain how things make their world.” Not only the object or artifact
is of import here; tantamount is the sense of orientation. The thing,
not the maker, explains the world; so orientating or listening to things
begets ontology.
In Bogost’s larger discussion, the image toy is one of two exam-
ples of carpentry he coded. The first is the Latour Litanizer, a piece of
software that generates lists of incongruous objects in the style of those
Behar.indd 19 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

20 Katherine Behar
found in the writings of Bruno Latour. Mimicking Latour’s predilec-

tion for lists of things, the Latour Litanizer operates in a similar fash-
ion to the image toy. The software calls up series of titles of random
Wikipedia articles with links, and generates a novel list of objects (i.e.,
entries) with every refresh. Importantly, Bogost submits that in the
interest of nonanthropocentrism, his Litanizer improves on Latour’s
handwritten technique by eliminating the bias of human authorship.
The Latour Litanizer makes less “trouble” than the image toy in
that it requires no editing to remove the offensive presence of women,
girls, or sexiness, but only because that “editing” has taken place in
advance. The sexist skew of Wikipedia is well known. Its “systematic
gender bias” was the subject of two National Science Foundation
grants in 2014,55 and despite activist Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons that
seek to increase articles about women, it is estimated that a measly
10 percent of Wikipedia contributors are women.56 For this reason,
it would be redundant to code the Litanizer to remove women from
Wikipedia. This tiny ontology already reflects a bigger problem.
Such is not the case for the image toy precisely because while
encyclopedia articles that feature women and their achievements re-
main statistically rare, images that objectify women proliferate online.
Hence it is both easy for a dean to see a bunny, and easy for her to
“conclu[de] that object-oriented ontology [is] all about objectification.”
Bogost acknowledges that the dean’s interpretation was “understand-
able,” although “unintended,” while insisting that “sexist objectifica-
tion” is “certainly unsupported by OOO thought itself.”57
While the implication of nonsexist objectification remains an
open question, Bogost correctly notes that in the object-experiment
of his tiny ontology, his “change also risks excluding a whole category
of units from the realm of being!” Certainly the choice to erase the
ontological status of women, girls, and sexiness is a move that deserves
further scrutiny. I would argue that by coding against further incur-
sions of sexually objectified women into a programmed ontological
purview, OOO misses the point. Sexual objectification is not “cer-
tainly unsupported by OOO thought.” On the contrary, objectification,
utilitarianism, and instrumentalization are presences that haunt OOO,
and are among the very questions at the heart of object-oriented feminism.
Orientation toward the object of carpentry should teach us that
the bunny in our midst is not “the problem.” Rather, the bunny stands,
objectified and objectively, as evidence that OOO rests precisely on

an ontological condition that includes objectification, as uncomfort-
able as that realization may be. The dean’s question of “why Playboy
bunnies would be featured at a philosophy conference” is not a matter
of misinterpretation; rather, the comment astutely identifies the messy,
nay, wrong philosophical intervention that this ontology, by orientat-
ing to objects, would have been poised to make. And such an inter-
vention truly would have been profound. The status quo, in which
philosophy conferences are devoid of Playboy bunnies, is entirely
in keeping with the comfort zone of humanist morality, not to men-
tion with patriarchal institutional mores that prefer to engage female
bodies in the abstract if at all. The dean’s response very well may have
been motivated by this sort of politically correct (and thus politically
impotent) feminism. But by abolishing women, girls, and sexiness,
OOO perpetuates this same abstraction and silencing.
Bogost states that the image toy’s “philosophical accomplish-
ment comes from the question it poses about the challenge flat ontol-
ogy and feminism pose to one another.” But the OOO response has
the opposite effect—disposing of rather than posing any questions at
all. Here carpentry performs the sad inverse of object-orientation. By
reasserting authorial control, OOO reinserts the same biased human
decision making that it has been argued contaminated Latour’s hand-
composed lists. In the end, we may know ontologies as subject to
ethics if simply because they provoke such censorship.
Returning to the definition of carpentry as “making things that
explain how things make their world,” if we are to understand the
world as explained by the image toy object, this sexist plaything—if
we can call it that—flips our expectations. Outmoded humanist poli-
tics asks who counts as a subject (and criticizes the objectification of
women on the basis that classing women as objects means that they
are less-than-subjects). Object-orientation sets forth an entirely dif-
ferent political problem: the question of what counts as an object.
Perversely, in this example “being objectified” prevents “being” in the
ontological category of “object.” In setting out to correct the first
problem about who counts as a subject—which it must be stressed is
ontologically irrelevant, even if it is socially awkward, OOO produces
the second problem concerning what counts as an object—which
does carry important ontological stakes.
Behar.indd 21 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

