Graham Harman

1. Introduction

Graham Harman (b. 1968) is an American philosopher whose work has become a central reference point in the revival of metaphysics within contemporary continental philosophy. He is best known as the main architect of object‑oriented ontology (OOO), a position that treats all entities—physical, social, fictional, or technical—as autonomous objects that withdraw from complete access.

Harman’s philosophy emerged against the background of late‑20th‑century “linguistic,” “hermeneutic,” and “constructivist” turns, which often treated reality as inseparable from language, power, or human experience. In response, Harman argues for a robust but non‑scientistic realism that allows philosophy to speak about objects themselves without reducing them to human perspectives or to networks of relations.

His work is frequently associated with speculative realism, a loose constellation of thinkers who challenge what Quentin Meillassoux calls correlationism, the view that philosophy can know only the correlation between thinking and being. Within this milieu, Harman advances a distinctive ontology centered on concepts such as withdrawal, the quadruple object, vicarious causation, and allure.

Beyond academic metaphysics, Harman has influenced architecture, design, art theory, and media studies, where his insistence on the autonomy and depth of things has offered an alternative to human‑centered and function‑centered approaches. His writings often employ concrete examples and an accessible style, which has contributed to both the diffusion and the controversy surrounding his ideas.

This entry examines Harman’s life and context, the development of his thinking, his major works, the structure of object‑oriented ontology, its methodological sources, especially in Heidegger, and ongoing debates about its philosophical significance.

2. Life and Historical Context

Harman was born on 9 May 1968 in Iowa City, Iowa, and educated at St. John’s College, Annapolis, where the Great Books curriculum exposed him to classical texts in philosophy, literature, science, and mathematics. He completed an M.A. at Pennsylvania State University in 1991, moving into continental philosophy and phenomenology, and earned his Ph.D. at DePaul University in 1999 with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger.

Academic Career

Harman’s professional life has unfolded across several regions:

His long appointment at the American University in Cairo, culminating in a Distinguished University Professorship, situated his work within a global rather than exclusively North American or European setting. Later, his move to the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI‑Arc) embedded him in an experimental design environment that would become a crucial site for the reception of OOO.

Historical-Philosophical Setting

Harman’s work developed in a period marked by:

At the 2007 Goldsmiths conference in London, often cited as the birthplace of speculative realism, Harman appeared alongside Ray Brassier, Quentin Meillassoux, and Iain Hamilton Grant. This event placed him within a visible movement contesting anthropocentrism and linguistic reduction, even as his own trajectory quickly differentiated itself through a distinctive focus on objects and aesthetics.

3. Intellectual Development

Harman’s intellectual trajectory is often described in phases that track shifts from phenomenology to a mature system of object‑oriented ontology.

Classical and Phenomenological Formation

At St. John’s College, Harman encountered canonical authors in a relatively non‑specialized setting. Commentators often note that this background contributed to his systematic and polemical style, as well as to his willingness to revisit “classical” metaphysical questions. His M.A. work at Penn State, a center for continental philosophy in the United States, drew him into phenomenology, particularly Husserl and Heidegger, and into debates about realism, interpretation, and subjectivity.

Heideggerian Metaphysics and Tool-Being

During his Ph.D. at DePaul and early career, Harman concentrated on Heidegger’s tool‑analysis (Zeug). He proposed that the difference between ready‑to‑hand and present‑at‑hand reveals a more general structure: objects are never fully given in any encounter. This interpretation culminated in Tool‑Being (2002), where he argued that Heidegger had inadvertently discovered an ontology of withdrawing things, not just a phenomenology of human experience.

Emergence of Object-Oriented Ontology

In the mid‑2000s, Harman extended this reading beyond Heidegger, engaging Bruno Latour, phenomenology, and speculative metaphysics. Guerrilla Metaphysics (2005) and Prince of Networks (2009) elaborated a model in which all entities—whether human, non‑human, natural, or artificial—interact through partial access. The coinage object‑oriented ontology named a position that treated these entities as primary and irreducible to relations, language, or human use.

Systematization and Interdisciplinary Turn

With The Quadruple Object (2011) and Object‑Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (2018), Harman systematized his metaphysics into a compact set of concepts—real vs. sensual objects, qualities, vicarious causation, allure. At the same time, his work intersected increasingly with architecture, design, and art, partly through institutional roles and collaborations. This phase is marked by efforts to present OOO in an accessible idiom while responding to critics from speculative realism, analytic metaphysics, and critical theory.

