Yes — we can say that OOO, speculative materialism, new materialism, and agential realism all emerged, in different idioms, to confront exactly this metaphysical gap you quoted:
how to give “objects,” “things,” or “matter” their own ontological dignity without reverting to anthropocentrism or naive fetishism.
If we look at the wider field, other philosophical strands also address “物的歸位” in their own register:
1. Process Philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead, Isabelle Stengers)
- Treats objects not as fixed entities but as ongoing processes of becoming.
- “Things” have their own trajectories and are events in a wider web of relations.
- Puts “物” in a dynamic rather than static metaphysics, allowing agency without reification.
2. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law)
- Collapses the human–nonhuman divide in the analysis of networks.
- A “thing” is an actor that can transform other actors; agency is distributed.
- Emphasizes symmetry between humans and nonhumans in the construction of reality.
3. Thing Theory (Bill Brown, Elaine Freedgood)
- Focuses on when “objects” become “things” — moments when their utility recedes and their presence asserts itself.
- Useful for thinking about “物的歸位” in the cultural and aesthetic register.
4. Ecological Philosophy & Deep Ecology (Arne Næss, Timothy Morton’s “Ecological Thought”)
- Re-centers the ecosystem as the frame, so “物” is part of a meshwork where human and nonhuman entities share equal existential footing.
- Morton’s “hyperobjects” extends this to phenomena that exceed human temporal and spatial scales.
5. Japanese Mono-ha aesthetics and phenomenology (Lee Ufan, Sekine Nobuo)
- Although an art movement, Mono-ha’s philosophy treats “物” as self-presenting, refusing to subsume it under human conceptual mastery.
- Resonates with “物的歸位” as an aesthetic-political gesture.
6. Indigenous and animist ontologies (Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s perspectivism, Zoe Todd’s Métis materialism)
- Refuse the nature–culture split; “物” is not inert matter but part of a community of beings.
- Adds a decolonial and pluriversal dimension often missing from Euro-American theory.
If you want, I can map all these traditions on a two-axis chart:
- Axis 1: Static ontology ↔ Processual ontology
- Axis 2: Anthropocentric ↔ Non-anthropocentric
This way, you can see which philosophical approaches cluster near your idea of “物的歸位” and which only partially align.
Do you want me to make that map?