22 Katherine Behar
This is not to diminish the value of carpentry in itself—far from

it. The lesson to be gained, it would seem, is about the power of car-
pentry, the potency of praxis, and the ethics of establishing ontologi-
cal orders.
Politics: Retooling
Finally, and to this end, object-oriented feminism contributes a critical
reorientation of the concept of object-orientation itself. When asked,
OOO’s proponents insist that the term object-oriented ontology has
nothing to do with “object-oriented programming” (OOP). Harman,
the story goes, simply found the term appealing and appropriated it.
But what is OOP?
Object-oriented programming is a form of computer program-
ming that makes use of “objects” to organize information. In OOP
a programmer creates objects, prototypical entities in code that have
defined qualities, known as “attributes,” and capabilities, known as
“methods.” This allows the programmer to subsequently generate
multiple instances of that object, each of which, while unique, con-
forms to its template.
While OOO may deny the association, much work conducted
under the mantle of object-oriented feminism suggests that a connec-
tion does exist. In speculative realism, object-oriented ontology, and
new materialism, we find a new wave of theories that takes objects,
things, and matter as fundamental units. These ideas are emerging
now amid a particular set of historical conditions. Although OOO’s
and new materialism’s assertions about being transcend history, object-
oriented feminism suggests that some form of historical contingency
is at work. Alexander R. Galloway critiques OOO similarly for reit-
erating the language of post-Fordist capitalism, yet OOF has stakes
in a different formulation of OOO’s historical specificity.58 Material-
ism and object-oriented thought are popular now, for a reason, and it
is not because the linguistic turn rewrote distinctions like gender as
seemingly irrelevant constructs. Rather, at this moment, paradigms
like gender are all the more worthy of our attention because they are
in the process of becoming something other than what we thought
we knew. Increasingly, we understand them as secondary qualities of
objects. The primary quality of objects is that they are, simply, objects
Behar.indd 22 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

qua objects, in exactly the sense that for a philosopher like Harman,
objects are objects through to the core.
But being objects first has direct implications in programming.
In OOP, secondary qualities, like gender distinctions, are simply attri-
butes. From the perspective of code, when all things are objects, they
are individually nameable and, as such, can be interpolated into a pro-
gram. This means that all things, as individuals, can be networked
together, subsumed in software, and thereby systematized, operation-
alized, and instrumentalized.
Now OOP may look more like OOO’s Freudian slip. And here
is the catch: If in OOP, all things as individuals can be networked and
instrumentalized, in OOO, all individuals as things can be so instru-
mentalized. Although OOO disavows the “P” dropped from its name
much as it repudiates politics, programming lends shape to object-
oriented politics. It can be no coincidence that this theory is emerging
from within a global culture that fetishizes programmability. An aura
of programming saturates these philosophies, hinting at something
fundamental about contemporary objecthood.
Harman’s conception of objects rests on his Heideggerian tool
analysis, and his view that objects are always fundamentally tools ready-
to-hand, or broken tools present-at-hand, pervades object-oriented
thought. With this in mind, object-oriented feminism links Harman’s
“tool-being” to the instrumentalization of all objects, irrespective of
their utility or unusability. Networked through code, all objects are
compelled to generate that “hyperobject”—to borrow Morton’s term—
data itself. This is true, R. Joshua Scannell has noted, even when an
object does nothing at all. A broken tool generates “no” data in real
time, which itself is commodifiable information about its brokenness.
In some of the chapters that follow, object-oriented feminist
thinking turns to necropolitics. In necropolitics, the capacity of all
objects to be instrumentalized, whether living or dead, puts a different
spin on dark ecologies’ investments in the nonhuman and nonlife, and
indeed returns “darkness” to the question of racism. Here Harman’s
broken tool resonates, but not with vibrant animism. Instead, this
notion of the tool connects with Achilles Mbembe’s assessment in his
seminal essay that “the slave’s life is like a ‘thing,’” a “mere tool and
instrument of production.”59 Just as biopower asserts a racial divi-
sion, “a split between the living and the dead,” necropower translates
Behar.indd 23 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

24 Katherine Behar
the sovereign right to distinguish those who live and those who die
differently.60 Mbembe, writing on slavery, could be describing the
brokenness of the tool when he writes, “As an instrument of labor,
the slave has a price. As a property, he or she has a value. His or her
labor is needed and used. The slave is therefore kept alive but in a state
of injury . . .” He continues, “Slave life, in many ways, is a form of
death-in-life.”61
OOF’s fundamental tension between objectification and self-
possession is brought to the surface in the artist Barbara DeGene-
vieve’s The Panhandler Project.62 DeGenevieve photographed and video
documented five homeless men in Chicago between 2004 and 2006.
The men agreed to pose nude for her in exchange for lunch and din-
ner, $100, and a night in a hotel room. As DeGenevieve explains to
one of the models during their shoot, “Just because you’re homeless,
there’s going to be someone who says I’m exploiting you because
I’ve asked you to take your clothes off. . . . That is the ultimate in the
art world of exploitation.” DeGenevieve’s project unsettles what she
calls the “knee-jerk political correctness” of the art world and aca-
deme by targeting power conventions of gender, class, and race, and
empowering naked homeless black men to make choices about their
objectification by a white female university professor. She asks rhe-
torically, “Did I exploit them? They’ve all answered no. . . . It was a
matter of how much it was worth to me versus how much it was
worth to him.”63 And indeed, as she points out, she would be with-
out a project were it not for their consent. The Panhandler Project
asks who controls this interaction. What is more, it reflects a critical
question for object-oriented feminism: is it time to abandon subject-
oriented terms like control, consent, and coercion if our aim is object-
oriented self-possession?
OOF emphasizes ontology as a political arrangement, realism
as an arena for self-possession and relation, and objecthood as a situ-
ational orientation, so as to apprehend and alter objects’ intersectional
prospects for self-determination, solidarity, and resistance. The inter-
nal resistant quality of objects may deserve our closest attention. In
object-oriented feminism, objects carry internal resistance, even insofar
as an erotic whisper of death-in-life, of self-destruction, always haunts
objecthood. In this kind of “being wrong,” where the modest ethics of
self-implication joins the necropolitical erotics of self-sacrifice, OOF
Behar.indd 24 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

