Re-building and re-thinking the Great Wall of China
I struggled trying to decide on what object to write this week’s probe. I initially was going to write about a very specific and concrete object with an equally specific purpose, such as a toothbrush, but I found myself continually coming back to thoughts of much more abstract and complicated things. Perhaps I wanted a challenge, but I’ve decided to write this probe on the Great Wall of China. I hope to spark discussion and critical thought on how to classify and distinctively describe objects such as the Great Wall of China.
Originally made with stone and earth about 2300 years ago, The Great Wall of China stands today as a world heritage sight and one of the New Seven Wonders of the World. Believed to be the best way to keep invaders out and to protect China, the wall is a network of fortifications that were joined together to form one wall circa 220 BC. Although about 50% of the original structure does not exist today, preservation remains an ongoing challenge. Problem #1 for me: it is a collection of numerous smaller walls, all built at different times…the network is gigantic and highly “messy”. But, as Law states at the beginning of his article, objects are “networks of relations” (91) – it is as if the complicated networks stemming from the Great Wall are like the wall itself: branches of smaller walls coming from different directions, connecting at certain points along the way.
Actor-Network Theory, as we have already discussed, is based on the concept that all things are related as enactments of strategic logic; everything participates in holding everything together (Law 92). The network of materials that make up the Great Wall of China is immense – stretching out over thousands of years and including the most basic materials from dirt and leaves, to the more elaborate and modern tools used today in restoration. This is not just a wall built around someone’s property to keep the raccoons out – it is a major feat of engineering as well as a cultural symbol.
I found Law’s description of Portuguese vessels to be particularly intriguing. Thinking of the object in terms of what it does in a social relativist view is very different from looking at it with a view of scientific naturalism. These vessels could transport people and objects, enabled exploration and colonial domination, had the ability to navigate in unfamiliar territories, and could be updated or expanded. From a scientific naturalist perspective, a vessel is made up of a large collection of smaller bits and pieces to serve the larger purpose of a fully functioning vessel. If parts of the material network (hull, sails, ropes) do not function, then the object is no longer what it was intended to be (Law 93). But, it can still function without sails if one saw the vessel in terms of social relativism; the vessel may no longer be homeomorphic if it is “broken or torn” in some way, but it can still function – just as you or I could live a healthy life with only one kidney.
Considering the Great Wall of China as a result of society and human behaviour from a social relativist point of view, it was meant to protect from invaders, but it also ended up serving other roles like transportation routes, and providing employment.
Law asks the question early in his article: “What is an object if we start to think seriously about alterity?” (92) Under what circumstances can an object be deformed without changing its shape? (95). Since the Great Wall of China has undergone construction and been rebuilt, is it still the same object? It is being restored today using new materials, new methods, modern techniques, and new tools. It will never be what is originally was, so is it “correct” to still refer to it as the same object? If the Mona Lisa was damaged and another artist restored it, would people still wait in line to see it? Is it still the Mona Lisa even if someone else has become part of the art itself? This is a particular question I would love to further discuss in class to gain further insight into what you all think.
Drawing from Bogost’s description of carpentry, the “practice of constructing artifacts as a philosophical practice” (92), the Great Wall of China is an expression of culture, knowledge and philosophy. Bogost includes a quote by Latour, “Knowledge does not exist…Despite all claims to the contrary, crafts hold the key to knowledge” (110). Creating the longest man-made object is indeed an expression of knowledge (and dedication!), but how long did the Chinese see this wall lasting for at the time it was being built? Since there are always multiple modes of expression and forms that expression can take, was a wall really the best method of protection for the Chinese? As Jared Diamond is quoted, “The major events and innovations of human progress are the likely outcomes of material conditions, not the product of acute, individual genius” (Bogost 87). Thinking in terms of material history, with the materials that were accessible at the time the Chinese needed protection, it made sense to use those materials to construct a wall to keep invaders out.
“The major topic of object-oriented philosophy is the dual polarization that occurs in the world: one between the real and the sensual, and the other between objects and their qualities” (Harman 4). If object-oriented ontology is about studying how objects exist and interact with one another, while contending that everything exists equally, is the Great Wall existing in a different sense than it did when it was first built? It is interacting with humans in a very different way than it was intended to. Today, you have to pay a fee to stand on some parts, and there are restricted hours you are permitted to visit.
I will leave you with an excerpt of a video from a series “An Idiot Abroad.” Created by the British comedian Ricky Gervais, it tracks Karl Pilkington, a fellow actor, on his journey to discover the wonders of the world. He sums up his experience by describing it as “the Alright Wall of China.” Do you agree with his reasons for not being impressed with it? How does one write about and describe an object that has existed in different contexts across time? Does it get described differently at specific points along the way, or are we to see it as one general description encompassing all possible networks and associations?
Works Cited:
Bogost, Ian. “Carpentry.” Alien Phenomenology, or, What It’s Like to Be a Thing.Posthumanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. Print. 85–111.
Harman, Graham. Selections from Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy. Winchester/Washington: Zero Books, 2012.
Law, John. “Objects and Spaces.” Theory, Culture & Society 19.5/6 (2002): 91-105
UNESCO. “The Great Wall.” Accessed 9 October 2013: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/438.
