Resistentialism

Resistentialism is a satirical philosophy that humorously asserts inanimate objects, or "Things," actively resist and exhibit hostility toward humans, as if engaged in a cosmic struggle against human endeavors.^[1] Coined by British humorist Paul Jennings in his 1948 essay "Report on Resistentialism," published in The Spectator, the term blends the Latin res (thing) with the French résister (to resist) and parodies existentialism, particularly the works of Jean-Paul Sartre.^[2]^[3] In Jennings's parody, Resistentialism is presented as a post-war French intellectual movement founded by the fictional philosopher Pierre-Marie Ventre, whose seminal declaration "Les choses sont contre nous" ("Things are against us") encapsulates the idea that the universe's "Ultimate Thing" opposes humanity.^[1] Key concepts include the chose-en-soi (thing-in-itself), representing objects' independent and resistant existence, and the human condition as le néant (the nothing), a futile battle against these malevolent entities.^[2] Jennings illustrates this through absurd "scientific" experiments, such as the Clark-Trimble study on toast always falling butter-side down on coarser carpets, and everyday frustrations like pencils rolling out of reach or socks vanishing in pairs.^[1] The philosophy advocates withdrawal from material possessions as the only path to freedom, framing modern life as a tragic clash between humans and their defiant surroundings.^[1] Though intended as jest, Resistentialism has endured as a cultural shorthand for the anthropomorphic irritation people feel toward malfunctioning gadgets, slippery items, and other inanimate nuisances, influencing literature, humor, and even scientific discourse on human-object interactions.^[4] Jennings's essay was reprinted in collections like Oddly Enough (1950) and The Jenguin Pennings (1963), cementing its legacy as a witty critique of pretentious philosophy amid post-atomic despair.^[2]

Definition and Origins

Definition

Resistentialism is a jocular theory that attributes seemingly spiteful or hostile behavior to inanimate objects, portraying them as actively resisting or opposing human endeavors in a cosmic "war" between people and things.^[1] This satirical concept suggests that everyday frustrations—such as objects malfunctioning or conspiring against users—stem from the inherent malevolence of "Things" toward humanity, framing human existence as a doomed struggle against this unified, quasi-intellectual force.^[1] The term's etymology is a deliberate blend of the Latin res (meaning "thing"), the French résister (to resist), and "existentialism," crafted as a parody of the latter philosophical movement.^[3] It mocks the existentialist focus on human absurdity and freedom by shifting agency to inanimate objects, implying that Things possess a numinous will that thwarts human control.^[2] Central to resistentialism is its slogan, "Les choses sont contre nous" ("Things are against us"), attributed to the fictional founder Pierre-Marie Ventre, a Parisian philosopher invented to embody the theory's whimsical persona.^[1] Ventre's aphorisms underscore the philosophy's tragicomic tone, emphasizing humanity's inevitable defeat in this lopsided conflict.^[1] Unlike formal philosophical schools, resistentialism is entirely humorous and non-serious, lacking any rigorous doctrine or academic proponents, and exists solely as a lighthearted commentary on the perceived animus of the material world.^[3]^[2]

Coining of the Term

The term "resistentialism" was coined by British humorist Paul Jennings in his article titled "Report on Resistentialism," published on April 23, 1948, in the magazine The Spectator.^[5] In this piece, Jennings introduced the concept as a purported French philosophical movement, attributing its foundation to the fictional philosopher Pierre-Marie Ventre, who supposedly developed it in Paris.^[2] Jennings presented resistentialism through an elaborate spoof, framing it as a serious academic report that explored the idea of inanimate objects actively resisting human control, encapsulated in the aphorism "Les choses sont contre nous" ("Things are against us").^[2] He drew on absurd experiments and pseudoscientific observations, such as dropped pencils or misplaced toast, to build a mock framework parodying dense philosophical discourse.^[6] The term gained initial visibility outside Britain when Jennings's article was reprinted and adapted as "Thingness of Things" in The New York Times Magazine on June 13, 1948, where it was discussed with a tone of semi-serious intrigue as the "very latest" trend in French thought.^[6] Written in the austere atmosphere of postwar Britain, the piece served as lighthearted satire amid the era's intense debates on existentialism, particularly Jean-Paul Sartre's ideas, offering comic relief through its exaggerated inversion of human-object relations.^[2]^[3]