Figure I.3. Barbara DeGenevieve, Mike #6, 2005. Inkjet print, 12 × 14⅜ inches.
Courtesy of the Estate of Barbara DeGenevieve and the Museum of
Contemporary Photography at Columbia College Chicago.
retools its politics. In the essays collected in this volume, we deploy

them into the feminist, queer, postcolonial, anticapitalist concerns
discussed above.
Chapter Overview
OOF’s emergent methodology, set into practice in the following pages,
traffics in art and artifice, technology and humor, erotics and politics.
Several of the chapters below were composed for this volume; others
developed out of papers first presented at OOF panels convened at
the Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts conferences between
2010 and 2014. Many of the themes of those panels, Programs, Parts,
Closer, Deviance, and Futures, echo throughout this collection. In
Behar.indd 25 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

26 Katherine Behar
object-oriented fashion, readers may approach these essays individu-

ally, sequentially, or in any order. Here, they are arranged into three
suggestive proximate groupings.
The first essays take on questions about the independence of and
relations between objects. How do objects self-constitute or consti-
tute one another? What distinguishes one object from a neighboring
object or a whole from a part? How do objects self-identify and self-
objectify, particularly in a cultural milieu? How can we account for
and even characterize relations between objects?
Excavating the distinction between objects and things, which is
often elided in object-oriented theory, Aristarkhova returns to Martin
Heidegger’s account of the “assaultive” process of objectification by
which things become objects. Heidegger defines a girl as “a young
thing” (neither object nor fully human) and suggests that philosophers
and artists have a special relationship to and even protective respon
sibility for such “mere” things, different, for example, from objects of
science. Examining this relationship in the context of human artists
and nonhuman art objects, Aristarkhova considers feminist artworks
aimed at troubling objects’ objectification and theorizes the difficult
ethical potential for “a feminist object.”
Following OOO’s principle of the withdrawal of objects and
arguing against the metaphysics of presence, Morton develops the
concept of weird essentialism. Morton suggests that withdrawal makes
all objects inherently deviant, “looping” through other objects, and in
a loop with themselves. He suggests that all objects perform an inter-
nal deviant self-differing, which he compares to Luce Irigaray’s theo-
rization of woman’s divergence from phallocentric logic.
Frenchy Lunning compares metaphor in Graham Harman’s allure
and Julia Kristeva’s abjection. Where Harman’s metaphor for allure
describes a “come hither” gesture soliciting the otherness of withdrawn
other objects, Kristeva’s metaphor for abjection is a “violent repulsing
thrusting aside of ‘otherness.’” Delving into these twin movements
from the perspective of performances of femininity, Lunning explores
how allure and abjection play out in relation to the female body
as fetish object. In her reading of Lolita subculture fetish fashions,
Lunning uncovers a complex by which the abject menstrual body,
covered over with signifiers of an alluring premenstrual body, is resex-
ualized and compounded as abject again.
Behar.indd 26 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

The next essays explore questions posed by object-oriented femi

nism concerning truth, art, and erotics. What truth claims does object-
oriented thinking pose? What is the value of truth claims as such, and
what is the value of that which exceeds truth, such as falsity or fiction?
What ethics derive from truths and untruths, and what ethical and
unethical insights can art and artificiality produce? What roles do art,
artists, and artifice play in engendering entanglements with objects in
experimental, experiential erotics?
Aesthetic allure claims to flatten the playing field for all objects,
but as Povinelli points out, allure is impossible when there is no aes-
thetic encounter in the first place. Indeed, the social power accompany
ing certain objects can prevent encounters for subaltern objects. In
contrast to Meillassoux’s concept of ancestrality, Povinelli discusses
indigenous works of fiction. Two films, When the Dogs Talked and The
Origins of Bigfoot, and a short story, “That Not Monster,” articulate
how fantastic and contested truth claims produce material relations
among social and nonlife communities of objects, and are themselves
results of such relations.
Using perspectives from media and performance art to counter-
balance life-affirming vitalistic materialisms, I offer a proposal for
necrophiliac ethics. Applying Catherine Malabou’s concept of plastic-
ity to works by feminist performance and body artists, in particular the
plastic surgery artist Orlan, I recommend self-objectification through
similar plastic procedures. Cosmetic Botox, employed in elective dead-
ening of the face, provides an opportunity to radically objectify the
self, suppressing faciality, and with it the subject-oriented Levinasean
ethics of faciality and liveness.
The bioartist Adam Zaretsky considers object cathexis by focusing
on adjectival modifiers in place of object-oriented nouns. Using mod-
ifying technologies like the “gene gun,” transgeneticists and bioartists
often produce failed and partial forms that suggest disability studies
could well inform object-oriented feminism alongside discourses of
gender and postcoloniality. Signaling an object- oriented feminist
erotics, Zaretsky identifies how modification—through bioarts, trans-
genic technologies, or adjectives—produces differently abled, cross-
coded, augmented qualities in radical excess of objects themselves.
Anne Pollock delves into the quandaries posed by “artificial”
natures, exemplified by the case of endocrine disruption in birds. The
Behar.indd 27 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