4. Major Works

Harman’s output is extensive; several books are widely regarded as landmarks in the formulation and dissemination of object‑oriented ontology.

Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects (2002)

This work presents Harman’s influential reinterpretation of Heidegger. He proposes that tools are paradigmatic of all objects, in that they withdraw from both practical use and theoretical observation. Proponents see Tool‑Being as initiating a shift from phenomenology of human experience to an ontology of autonomous things.

Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things (2005)

Here Harman develops the idea that philosophy should be understood as the “carpentry of things”, constructing models of how objects relate. He extends phenomenology beyond the human sphere, arguing that all entities encounter one another only partially. The book also begins to foreground his interest in aesthetics and allure.

Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics (2009)

In this monograph on Bruno Latour, Harman both reconstructs and revises actor‑network theory. He appreciates Latour’s emphasis on non‑human actants but contends that Latour reduces objects to their relations within networks. Prince of Networks articulates Harman’s claim that objects are deeper than their relations, a key step toward OOO.

The Quadruple Object (2011)

This concise book offers the most compact statement of Harman’s fourfold ontology. Every entity is described in terms of real objects, sensual objects, real qualities, and sensual qualities, with tensions among these poles explaining appearance, relation, and change. Many commentators treat it as the canonical exposition of OOO.

Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (2018)

Written for a broad audience, this book synthesizes earlier work, situates OOO historically, and addresses common misunderstandings. It presents OOO as a general framework for thinking across disciplines, with examples drawn from science, art, politics, and technology.

5. Core Ideas and Object-Oriented Ontology

Object‑oriented ontology (OOO) is Harman’s central philosophical project. It rests on several interrelated theses about objects, relations, and access.

Autonomy and Withdrawal of Objects

For Harman, objects are the fundamental units of reality. They include not only physical entities but also artworks, social institutions, fictional characters, numbers, and more. Each object withdraws from all forms of access: no relation, perception, or description exhausts it. This withdrawal applies equally to human and non‑human interactions, challenging anthropocentric views of access.

"

“Objects are deeper than their relations.”

— Graham Harman, The Quadruple Object

Proponents interpret this as a rejection of approaches that reduce things to language, power structures, or networks of interactions. Critics sometimes note that OOO’s concept of withdrawal resembles, but is not identical with, Kantian things‑in‑themselves.

The Quadruple Object

Harman distinguishes between:

The interplay among these four poles, he argues, accounts for phenomena such as stability, change, and perspective without collapsing objects into their appearances.

Vicarious Causation and Allure

Because withdrawn objects never touch directly, Harman proposes vicarious causation: interactions occur in a shared sensual realm where one object “hosts” another in a caricatured form. This is intended to preserve both the reality of causation and the autonomy of objects.

Allure names an aesthetic event in which the usual bond between an object and its qualities loosens, hinting at the object’s hidden depth. For Harman, this makes aesthetics central to ontology, since it uniquely intimates withdrawal.

OOO thus presents a metaphysics in which the world is populated by myriad autonomous objects whose relations are always partial, mediated, and charged with excess beyond any specific use or description.

6. Methodology and Use of Heidegger

Harman’s methodology combines close textual interpretation with speculative system‑building. Martin Heidegger is his primary historical source, especially the early work Being and Time.

Tool-Analysis as Ontology

Harman’s central claim about Heidegger is that the distinction between ready‑to‑hand (tools in use) and present‑at‑hand (objects thematized or broken) reveals a general ontological structure. Where standard readings emphasize human Dasein’s practical engagement, Harman argues that Heidegger unwittingly points to a broader truth: all objects withdraw from any mode of access. He calls this deeper stratum “tool‑being.”

Proponents of Harman’s reading see it as uncovering a metaphysical dimension latent in Heidegger’s account of equipment. Critics contend that it abstracts tool‑analysis from its existential context, downplaying Heidegger’s focus on human finitude and temporality.

From Phenomenology to Speculation

Methodologically, Harman starts from phenomenological description but treats it as a springboard to speculative metaphysics. He often describes his approach as “metaphysical” rather than strictly phenomenological, arguing that phenomenology’s insights about partial access can be generalized beyond human experience.

He also endorses a kind of conceptual construction he calls “carpentry”: building models of how objects must be structured if certain features of experience and interaction are to be possible. This involves:

1. Interpreting classic texts (Heidegger, Husserl, Latour) for ontological clues.
2. Proposing systematic concepts (withdrawal, quadruple object) that organize these clues.
3. Testing them informally against examples from science, art, and everyday life.