Historical Development

Precursors in Literature and Philosophy

Ideas predating the formal coining of resistentialism by Paul Jennings in 1948 can be traced through various literary works that anthropomorphized inanimate objects, attributing to them a willful opposition to human endeavors. One early example appears in Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1846 poem "Ode (Inscribed to W. H. Channing)," where he writes, "Things are in the saddle, / And ride mankind," suggesting a reversal in which objects exert dominance over people, prefiguring the notion of objects resisting or subverting human control. In 1879, German novelist and philosopher Friedrich Theodor Vischer explored this theme more explicitly in his satirical novel Auch Einer, introducing the concept of Die Tücke des Objekts ("the malice" or "spite of the object"). Vischer describes how everyday items appear to conspire against their users through perverse, autonomous behaviors, portraying objects as possessing a mischievous agency that frustrates human intentions in a comic, almost philosophical manner.^[7] This idea served as a humorous critique of materialism and human-object relations, influencing later satirical treatments of the topic. A closer literary parallel emerged in the early 20th century with M.R. James's 1933 short story "The Malice of Inanimate Objects," a fragmentary ghost tale that depicts household items exhibiting deliberate malevolence toward their owners. In the narrative, objects like chairs and utensils display an eerie independence, actively hindering or harming humans, which echoes the spiteful autonomy central to resistentialist humor while blending it with supernatural elements.^[8] These literary precursors share loose conceptual ties to broader philosophical traditions, such as animism, where inanimate matter is imbued with spirit or intent, though they remain lighthearted and non-systematic compared to Jennings's invented doctrine. Unlike serious ontological inquiries into object agency, these examples emphasize satirical exaggeration to highlight the absurd frustrations of daily life with technology and tools.^[7]

Postwar Popularization

Following its introduction in Paul Jennings's satirical 1948 article "Report on Resistentialism" in The Spectator, the concept quickly spread through British and American humor columns as a lighthearted parody of existentialism.^[2] The piece, reprinted in The New York Times on June 13, 1948, framed resistentialism as a mock philosophy where inanimate objects ("things") actively resist human control, using witty examples like buttered toast always landing face-down or socks vanishing in pairs.^[6] This humorous diffusion captured postwar frustrations with everyday mechanization, offering comic relief amid broader societal shifts toward consumer technology. The Oxford English Dictionary records the term's first use in Jennings's 1948 work, defining it as a "mock-philosophy which maintains that inanimate objects are hostile to humans."^[9] In the early 1950s, resistentialism appeared in science fiction, notably Clifford D. Simak's 1950 short story "Skirmish," where self-aware machines rebel against human oversight, echoing the idea of objects exerting spiteful agency. By the 1960s and 1970s, it was loosely linked in popular discourse to emerging adages like Murphy's Law—coined in 1949—which posits that anything that can go wrong will, though resistentialism was distinguished by its more anthropomorphic attribution of malice to objects rather than mere probability. This period saw resistentialism serving as a cultural shorthand for mechanical unreliability in an era of rapid industrialization. The concept reflected postwar anxieties about technology's encroachment on daily life, providing satirical commentary on mechanization's dehumanizing effects while alleviating tensions through humor.^[10] It gained renewed attention in William Safire's September 21, 2003, New York Times Magazine column, where he revived it to describe frustrations with modern gadgets like recalcitrant printers and cell phones, underscoring its enduring appeal amid evolving tech woes.^[3]

Core Concepts

Philosophical Framework

Resistentialism, as satirically outlined by Paul Jennings in his 1948 essay, posits a mock philosophical system founded by the fictional French thinker Pierre-Marie Ventre, wherein inanimate objects possess an independent will inherently antagonistic to humanity.^[11] The core doctrine asserts that "Things" (les choses) actively resist and conspire against human endeavors, forming alliances to undermine personal agency and comfort.^[2] This framework parodies existentialist notions by attributing absurdity and inauthenticity not to human existence, but to the perpetual hostility of the material world, urging humans to confront and "accept" this cosmic opposition as an existential truth.^[11] Central to Ventre's invented philosophy are concepts like chose-en-soi (thing-in-itself), which describes objects' essential, self-contained being as fundamentally opposed to human consciousness, and chose-pour-soi (thing-for-itself), implying a purposeful malice in their interactions with people.^[11] The universe itself is framed as the "Ultimate Thing" (Dernière Chose), an all-encompassing entity in eternal conflict with humanity, while humans are le néant (the No-Thing), embodying nothingness in the face of these hostile entities.^[11] Jennings presents these ideas through anecdotal "evidence," such as pseudo-scientific experiments demonstrating objects' predictable defiance, rejecting traditional philosophy's emphasis on human reason in favor of a post-atomic despair that advocates withdrawal from material engagement.^[2] The satirical structure draws on existentialist terminology—echoing Sartre's être-en-soi and être-pour-soi—but applies it to everyday frustrations, portraying humans as passive victims in a war waged by household items and machinery.^[11] Key fictional texts within this parody include Ventre's play Puits Clos, a reimagining of Sartre's No Exit where three men are trapped in a well by sentient bricks, and Blanco del Huevo's Comment sont les choses?, a drama featuring anthropomorphized objects as protagonists who "push" (poussent) hapless humans into misery.^[11] Through these narrative devices, Jennings underscores the philosophy's call for noble resignation, mimicking the tragic grandeur of postwar existential thought while highlighting the humor in attributing volition to the inanimate.^[2]

