Professional Documents
Culture Documents
lntroduction
Kristin Asdal, Brita Brenna,Ingunn I\'Ioser
The Politics
of lnterventions
A H i s t o roy l S T S . . . . . . . . . . . ..............7
SusanLeigh Star
Power, Technology ond ihe Phenomenology of Conventions
O n B e i n gA l l e r g i tco O n i o n s .........................79
Donna Flaraway
Situoted Knowledges
T h eS c i e n c e
Q u e s l i o ni n F e m i n i s m
o n d T h e P r i v i l e goef P o r l i oP
l e r s p e c i i v e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. .0, .9. .
Vicky Singleton
T r o i n i n g o n d R e s u s c i t o t i n gH e o l t h y C i t i z e n s i n t h e
EnglishNew PublicHeolth
N o r m o t i v i ' l i iensP r o c e s s .......221
Porl3: From the Loborotoryio Politicsond Economics
Bruno Latour
T o M o d e r n i z e o r t o E c o l o g i s e ?T h o i i s i h e Q u e s t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 9
Àlicl.rclC:rllon
Actor-Network
Theory
T h eM o r k e tT e s .l . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Andrcrv Brrrl'
P o l i t i c o lI n v e n l i o n 287
I(ristin Àscl:rl
R e - l n v e n t i n g P o l i t i c so f t h e S t o t e
S c i e n c eo n d t h e P o l i t i cosf C o n l e s l o i i o n . . . . . . . . .3 0 9
Epilogue ........327
Ingunn Nlloser
lnterveniions in History
M o u r e e nM c N e i lc n d J o h nL o wi n C o n v e r s o l i oonn t h e E m e r g e n c eT,r o i e c l o r i eo sn d
lnterferenco e fsS c i e n c e
o n d T e c h n o l o gSyt u d i e s( S T S.). . . . . . . . . . . ..........,,,....329
Liso
t f contribuiors.......... .......................351
BrunoLolour
ToModernizeor to Ecologise?
Thotis the Question.-
W il l p ol i ti co le co logypos so woy?
219
TECHNOSCIENCE
250
T O M O D E R N I Z EO R T O Ê C O L O G I S E ?
T H A TI S T H E Q U E S T I O N
world of politics and who speakof a global unity which no longerhasthe political
domainasits horizon.
However,practical experiencedoes not conlirm either of these two extreme
hypotheses.T Militant action remainsboth far more radicalthan one would believe
if the hypothesisof ecologybecominga fact of everydaylife was correct- nothing
to do, in this respect,with hygienewhich was alwaysthe concernof a few promi-
nent administrators- and 1àr morepartittlthan it should be if one were to accept
the hypothesisof globalisation.It is alwaysthis invertebrate,tltis branch of a river,
r/rs rubbish dump or rlir land-useplan which finds itself the subjectof concern,
protection,criticismor demonstration.
In practice,therefore,ecologicalpolitics is much lessintegrablethan it fears,but
a lot more marginal than it would like. To expressthis paradoxof totality in the
future and presentmarginaliry there is no shortageof formulaewhich enableit to
get out of the problem:"think globally,act locally,"integratedmanagement,new al-
liance,sustainable development,and so on. Accordingto political ecology,it should
nof be judged by its modestelectoralresults.8 It beginswith individual cases,
but it
will soon,slowlybut surely,incorporatethem all into a generalmovementthat will
end up embracingthe whole earth.According to political ecology,the courageto
addressitself to small causesrightly comesfrom the certainknowledgethat it will
soon haveto assumeresponsibilityfor all the major issues.
If this were indeedthe case,we should be witnessingthe rise,perhapshesitant
but certainlyirreversible,of a political ecologytaking up, day after day,the whole
task of political life. Yet the scenarioof ecologybecominga synonymfor politics
seemincreasinglyimprobable.This is certainlythe casein Francewhere,although
the number of environmentalparties is increasing,they still do not account for
more than five per cent of the votes,and eventhis total appearsto be declining.In
spite ofthe presenceofthree candidatesin the 1995 Frenchpresidentialelections,
greenpartiescould well go out as they camein, like any other passingtrend. For
a party that must take responsibilityfor Mother Earth hersel{,there is more than
one problemin this continuingmarginalisation.Itis a challengethat is makingit
necessary to rethink the very basisof its aspirationto becomeglobal.
