Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mushrooms As Hyperobjects
Mushrooms As Hyperobjects
3
4
Mushrooms
as Hyperobjects
Mushrooms as Hyperobjects
Mushrooms as Hyperobjects
Refugia
1 Mushrooms became an extremely interesting object of study in
the environmental humanities almost overnight, mainly thanks to
3 Anna Tsing. Indeed, Tsing points out how “unruly” mushrooms
5 may be, since they effectively oppose human farming methods and
elude the models of growth and production which have been at
the heart of the capitalist economy for years.1 Today, mushrooms
are also a source of inspiration for new materialist thinkers who
focus on the symbiotic (mycorrhizic) and the relational nature of
these mysterious and still obscure entities.
I would like to move away from relational considera-
tions and focus instead on what we can say about mushrooms
themselves, referring to the critical categories of speculative real-
ism. Therefore, I shall interpret Tsing’s key notion of mushrooms
as “unruly” in terms of ontology, discussing their inaccessibility
and independence: after all, mushrooms exist autonomously and
completely independently of human perception. I shall analyze
mushrooms through the prism of Graham Harman’s object-ori-
ented ontology, referring primarily to the category of withdrawal,2
which describes the secret, underground, and often invisible life
of these withdrawn inhabitants of the forest. I shall also discuss
mushrooms, often called superorganisms, referring to Timothy
Morton’s notion of hyperobjects.3
Andrzej Marzec
in this old but still exciting game of hide and seek. Indeed, mush-
rooms invite us to play hide and seek, thus demonstrating how
1 autonomous and independent they are. How independent they are
of human cognition.
3 It can be said that mushrooms endorse philosophical
6 realism because, as “unruly” entities, they suspend correlation-
ism. Indeed, correlationism is based on the idea that we only
have access to the correlation between thinking and being (the
world-for-us), and never to either term separately (in itself ).4
In other words, when we go home, empty basket in hand, we
cannot be certain whether our failure to find mushrooms stems
from the fact that there were no mushrooms in the forest or that
we simply could not find them, because, for example, they were
hidden under plant litter and we failed to notice them. Looking
at the sky, the idealist Georges Berkeley wondered: “if a tree
falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make
a sound?” Well, if he had only looked at his feet and examined
the underground realm of mushrooms, which thrives without
human interference, then he could have posed a more realistic
philosophical question.
Mushrooms as Hyperobjects
3 Heidegger did not agree with Husserl and believed that one
8 should delve deeper into and beyond the phenomenal and the
superficial. Heidegger argued that our original experience of re-
ality was not phenomenological and therefore not based on the-
oretical interest but on gain. According to Heidegger, we simply
want to use certain objects, in keeping with the following max-
im: “I do not know what You really are, but this will not prevent
me from using You in a manner I see fit.” This is certainly how
we use mushrooms, pragmatically dividing them into edible and
inedible. Harman points out that both perspectives – theoretical
explanations found in the book of mushrooms (what are they?)
and the practical wisdom of mushroom pickers (what can be
done with mushrooms?) – are reductive. Therefore, instead of
focusing on Heidegger’s pragmatic philosophy,9 he focuses on the
Heideggerian oscillation between presence/absence and conceal-
ment/unconcealment, which we can explain using the example
Mushrooms as Hyperobjects
of mushroom picking.
Walking through a forest with a basket full of yellow
knights (Tricholoma equestre) and thinking about what to do with
them (should we fry or marinate them?), we lose sight of particu-
lar mushrooms and their individual properties. They dissolve in
a web of utility long before they melt in our mouths. Only when
one of the collected mushrooms becomes unusable – we discover
that it is wormy or that it is the death cap (Amanita phalloides) – it
unexpectedly reveals its undesirable presence along with countless
other features that we have not paid attention to before. Harman
emphasizes that both practical and theoretical knowledge gives
us only a correlationist view of how mushrooms function in the
human world. The pragmatic approach overmines mushrooms,10
reducing them to a network of relations, while the theoretical
approach undermines mushrooms, reducing them to appearance,
size, or hyphae. Unfortunately, none of these perspectives allows
Refugia
The mushroom/mycelium
ceeding our experience of time and space. We are not able to cap-
ture or grasp it in its entirety, because we only come into contact
with fragments of it. As such, it is a hyperobject.15 All mushrooms
are elusive – they are everywhere and nowhere at the same time –
and thus successfully defy human understanding, which is probably
why we still do not know exactly what they really are. It is easy to
understand why we should refer to speculative imagination: for ex-
ample, compare the mycelium to an underground Internet network.
And, to elaborate on this metaphor, the mushrooms would then
function as profiles (like the profiles on social media), allowing the
withdrawn fungi to come out of hiding and establish relations in
the above-the-ground reality.16
Understandably, we want to look at the armillaria, which
is thought to be the largest living organism on Earth, but some
of us, upon arrival, are bound to be frustrated by the fact that we
are not able to see much, perhaps apart from its effect on the en-
Refugia
the survival strategies but also a feature of all real objects. Indeed,
mushrooms have truly mastered it.
Refugia
1. See A. Tsing The Mushroom at the End of 10. See G. Harman Object-Oriented Ontology:
1 the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist A New Theory of Everything, London: Penguin
Ruins, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton Random House UK, 2017, p. 47.
4 University Press, 2015.
11. M. Heidegger Holzwege, Frankfurt
3 2. See G. Harman The Quadruple Object, a. Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2015, p. 1.
London: Zero Books, 2011.
12. See G. Harman Object-Oriented Ontology,
3. See T. Morton Hyperobjects: Philosophy and p. 65.
Ecology after the End of the World, University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London, 13. See T. Morton Dark Ecology: For a Logic
2013. of Future Coexistence, New York: Columbia
University Press, 2016.
4. Cf. Q. Meillassoux After Finitude: An Essay
on the Necessity of Contingency, London, 14. See B. A. Ferguson et al. “Coarse-scale
2010, pp. 10−12. population structure of pathogenic Armillaria
species in a mixed-conifer forest in the Blue
5. D. L. Hawksworth, R. Lücking “Fungal Mountains of northeast Oregon,” Canadian
diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species,” Journal of Forest Research 2003 vol. 33, no. 4.
Microbiology Spectrum 2017 vol. 5, no. 4.
15. See T. Morton Hyperobjects.
6. A. Tsing “Unruly Edges: Mushrooms
as Companion Species”, Environmental 16. The mushroom would allow the mycelium
Humanities 2012 vol. 1, November, to enter into a series of relations with the
pp. 141−54. outside/above-the-ground world according
to the principle of vicarious causation, insofar
7. See G. Harman Art and Objects, Cambridge: as real objects can only enter into interactions
Polity Press, 2020 p. 1. indirectly through their sensual intermediaries.
See G. Harman, “On vicarious causation,”
8. Ibid., p. 16. Collapse 2007 vol. 2, pp. 171−205.
Andrzej Marzec
9. See G. Harman Tool-Being: Heidegger 17. The specific musty smell can be identified
and the Metaphysics of Objects, Chicago: with Harman’s allure, that is, the moment
Open Court, 2002. when sensual features point to a real object.
See G. Harman The Quadruple Object, p. 138.
Refugia