Everyday Manifestations

In everyday life, resistentialism manifests through a satirical lens on the seemingly deliberate thwarting of human efforts by inanimate objects, turning mundane frustrations into humorous evidence of cosmic opposition. According to the foundational essay by Paul Jennings, these "resistances" are not mere accidents but expressions of objects' inherent hostility, amplifying the psychological sense that things possess agency and malice toward us. This anthropomorphic interpretation heightens everyday irritation, as individuals perceive patterns of defiance that feel personally targeted, though the theory remains a playful exaggeration rather than a literal doctrine.^[1] The essay provides classic examples of such scenarios, including pencils dropped from desks that land out of reach in nearly all cases, as shown in the experiments of Noys and Crangenbacker, and buttered toast consistently falling face-down on the floor—more reliably on expensive carpets—according to the Clark-Trimble study. Another instance is a wet shaving brush dripping water down one's arm to soak the sleeve during grooming, as detailed in Professor Gonk's research. These historical illustrations from Jennings' mock experiments highlight how ordinary items align against human convenience. The concept has inspired recognition of similar patterns in modern life, such as keys vanishing when one is late, printers jamming at deadlines, computers crashing during tasks, umbrellas inverting in wind, and socks disappearing in the laundry, embodying the "graduated hostility" where objects exhibit rebellions scaled to their pettiness.^[11]^[1]^[12]

Cultural Reception and Legacy

In Literature and Media

Resistentialism has influenced literary depictions of inanimate objects with apparent agency and malice, particularly in fantasy and science fiction. In Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the concept manifests as "malignancy," the inherent hostility of things toward living beings, exemplified by the Luggage—a sentient, pearwood chest that loyally protects its owner Rincewind but viciously attacks others with lid-snapping ferocity and unerring pursuit. Introduced in The Colour of Magic (1983), the Luggage embodies resistentialist themes through its unpredictable, anthropomorphic behaviors, such as drowning threats or retrieving items with brutal efficiency, highlighting objects' resistance to human control. Similarly, Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979) features malfunctioning technology that seems deliberately obstructive, such as the improbability drive's chaotic effects or the Heart of Gold ship's erratic systems, portraying gadgets as comically antagonistic to their users in a universe where entropy favors human frustration. These elements underscore resistentialism's satirical edge, turning everyday technological woes into cosmic comedy. In film and television, resistentialism appears through anthropomorphic appliances plotting against or frustrating humans. The animated feature The Brave Little Toaster (1987) depicts household objects like a vacuum cleaner and radio embarking on a quest while facing perils from junkyard machines and human neglect, with scenes of appliances scheming or rebelling against obsolescence to evoke the spiteful autonomy of things. Television series like The IT Crowd (2006–2013) humorously reference tech woes through episodes where computers crash inexplicably or printers jam at inopportune moments, amplifying the trope of devices conspiring against hapless users in a modern office setting. Comics have also embraced resistentialist humor, notably in Gary Larson's The Far Side cartoons (1980–1995), where everyday objects rebel in absurd ways—such as chairs plotting escapes or tools turning on their wielders—to satirize human-object relations through single-panel vignettes of anthropomorphic defiance. Overall, resistentialism echoes enduring tropes of anthropomorphic malice in science fiction and comedy genres, with narratives where objects' "will" subverts human dominance, from sentient AI in speculative fiction to slapstick gadget failures in humorous media. In the 21st century, resistentialism has experienced a revival through online communities, where users humorously attribute spiteful agency to malfunctioning technology, often under the banner of "cursed" devices. For instance, a 2013 Reddit thread in r/philosophy discusses resistentialism as the belief that inanimate objects have antipathy toward humans, sharing examples and linking it to modern frustrations. This resurgence gained visibility in 2019 when Wordsmith.org featured reader anecdotes about smart home devices, such as Amazon's Alexa Echo, which misinterpreted commands or favored one user over another, prompting jokes about "favoresistentialism" to describe the perceived bias and hostility of AI-assisted gadgets.^[13]^[14] Contemporary interpretations connect resistentialism to related notions of cosmic or systemic perversity, such as Finagle's Law, which posits that "anything that can go wrong will—at the worst possible moment," emphasizing escalating misfortune in a manner akin to objects' willful opposition. Similarly, Sod's Law serves as a British variant, broadening the idea to general bad luck without the explicit focus on inanimate agency. Looser philosophical ties appear in object-oriented ontology (OOO), a 2010s framework developed by Graham Harman, which grants autonomy and withdrawal to all objects, including non-human entities, though it lacks resistentialism's humorous anthropomorphism and instead prioritizes a neutral metaphysics of equal object relations.^[15]^[16] These parallels highlight resistentialism's enduring appeal as a lighthearted precursor to more serious discussions of material agency, much like its brief overlap with Murphy's Law in describing inevitable mishaps. The concept has been applied to AI and technology, where devices like smartphones and voice assistants exhibit behaviors that suggest resistance or free will, such as apps freezing or connections failing unexpectedly.^[17] Others apply the concept to cybersecurity, where software and hardware "resist" updates or exhibit erratic failures that mimic malice, complicating incident detection and requiring defensive programming to mitigate such "inherent resistentialism."^[18] The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized resistentialism since 1948 as a mock philosophy of object hostility, with a revision in 2010 affirming its humorous usage.^[9]^[19]