28 Katherine Behar
result of pollution, endocrine disruption appears to cause queer traits

and behaviors like same-sex partnering or intersex characteristics in
wildlife. Responding playfully and provocatively to the sex panic
around this issue, Pollock carefully parses the competing feminist
stakes involved in accepting nonreproductivity as an end in itself.
Related to Zaretsky’s queer adjectival erotics, Pollock exposes the
multiple valences of being “trashed” or “intoxicated” with toxins, and
toasts to the potential pleasures produced therein.
The final essays address economies that connect human and non-
human objects. In economic circulation, all objects are continually re-
positioned as producers, consumers, and commodities. As these roles
grow increasingly difficult to differentiate, we return to questions of
relations between objects, and to questions of the human, understood
here as political concerns. When drawn into histories of exchange
and linked into systems of exploitation, how do objects talk back,
and what forms of politics does this talk-back express? How do these
economies mitigate and enforce categories of life and nonlife, pro-
ductivity and nonproductivity?
Against those who would appeal to new materialism for a suit-
ably nonanthropocentric politics, Marina Gržinić argues that, like
OOO, new materialism participates in an ahistorical (perhaps even
dehistoricizing) project. Going well beyond complaints about the
objectification and commodification of humans, Gržinić shows how
new materialism replicates what she terms the “humanization of cap-
ital.” This move shifts the argument from a Marxist–feminist critique
at the level of commodities to a far larger interrogation at the level
of capital, which in turn echoes the shift from biopolitics to necro
politics. Gržinić implies that we are falsely concerned with objectifi-
cation, that is, of humans in OOO; we should instead be concerned
with humanization, that is, of capital in new materialism.
In her caring and careful sociological account of Tarot practices,
Karen Gregory perceives inversions in the active and passive roles
assumed by Tarot cards and Tarot card readers. The cards’ agency and
communicative liveliness is foregrounded, contrasting the passive
stance of the human reader, listening meditatively for messages from
the cards. But the cards also compel humans to activity in the form
of affective work, cultivating a sense of self and personal authority.
Nevertheless, this specialized self refashions the reader’s skill or affec-
tive prowess into commodity.
Behar.indd 28 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

R. Joshua Scannell considers the example of the New York Police

Department and its Domain Awareness System (DAS), a vast pro
prietary experiment in statistical predictive policing using real-time
data in what Scannell calls “governance by algorithm.” For Scannell,
the DAS typifies how the pervasive object of “big data” conjures a
reorientation away from human subjects and toward objects. In big
data, a peculiar inversion sets in such that all objects must be rendered
computational to be considered “real,” which is to say commensurate
with systems in which algorithms demand “care” from humans, even
“draw[ing] labor towards them.” Ultimately, algorithmic governance
is directed not toward the human but toward the mathematical.
This book seeks not to define object-oriented feminism but to
enact it. The ideas, methods, and aspirations found here have devel-
oped over several years in conversations and collaborations, both per-
sonal and professional. In many respects this book is as retrospective
as it is forward-looking. Like any artifact of practice, it contains
within it tacit logs of its past lives, and amendments and assessments
accrued in all attempts along the way. For this reason, and if we
comprehend OOF as a feminist object of collective thought, there
are numerous contributors to this volume who deserve thanks within
the body of this text. The authors: Irina Aristarkhova, Karen Gregory,
Marina Gržinić, Frenchy Lunning, Timothy Morton, Anne Pollock,
Elizabeth A. Povinelli, R. Joshua Scannell, and Adam Zaretsky; OOF
panelists, respondents, and audience interlocutors: Jamie “Skye”
Bianco, Ian Bogost, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Patricia Ticineto
Clough, Melanie Doherty, Orit Halpern, N. Katherine Hayles, Eileen
Joy, Danielle Kasprzak, Amit Ray, Steven Shaviro, Rebekah Sheldon,
Susan Squier, and members of the Society for Literature, Science,
and the Arts; and those who have offered generous support, encour-
agement, and insights along the way: Jane Bennett, Alexander R.
Galloway, Graham Harman, Emmy Mikelson, Katy Siegel, Trevor
Smith, and Iris van der Tuin.
Notes
1. Of the entire program of nine speakers, only the last, a respondent, was
a woman. This gender imbalance is symptomatic of a larger trend in specula-
tive realism. The encyclopedic The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism
and Realism’s twenty-five chapters include only one woman. The same is true
Behar.indd 29 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

