I don’t consider myself well enough versed in Object Oriented Philosophy (sometimes called Object Oriented Ontology or OOO) to really say much about it. I get the general gist of the movement which arose out of a weird mixture of speculative realism among certain philosophers of science and people experienced in Heidegger but put off by thinking through the thinking agent too much. (i.e. still part of the epistemological trajectory started with Descartes) One can dispute how correctly this gets Derrida or Heidegger but certainly it’s an understandable reaction to how Continental and even most Analytic Philosophy is typically conducted.
As I said I’m not versed enough in OOO to say much about it. I wonder though if the backlash has begun. Here’s an interesting criticism of the Speculative Realism movement. Now OOO isn’t the same as Speculative Realism. The latter is a much broader category. But OOO originated out of the SR movement and still has its roots there. A lot of the criticism seems less about SR proper than simply how its been appropriated by sociologists.
I could get snarky and make some snide comments about sociologists misappropriating a whole lot from nearly any corner. But I’m probably biased by my stats professor giving a “bad example” of statistics every Monday that most often was a sociology paper.
That said I think some people overreact based upon perhaps superficial treatments of the subject. That’s happened with most movements of course. You don’t deal with particular pragmatists like Peirce, but a kind of caricature of the movement. Ditto with postmodernism or any other broad movement. It’s particularly problematic when the movement is quite diverse filled with contradictory views. Unfortunately the way a movement is superficially seen by both proponents and opponents tends to define things. That certainly happened with postmodernism in the 90’s to the point I stopped using the term. It had been just too contaminated by well intentioned but largely ignorant literary students and anthropologists. Not to mention opponents who saw it through the lens of the Sokal Hoax.