Some commentators classify this as a form of rationalist or systematic speculation within continental philosophy. Others question whether the step from phenomenological evidence to a universal ontology of objects is justified, suggesting that Harman’s extrapolation from Heidegger is more creative than exegetical.

7. Key Contributions to Contemporary Metaphysics

Within contemporary metaphysics—especially in the continental tradition—Harman’s work has been associated with a broader “ontological turn.” His main contributions are typically framed in relation to debates about realism, relation, and the status of objects.

Revival of Non-Anthropocentric Realism

Harman is widely cited for helping to re‑legitimize realist metaphysics in a context formerly dominated by linguistic, hermeneutic, and anti‑foundational approaches. By attacking correlationism, he argues that thought–world relations cannot be more fundamental than either term on its own. Supporters see this as opening space for renewed discussion of entities independent of human access.

Objects Beyond Relations and Uses

In contrast to both relational ontologies and process philosophies, Harman insists that objects are irreducible to their relations, functions, or events. This has contributed to debates on:

Some analytic metaphysicians find unexpected affinities between OOO and neo‑Aristotelian substance theories, though there are also divergences regarding modality and essence.

Causation and Mediation

The notion of vicarious causation has been discussed as an attempt to reconcile object autonomy with effective interaction. Proponents regard it as a metaphysical analog to mediated interaction in science and technology. Critics question whether it yields a workable account of lawfulness and counterfactuals.

Centrality of Aesthetics

By claiming that “aesthetics is first philosophy,” Harman shifts attention from epistemology and language to aesthetic experience as a privileged site for encountering the withdrawal of objects. This has influenced ongoing conversations about the role of art and style in metaphysical inquiry, positioning aesthetic phenomena as data for ontology rather than mere adornment.

Overall, Harman’s contributions are seen either as a powerful stimulus for new realist metaphysics or, by skeptics, as an ambitious but under‑argued rebranding of older substance‑based views.

8. Influence on Architecture, Design, and the Arts

Harman’s ideas have had a notable impact outside philosophy, particularly in architecture, design, and contemporary art, where they offer a vocabulary for discussing the autonomy and depth of built and aesthetic forms.

Architecture and Urbanism

At SCI‑Arc and through collaborations with architects, Harman’s OOO has been used to frame buildings and infrastructures as objects with their own realities, not merely functions of program, use, or social forces. Architectural theorists influenced by OOO argue that structures:

• Exceed their technical performance and symbolic meanings.
• Possess withdrawn aspects that resist full representation in drawings or data.
• Interact with humans and environments through complex, partially accessible relations.

OOO has intersected with parametricism, ecological design, and digital fabrication, sometimes being enlisted to justify an emphasis on emergent formal qualities or non‑human agencies within the built environment.

Design and Media

In product and interaction design, some practitioners draw on Harman to question user‑centered paradigms, suggesting that objects should not be entirely subordinated to human intentions. Media theorists have employed OOO to conceptualize software, platforms, and networks as autonomous objects within larger assemblages.

Visual Arts and Curatorial Practice

Artists and curators associated with the “new materialisms” and the broader object‑oriented trend have cited Harman to underscore the material and formal agency of artworks. Exhibitions have been organized around themes of objecthood, withdrawal, and non‑human forces, sometimes explicitly referencing OOO.

Supporters view this influence as enabling richer vocabularies for non‑human and material aspects of practice. Critics worry that the adoption of OOO in these fields can be selective or metaphorical, raising questions about how closely such appropriations track Harman’s technical philosophical claims.

9. Relation to Speculative Realism and Other Realisms

Harman is often identified as one of the founding figures of speculative realism (SR), though his relation to this loose movement and to other contemporary realisms is complex.

Speculative Realism

At the 2007 Goldsmiths conference, Harman participated alongside Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, and Iain Hamilton Grant. All criticized correlationism and advocated some form of realism, but their positions diverge:

Over time, SR functioned more as a branding term than as a unified school. Harman has both embraced and critiqued the label, sometimes distinguishing OOO as a more systematic, object‑centered variant within the speculative turn.