30 Katherine Behar
of Collapse II: Speculative Realism, which includes just one woman among its
nine authors. In New Materialism: Interviews and Cartographies, Iris van der
Tuin and Rick Dolphijn write that because the key speculative realist think-
ers are men and more new materialist authors are women, some may see new
materialist thought as more compatible with feminism than speculative real-
ism. Michael O’Rourke was among the first to address these compatibilities
and imbalances in his essay “‘Girls Welcome!!!’: Speculative Realism, Object
Oriented Ontology, and Queer Theory.” See Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek, and
Graham Harman, eds., The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and
Realism (Melbourne: re.press, 2011); Robin Mackay, ed., Collapse II: Specula-
tive Realism (Falmouth, U.K.: Urbanomic, 2012); Dolphijn and van der Tuin,
eds., New Materialism: Interviews and Cartographies (Ann Arbor: Open
Humanities Press, 2012); and O’Rourke, “‘Girls Welcome!!!’: Speculative
Realism, Object Oriented Ontology, and Queer Theory,” Speculations 2
(2011): 275–312.
2. The discussion of the image toy appears in the chapter “Carpentry”
on pages 93–99. See Ian Bogost, Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be
a Thing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012).
3. Bogost draws a distinction between his conception and the making
of other things such as “tools and art.” Object-oriented feminism embraces
carpentry, though it is also aligned with experimentalist practices of making
and engaging artifacts in every discipline. Indeed, the idea of “making things
that explain how things make their world” is neatly embodied in the sculptor
Robert Morris’s canonical work of carpentry, Box with the Sound of Its Own
Making (1961), a wooden box, sealed and withdrawn, that contains an inter-
nal speaker playing a hidden cassette recording of the start to finish process
of the box’s own construction.
4. For a nuanced discussion, see Rick Dolphijn and Iris van der Tuin,
“Sexual Differing,” in Dolphijn and van der Tuin, New Materialism.
5. “Correlationism” is the speculative realist philosopher Quentin Meil
lassoux’s term for philosophies following from Kantian transcendentalism in
which thought can only access thought, never the world-in-itself. See Meil-
lassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, translated by
Ray Brassier (New York: Continuum, 2009).
6. See Graham Harman, “On Vicarious Causation,” in Mackay, Col-
lapse II, 187–221.
7. Iris Marion Young, “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as
a Social Collective,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 19, no. 3
(1994): 713–38.
8. Donna Haraway, “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and
Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs, and
Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 149–81.
Behar.indd 30 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

9. Steven Shaviro, The Universe of Things: On Speculative Realism

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014).
10. I borrow this phrase from Hasana Sharp, “The Impersonal Is Politi-
cal: Spinoza and a Feminist Politics of Imperceptibility,” Hypatia 24, no. 4
(2009): 84–103.
11. Graham Harman, Tool- Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of
Objects (Chicago: Open Court, 2002).
12. In fact, “tool being” aside, Lorde’s essay harks to the current gender
imbalance in speculative realism. Sadly, the avoidance patterns and justifi
cations she identifies in white feminists’ exclusion of queer people of color
are at risk of resurfacing wholesale in this context, and her 1984 critique still
stands (“The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” in
Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde [Berkeley, Calif.: Crossing,
2007], 110–13).
13. Ian Bogost, “Object-Oriented Feminism: At the 2010 Society for
Literature Science and the Arts Conference,” accessed January 30, 2015,
http://bogost.com/writing/blog/object-oriented_feminism_1/.
14. See Evelyn Fox Keller, “Gender and Science,” in Reflections on Gen-
der and Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985), 75–94.
15. See Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, “‘Nothing Comes without Its
World’: Thinking with Care,” Sociological Review 60, no. 2 (2012): 197–216.
16. Donna Haraway, “Cyborgs to Companion Species: Reconfiguring
Kinship in Technoscience,” in The Haraway Reader (New York: Routledge,
2004), 295–320.
17. Elizabeth Grosz, “A Politics of Imperceptibility: A Response to
‘Anti-racism, Multiculturalism and the Ethics of Identification,’” Philosophy
& Social Criticism 28 (2002): 463–72. See also Hasana Sharp, “The Imper-
sonal Is Political.”
18. Grosz, “Politics of Imperceptibility,” 466.
19. On feminist new materialisms, see the special issue “Feminist Mat-
ters: The Politics of New Materialism,” edited by Pita Hinton and Iris van
der Tuin, Women: A Cultural Review 25 (1).
20. See Patricia Ticineto Clough, “Feminist Theory: Bodies, Science
and Technology,” in Handbook of Body Studies, edited by Bryan S. Turner
(New York: Routledge, 2012), 94–105.
21. See Nigel Thrift, “The Insubstantial Pageant: Producing an Un-
toward Land,” Cultural Geographies 19, no. 2 (2012): 141–68.
22. The “Anthropocene Feminism” conference held at the Center for
21st Century Thought investigated this topic directly and resonates strongly
with object-oriented feminism. See the collected conference edition, Anthro-
pocene Feminism, edited by Richard Grusin (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, forthcoming).
Behar.indd 31 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