In this article,I would like to advancethe hypothesisthat the rise in power
of political ecologyis hinderedby the definition it givesitself,,asbothpoliticsand
ecologlAs a resultof this self-deflnition,the practicalwisdom acquiredafter years
of militar-rtaction is incapableof expressionby a principle of classificationand
ordering- aboutwhich I'll saymore belorv- that would be politically effective.As
the prophethJonah said of the Hebrew people,"it can'ttell its left from its right".
Without this principle of ordering,political ecologymakeslittle impact upon the
TECHNOSC]ENCE
electorate and does not manage, using all the arguments that it neverthelessso ef-
fectively reveals,to develc'p lasting and consistent political viability.
2s2
T O M O D E R N I Z EO R T O E C O T O G I S E T
? H A TI S T H E Q U E S T I O N
253
TECHNOSCIENCE
regime, the one that Boltanski rnd Thévenot call the "civic regime" and that is de-
fined by "general wiil". In this regir-ne,worth is defined by the ability of one irgent
to disentangle oneselt tron.r pu.rticular and local interests so as to envision only the
General good. In its aspirrrtionsto globaliry ecology encounters in the de{inition of
the general will an oppor)ent which is all the more formidable since it has the sup-
port of almost all mtinstrearn political institutions since the mid XVIIIIh century.
Here again, it seems,ecologists do not manage to establish their justifications
for long and cannot claim to representrnore than one lobby among many.Althouqh
some Green parry may speak in the nnme of the cornmon good, it is always the
electedmayor who signs the land-use plan and not the irssociation that is defend-
ing, often for its own petty reasons,som! end of a garden, some bird, some snail or
other (Barbier 1,992);it is the local goverment who closes a polluting factory and
not the manufacnlrer who, in the name of efficiency, is exploiting employees; it is
the Water Board who protects resource for everyone and not the angling associa-
tion which has its own fish to fry. Rehabilitating dornestic traditions and extending
efficiency to include natural cycles is one thing; directly opposing the general will
on such terrain is quite another and an extremely delicate issue.ll
The new conrpromisethat enablesthe "civic reginre,"without rnodi$'ing itself
in any lasting way, to absorb most ecological issuesconsists in extending the elec-
torate deerned to participate in the expressionof the general will to include future
generations of citizens.ls Future generations are indeed mute,but no more so than
the minors who have just been born, the ancestors who are already dead, the ab-
stainers who are said to "vote with their fèet", or the incompetents which have
rights through various sorts of stewardships.At the cost of a slight enlargement in
the nurnber of electors,the "civic regime" can absorb most of the issuespending. At
the cost of a delicate compromise with the "domestic regime", it could even recon-
struct this "community of the dead and the living", which would permit it to be of
both on the Right and on the Left, thus casting its net wide and thereby diluting
the green vote even further.
On the basis of these various reductions, there would therefore be no "eco-
logical regime" since the issuesthat it raisescan all be resolvedin the "domestic,"
"industrial" and "civic regimes". What is left could easily be pigeonned-holed into
the "commerce regime", as can be witnessed in the unashamed processing of the
numerous "green products," "green labels"and other "natural" products.l" With this
hypothesis one could account for the necessarilyepherneral vogue fbr ecology.
If we fbllow this not very charitable reduction, we could say that there is no
durable originaliry in the political philosophy of ecology To be sure on seeing
the irruption in debates of waterwa)'s, landscapes,noise, dustbins, the ozone layer
and unborn children, it was some time before civil society recognised its ancient
254
T O M O D E R N I Z EO R T O E C O L O G l S E ?