Relation to Other Realisms

Harman’s OOO intersects with, yet differs from, several other realist currents:

• New Materialisms (e.g., Jane Bennett, Karen Barad): Share interest in non‑human agency, but often stress process, flux, or relational entanglement. Harman, by contrast, defends discrete objects irreducible to relations.
• Actor‑Network Theory (ANT) and Latour: Latour’s networks of actants strongly influenced Harman, who nonetheless argues that Latour neglects the depth of individual objects behind their relational roles.
• Analytic Neo‑Aristotelianism: Some see parallels between OOO’s objects and contemporary substance metaphysics in analytic philosophy. Differences arise over issues like essence, modality, and the role of formal logic.
• Critical Realism (e.g., Bhaskar): Shares commitment to stratified reality and causal powers, but is more explicitly oriented to social science and emancipation, while OOO foregrounds ontological pluralism and aesthetics.

Commentators disagree on whether OOO should be viewed as part of a broader realist convergence across traditions or as a distinctive, largely self‑contained program.

10. Criticisms and Debates

Harman’s work has provoked extensive discussion and criticism from a variety of philosophical perspectives. Major lines of debate can be grouped around ontology, method, politics, and aesthetics.

Ontological and Logical Objections

Some critics, including both analytic metaphysicians and continental philosophers, question the coherence of withdrawal and vicarious causation. They argue that:

• If objects are entirely withdrawn, it is unclear how they can interact or be individuated.
• Vicarious causation may be metaphorical rather than explanatory, lacking a clear account of laws, counterfactuals, or mechanisms.

Defenders reply that Harman’s concepts are meant to capture the inexhaustibility of objects rather than total inaccessibility, and that mediation is a familiar feature of scientific accounts of interaction.

Phenomenological and Heideggerian Critiques

Heidegger scholars often contest Harman’s reading of tool‑analysis, claiming that it abstracts from the existential and temporal context of Dasein. They maintain that Heidegger’s project concerns the meaning of Being for human existence, not a generalized ontology of objects. Harman’s supporters argue that his interpretation is intentionally revisionary, using Heidegger as a springboard rather than an authority.

Political and Ethical Concerns

Some left‑leaning critics and critical theorists worry that OOO’s focus on objects can de‑center questions of power, ideology, and social justice. They contend that leveling humans and non‑humans risks ignoring structural inequalities. In response, proponents of OOO suggest that recognizing non‑human objects’ autonomy can enrich ecological and political analyses rather than replace them.

Aesthetic and Cultural Debates

Harman’s claim that aesthetics is first philosophy has been met with both interest and skepticism. Supporters find it a productive reorientation that elevates art and design in metaphysical reflection. Skeptics question whether aesthetic experience provides a sufficiently reliable basis for ontological claims, or worry that the slogan encourages a purely stylistic or “speculative” approach detached from empirical constraints.

Overall, debates around Harman’s work center less on its originality—which is often acknowledged—than on the adequacy and rigor of its arguments, and on the implications of OOO for broader philosophical and political concerns.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

Harman’s long‑term legacy is still evolving, but several aspects of his historical significance are widely discussed.

Role in the Ontological Turn

Many commentators credit Harman with helping to catalyze a renewed interest in metaphysics within continental philosophy. Along with other speculative realists and new materialists, he contributed to shifting attention from discourse and subjectivity toward objects, materiality, and non‑human actors. His work is often cited in surveys of the “ontological turn” in the humanities and social sciences.

Cross-Disciplinary Reach

Harman is notable for his influence beyond philosophy departments, particularly in architecture, art, design, and media studies. This cross‑disciplinary uptake has made OOO a recognizable term in contemporary theory and practice, shaping discourses about the built environment, digital technologies, and artistic production.

Institutional and Generational Effects

Harman’s teaching roles in the United States, Egypt, and Europe, alongside his prolific publication record and participation in conferences, have helped cultivate a younger generation of scholars working under the banner of OOO or developing adjacent realist positions. Specialized journals, edited volumes, and conferences dedicated to OOO and speculative realism attest to this institutional presence.

Contested Evaluation

Assessments of Harman’s historical importance vary. Supporters regard OOO as a distinctive and enduring contribution, comparable in ambition to earlier metaphysical systems. Skeptics see it as a prominent but transient episode within a broader realist revival, or as a provocative reconfiguration of themes that also appear in analytic metaphysics, critical realism, and process philosophy.

Whatever its eventual standing, Harman’s work has clearly served as a focal point for debates about the status of metaphysics, the place of humans among objects, and the scope of philosophical speculation in the early 21st century.