32 Katherine Behar
23. The argument for noncorrelationism is presented in Meillassoux,

After Finitude; for a thorough account of this position, see Bryant, Smicek,
and Harman, Speculative Turn.
24. By way of contrast, speculative realism’s noncorrelationism is under-
stood as a rupture with a reigning philosophical canon. This narrative of
rupture positions speculative realism as progressive and futuritive.
25. This diversity reflects the fertile interdisciplinary climate of the
Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts conferences where OOF dis
cussions originated. Some of these connections will be sketched in the
anthology After the “Speculative” Turn: Realism, Philosophy, and Feminism,
edited by Eileen A. Joy, Katerina Kolozova, and Ben Woodard (Earth, Milky
Way: punctum books, 2016).
26. Resonances with art have been explored in recent exhibitions includ-
ing And Another Thing, which I co-curated with Emmy Mikelson at the
James Gallery in 2011, and Speculations on Anonymous Materials, curated by
Susanne Pfeffer at the Fridericianum in 2013, among others. Focusing on art
objects in circulation, Joshua Simon has coined the term “Neo-Materialism”
in a three-part essay published in e-flux journal in 2010–11. More recently,
in the edited volume Realism, Materialism, Art, Christoph Cox, Jenny Jaskey,
and Suhail Malik have queried the relevance of speculative realism for cura-
torial practice; a longer history of art’s “new” interest in objects is captured in
Katy Siegel’s essay “Worlds with Us.” See Katherine Behar and Emmy Mikel-
son, eds., And Another Thing: Nonanthropocentrism and Art (Earth, Milky
Way: punctum books, 2016); Suzanne Pfeffer, Speculations on Anonymous
Materials (Kassel: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, 2015); Joshua
Simon, “Neo-Materialism, Part I: The Commodity and the Exhibition,”
“Neo-Materialism, Part II: The Unreadymade,” and “Neo-Materialism, Part
III: The Language of Commodities,” e-flux journal, accessed August 1, 2015,
http://www.e-flux.com/journals/?user=8417; Christoph Cox, Jenny Jaskey,
and Suhail Malik, eds., Realism, Materialism, Art (Annandale-on-Hudson,
N.Y.: Center for Curatorial Studies, Bard College/Sternberg, 2015); and
Katy Siegel, “Worlds with Us,” Brooklyn Rail, July 15, 2013, http://www
.brooklynrail.org/2013/07/art/words-with-us.
27. The psychoanalytic dimension of object-oriented feminism is de-
picted in Patricia Ticineto Clough’s contributions to OOF panels in 2010
and 2012, subsequently published as “A Dream of Falling: Philosophy and
Family Violence,” in Handbook of Object Matters, edited by Eleanor Casella
et al. (New York: Routledge, 2013); and “The Object’s Affect: The Rosary,”
in Timing of Affect, Epistemologies, Aesthetics, Politics, edited by Marie Luise
Angerer et al. (Chicago: Diaphanes, 2014).
Behar.indd 32 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

28. Frantz Fanon, “The Fact of Blackness,” translated by Charles Lam

Markmann, in Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, edited by Les Back and
John Solomos (New York: Routledge, 2009), 257–65.
29. Lawrence Weiner, “Notes from Art (4 pages),” “Words and Word-
works,” summer issue, Art Journal 42, no. 2 (1982): 122–25.
30. On antirepresentationalism in new materialism, see Dolphijn and
van der Tuin, “The Transversality of New Materialism” in Dolphijn and van
der Tuin, eds., New Materialism.
31. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).
32. Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Dur
ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2006), 112–17.
33. Ibid., 116.
34. My thinking on the postracial is indebted to the rich discussion at
“Archives of the Non-Racial,” a mobile workshop organized by the Johan-
nesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism in partnership with the Univer-
sity of California Humanities Research Institute Seminar in Experimental
Critical Theory, which I had the opportunity to participate in during the
summer of 2014. See the “Archives of the Non-Racial” website, accessed
August 5, 2015, http://jwtc.org.za/the_workshop/session_2014.htm.
35. Indigenous studies is yet another field that has long conducted sig-
nificant feminist and postcolonial object-oriented work, though often under
different disciplinary terminology. For examples, see Kim TallBear, Native
American DNA (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013); and
Elizabeth A. Povinelli, “The Four Figures of the Anthropocene,” paper pre-
sented at “Anthropocene Feminism,” April 10, 2014, Center for 21st Cen-
tury Thought, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, video, https://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=V0gcOqWNG9M.
36. Lorraine Daston, “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective,”
Social Studies of Science 22, no. 4 (1992): 597–618.
37. The recent upswing in materialist philosophies includes several note-
worthy anthologies: Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, eds., New Material-
isms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press,
2010); Dolphijn and van der Tuin, New Materialism; and of special import for
object-oriented feminism’s interdisciplinary interests, Estelle Barrett and Bar-
bara Bolt, eds., Carnal Knowledge: Towards a New Materialism through the Arts
(New York: I. B. Tauris, 2013); and Victoria Pitts-Taylor, ed., Mattering: Fem-
inism, Science, and Materialism (New York: New York University Press, 2016).
38. See, in particular, Barad’s theory of “agential realism” discussed in
Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
Matter and Meaning (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2007).
Behar.indd 33 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