T H A TI S T H E Q U E S T I O N
To escapethis horrible fate it would seemthat there is but one solution,and that
is to depart from the model of Boltanski and Thévenot by abandoningits princi-
pal axiom,that of common humanity.A1l the regimesdeveloppedby the six types
of political philosophyhave humanity as their measure.They disagreeon how to
rank humanity and about the yardstickthat allowsto order smallnessand highness
in each of the six "Cités", but they all agreethat "humanity is the rneasureof all
things".This is what make thesesix principle ofjustification, no matter how con-
tradictorywith one another,all completelyincompatiblewith the racistor eugenic
or socialdarwinist reactionarypolitics developpedduring the last century.How
is it possibleto abandonthe notion of common humaniry without immediately
falling into the dangerof "biopolitics"?The standardansweris that ecologyis no
longer about humans- even extendedto include future generations- but about
nature,a higherunity which would include humansamong other componentsas-
sociatedwith other ecosystems.
We sawabovethe political incoherenceof this solution.How canpoliticallife be
mixed up with a total unity - nature- which is only known by the scienceof com-
plex systems? At best,one would arrive at a sort of super-Saint-Simonism,a gov-
ernmentof experts,of engineersand of scientistswho would abolishthe difference
255
TÊCHNOSCIEI]CE
256
T O M O D E R N I ZOER T O E C O L O G I S E
T?H A TI S T H EQ U E S T I O N
One could despairat this severeappraisal.But one can alsoseizeall the advantages
that therewould be if political ecology'were to disabuseitself of its own illusions.
I E C HN O S C i N
EC E
Its practice is worth intinitelv more than its utopian ideals of a nafural super-re-
gime, managed b1'scientists fbr the exclusivebenefit of a Mother Earth who could
at any moment become a cruel or unnatural mother.
Lett return to the list of its misconstruals,now considering the "defects"of its
practice asjust so man)'positive advantages.The encrypted messagewhich permits
the discovery of the lost cirf is irnmediately illuminated by a new meaning.
258
T O M O D E R N I Z EO R T C E ' : . O G I S E ? T H A TI S T H E Q U E S I I O N
' Political ecology is unable and has never sought to integrate all its very me-
ticulous and particular actions into a complete and hierarchised unity. This
ignorance with regard to totalin'is precisely its saving grace since it can never
rank small human beings and vast ozone layers, or small elephants and mid-
dle-sized ostriches, into a single hierarchy.The smallest can become the larg-
est."The stone that was cast aside has become the corner stone."
Political ecology has, fortunately remained marginal until now because it has not
yet grasped either its politics or its ecology. It believes it is speaking about nature,
the system,a hierarchised totaliry a world without human beings, a certain science,
and it is precisely these too well-ordered statements that marginalises it, while the
hesitant statements of its practice would perhaps permit it finally to attain political
maturity if only it could grasp their meaning.
By comparing those two lists, one can see the new solution towards which
we can now turn. If we leave aside the over-lucid explanations that ecology gives
of itself, and focus solely upon its embroiled practical application, it becomes a
completely different movement, a wholly other destiny. Political ecologymakesno
mention of Nature, it does not know the System, it buries itself in controversies,it
plunges into socio-technical imbroglios, it takes control of more and more entities
with more and more diverse destinies, and it knows less with any certainfy what
they all have in common.
"commonhumonity"?
Whot is commonin the expression
Before crying "paradox!", an attempt should be made to explore this new aveuue.
Messages, even decoded, can have a double meaning. Now, if we return to the
regimes model, we can see that, at the price of a fundamental but minuscule re-
interpretation of the central axiom, the "seventh regime", which had escaped our
looking for so long, suddenly emerges like Merlins castle.