34 Katherine Behar
39. Shaviro, Universe of Things.

40. On political formations of things, see Bruno Latour and Peter Wei-
bel, eds., Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2005); Jorinde Seijdel, ed., Politics of Things: What Art and Design
Do in Democracy, special issue, Open: Cahier on Art and the Public Domain 11,
no. 24 (2012); and Noortje Marres, Material Participation: Technology, the
Environment, and Everyday Publics (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012).
41. Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press, 2010), xvi.
42. Anne Pollock, “Heart Feminism,” Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Tech-
noscience 1, no. 1 (2015), http://catalystjournal.org/ojs/index.php/catalyst/
article/view/pollock/98.
43. For David Berry, OOO’s artificial objects, insofar as they are human-
made “products of neoliberal capitalism,” evince a blind spot in OOO’s non-
anthropocentrism. While Berry sees these objects as “contaminated” by
human intervention, this impurity is precisely where OOF finds common
ground. In answer to Berry’s call to “catch sight of what is being listed in
[OOO’s] descriptive litanies,” OOF observes that human and nonhuman
objects are now equally products of neoliberal capitalism. See Berry, “The
Uses of Object-Oriented Ontology,” Stunlaw: A Critical Review of Politics,
Arts, and Technology, May 25, 2012, http://stunlaw.blogspot.nl/2012/05/
uses-of-object-oriented-ontology.html.
44. The early works of Rosi Braidotti, and other feminist theorists like
Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous, build on the positivistic force of laughter
in Nietzsche. On humor and the role of laughter in feminist creative and
theoretical work, see Braidotti, “Cyberfeminism with a Difference,” accessed
August 1, 2015, http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm#
par1, which has an extensive section on humor and the role that laughter
plays in feminist creative and theoretical work. A foundational text on laugh-
ter in feminist theory is Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” translated by
Keith Cohen and Paula Cohen, Signs 1, no. 4 (1975): 875–93. On laughter
and humor as a deconstructive gesture in feminist philosophy, especially in
response to patriarchal “seriousness” of the Father, see Irigaray, This Sex
Which Is Not One, translated by Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985).
45. Annie Sprinkle, “A Public Cervix Announcement” (n.d.), accessed
January 30, 2015, http://anniesprinkle.org/a-public-cervix-anouncement/.
In her current projects Sprinkle collaborates with her partner, Elizabeth
Stephens, to take object-oriented feminist erotics to a nonanthropocentric
extreme. In projects like Dirty Sexology—Twenty-Five Ways to Make Love to
Behar.indd 34 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

the Earth and Green Wedding, Sprinkle and Stephens perform as “ecosexuals”
pursuing erotic encounters of a planetary kind. See http://anniesprinkle.org/
projects/current-projects/dirty-sexecology-25-ways-to-make-love-to-the
-earth/ and http://anniesprinkle.org/projects/current-projects/love-art-labora
tory/green-wedding, both available online and accessed January 30, 2015.
46. Fox Keller, “Gender and Science.”
47. Isabelle Stengers, “Another Look: Relearning to Laugh,” translated
by Penelope Deutscher, revised by Isabelle Stengers, Hypatia 15, no. 4 (2000):
41–54.
48. Angela Willey, “Biopossibility: A Queer Feminist Materialist Sci-
ence Studies Manifesto, with Special Reference to the Question of Mono
gamous Behavior,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 41, no. 3
(2016): 556. Willey carefully dissects a debate on new materialism’s “found-
ing gestures,” which played out in the pages of European Journal of Women’s
Studies. For more, see Sara Ahmed, “Open Forum Imaginary Prohibitions:
Some Preliminary Remarks on the Founding Gestures of the ‘New Materi-
alism,’” European Journal of Women’s Studies 15, no. 1 (2008): 23–39; Noela
Davis, “New Materialism and Feminism’s Anti-Biologism: A Response to
Sara Ahmed,” European Journal of Women’s Studies 16, no. 1 (2009): 67–80;
and Nikki Sullivan, “The Somatechnics of Perception and the Matter of the
Non/human: A Critical Response to the New Materialism,” European Jour-
nal of Women’s Studies 19, no. 3 (2012): 299–313.
49. Willey, “Biopossibility,” 561. See also Audre Lorde, “Uses of the
Erotic: The Erotic as Power,” in Sister Outsider, 53–59.
50. See Valie Export, “TAPP und TASTKINO, 1968” (German),
accessed January 30, 2015, http://www.valieexport.at/en/werke/werke/?tx_
ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1956. See synopsis in “Valie Export: Tapp und
Tastkino,” re.act.feminism: A Performing Archive, accessed January 30, 2015,
http://www.reactfeminism.org/entry.php?l=lb&id=46&e=. See also discus-
sion of this and other works in Charles LaBelle, “Valie Export,” Frieze 60
( June–August 2001), accessed January 30, 2015, http://www.frieze.com/
issue/review/valie_export/.
51. Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16,
no. 4 (1975): 6–18.
52. Levi R. Bryant, The Democracy of Objects (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Open
Humanities Press, 2011).
53. Rick Kittles, interview, African American Lives: Hosted by Henry
Louis Gates, Jr., “Beyond the Middle Passage,” episode 4 (PBS Home Video,
Kunhardt Productions, Inc., Educational Broadcasting Corporation, and
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 2006).
Behar.indd 35 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

36 Katherine Behar
54. Indeed, though projects like African American Lives seem to up-hold
a scientifically determined notion of ancestry, they nevertheless demonstrate
how statistics like these are relics of slavery and other material social relations.
55. Hannah Brueckner, “Collaborative Research: Wikipedia and the
Democratization of Academic Knowledge,” Award Abstract No. 1322971,
National Science Foundation, accessed January 30, 2015, http://www.nsf.gov/
awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1322971. See also Elizabeth Harring
ton, “Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist? $202,000 to
Address ‘Gender Bias’ in World’s Biggest Online Encyclopedia,” Washington
Free Beacon, July 30, 2014, http://freebeacon.com/issues/government-funded
-study-why-is-wikipedia-sexist/.
56. Numerous sources discuss the gender bias in Wikipedia. On the
gender gap in contributors, see David Auerbach, “Encyclopedia Frown,”
Slate, December 11, 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise
/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_
has_become_a_rancorous.html. On gender bias in content, see Amanda Fil-
ipacchi, “Wikipedia’s Sexism toward Female Novelists,” New York Times,
April 24, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wiki
pedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0.
57. Bogost, Alien Phenomenology, 98.
58. Alexander R. Galloway, “The Poverty of Philosophy: Realism and
Post-Fordism,” Critical Inquiry 39, no. 2 (2013): 347–66.
59. Achille Mbembe, “Necropolitics,” translated by Libby Meintjes,
Public Culture 15, no. 1 (2003): 22.
60. Ibid., 17.
61. Ibid., 21.
62. An excerpted version of the fifty-minute video documentation gives
an overview of this project. Barbara DeGenevieve, The Panhandler Project
(video), accessed January 30, 2015, https://vimeo.com/29540736. See also
the artist’s profile, including photographs from the project, at the Museum of
Contemporary Photography, accessed January 30, 2015, http://www.mocp
.org/detail.php?type=related&kv=7036&t=people.
63. School of the Art Institute of Chicago, “Documenting The Panhan-
dler Project by Barbara DeGenevieve,” accessed January 30, 2015, https://
vimeo.com/52015733.
Behar.indd 36 29/08/2016 8:32:36 AM

An Introduction To OOF Behar OOF TPDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To OOF Behar OOF TPDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To OOF Behar OOF TPDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Katherine Behar

Behar.indd 1 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

Behar.indd 2 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

to bunnies, both object-­oriented ontologists and feminists (if we are

Behar.indd 3 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

“correct” master theory. As a result, OOF holds itself in tension with

Behar.indd 4 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

and deviations from OOO and speculative realism nevertheless war-

Behar.indd 5 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

be no coincidence that object-­oriented thinking is emerging at a

Behar.indd 6 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

Objects and Objections

Behar.indd 7 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

Object-­oriented feminism’s intervention is to approach all objects from

Behar.indd 8 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

who is already an object? What is the transformative potential for a

Behar.indd 9 29/08/2016 8:32:33 AM

as a way to liberate humans from the trap of correlationism, precisely

Behar.indd 10 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

invoking representation, Weiner contradicts what Rick Dolphijn and

Behar.indd 11 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

as well—­but can feminist object-­orientation help us to understand

Behar.indd 12 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

ontologists—­which remains too redolent of the aloof distancing of

Erotics: Methods by Artif icial Means

Behar.indd 13 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

realism, new materialism defers to the abounding animism in the

Behar.indd 14 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

laugh at truth, OOF’s humor is in keeping with traditions of radical

Behar.indd 15 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

and writing a poem.”49 All of these “other passions,” as Stengers puts

Behar.indd 16 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

Aristarkhova’s lucid question, Is OOF a joke?, object-­oriented femi-

Behar.indd 17 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

the one hand, object-­oriented feminism draws from a postmodern

Behar.indd 18 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

as object, Export’s performance exposes the emptiness of cinema’s

Ethics: Out of the Closet or under the Carpet

Behar.indd 19 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

found in the writings of Bruno Latour. Mimicking Latour’s predilec-

objectified and objectively, as evidence that OOO rests precisely on

Behar.indd 21 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

This is not to diminish the value of carpentry in itself—­far from

Behar.indd 22 29/08/2016 8:32:34 AM

Behar.indd 23 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

Behar.indd 24 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

retools its politics. In the essays collected in this volume, we deploy

Behar.indd 25 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

object-­oriented fashion, readers may approach these essays individu-

Behar.indd 26 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

The next essays explore questions posed by object-­oriented femi­

Behar.indd 27 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

result of pollution, endocrine disruption appears to cause queer traits

Behar.indd 28 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

R. Joshua Scannell considers the example of the New York Police

Behar.indd 29 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

Behar.indd 30 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

9. Steven Shaviro, The Universe of Things: On Speculative Realism

Behar.indd 31 29/08/2016 8:32:35 AM

to bunnies, both object-oriented ontologists and feminists (if we are

be no coincidence that object-oriented thinking is emerging at a

Object-oriented feminism’s intervention is to approach all objects from

as well—but can feminist object-orientation help us to understand

ontologists—which remains too redolent of the aloof distancing of

Aristarkhova’s lucid question, Is OOF a joke?, object-oriented femi-

the one hand, object-oriented feminism draws from a postmodern

This is not to diminish the value of carpentry in itself—far from

object-oriented fashion, readers may approach these essays individu-

The next essays explore questions posed by object-oriented femi