What in fact is "common" humanity? Boltanski and Thévenot were content with
the usual reading offered by the canonical commentators of political philosophy
they chose to consider.They took for granted the detached human offered to them
by the humanist tradition, the human whose ultimate risk would be to be confused
with a-human nature.23But non-hurnan is nat inhuntan.If ecology has nature as its
goal and not humans, it follows that there can be no regime of ecology. But if the
aim of ecology is to open up the question of humaniry it conversely follows that
there is a "seventh regime".2aThe mear.ringof the adjective "common" in the expres-
sion "common humanity" changes totalh' if the non-humans are not "nature".25
TECHNOSCIEI...ICE
'lhe
question opened up by the "seventh regime" is to know what would a
human be without elephants,plants, lions, cereals,oceans,ozoûe or plankton? A
human alone, much more alone even than Robinson Crusoe on his island. Less
than a human. Certainh'not a hurnan.The regime of ecoiogy does not at all say
that we should shift our allegiancefrom the human realm to nature.That is why it
has taken so long to find it, for that requirement appeared too absurd.The regime
of ecology simply says that ue da not knozu whû makes the common humanity
of human beings and that, yes, maybe, without the elephants of the Amboseli,
without the meandering waters of the Drôme, without the bears of the Pyrenees,
without the doves of the Lot or without the water table of the Beauce they would
not be hunran.
Why dont we know? Because of the uncertainty concerningthe relationshipbe-
tu)eentileansand ends.To define ecology, it might be sufficient, strangely enough,
to return to the definition that Kant gives of human moraliry a definition that is
so well known that people forgot to see that it is in fact wonderfully apposite for
non-humans. Let us get back to this most canonicalof all definitions:
The style is abominable, but the thought is clear. In this definition of morality only
the {irst sentellce,which presupposesa creation composed of mere means pre-
sented to human ingenuity needs to be modified. Let us generaliseto all the beings
of tl-reCreation the aspiration to the kingdom of ends.What do we find? An exact
deflnition of the practical connections establishedby ecologistswith those they are
defending: rivers, animals, biotopes, forests,parks iurd insects.They do not at all
say that we should not Llse,control, serve,dominate, order, distribute or study them,
but that we should, as fbr humaûst ne,uerconsiderthetn as sirnpl meansùut altuays
ttlsoas ends.What doesn't hold together in Kant's definition is the truly incredible
idea that simple mearls could exist and that the principle of autonomy and fieedom
would be reservedJbr mttn in isolstion, i.e. f-or the inhuman. On the other hand,
260
T O M O D E R I I. Z E O R '
26t
TECHNOSCIENCE
Such an analysisdoes not confirm either the notion of nature savedfor its own sake
by sacrificing human interests or that of free human beings dominating narure to
promote their own freedom alone. A canalised river is seen as something bad and
undesirable within the "seventh regime", not because this futile development will
be seen as expensive - taking thirty years to complete and being quickly eroded
- but because the river has been treated as merely a mean, instead of also bei:ng
taken as an end. By conspiring with a "law which could have its origin in the ui//
of the subjectundergoingtber action", according to the Kantian expression,rivers are
allowed to meander again, to keep their dislievelled network of rimlets, to have
their flood zone.3oIn short, we leave the mediators paftially to deploy the finality
which is in them.:r1
This suspensionof certainty concerning ends and means defines another scalein
the regime of ecology which, this time around, cannot be reduced to the other
regimes of political philosophy. There is a scale though,like for all other regimes,
and trials that rank very precisely smallness and highness. In the "Green cify" what
is small is knoruingJbr sure that something hirs or, conversely,has not a connec-
tion with anothel and knowing it absolutell',irreversibly, as only an expert knows
something. Someone has value in the "green city", some one is high whenit leaves
o?enthe question of solidarity between ends and means.Is everything interrelated?
Not necessarily.We don't know what is interconnected and woven together. We
are feeling our way, experirnenting, trying things out. Nobody knows of what an
environment is capable.r2
One of the advantagesof this de{inition of the scaling inside the Green regime
is that it removes an obstacle that had slowed everyone down in the march towards
the lost city. In spite of its claims, fundamentalist ecologl', or "deep ecology", occu-
pies the state of Worthlessness in the "seventh regime". The more certain an ecol-
ogy is that ever)'thing is interrelated, seeing humans simply as a nleans of achiev-
ing Gaia, the ultimate end, the more worthless that ecology. The more strident,
militant and assuredit is, the more wretched it is. Conversely,the state of hiehness
262
T O M O D E R N I ZOER i ' ':: - ' 3 S E ?T H A TI S I H E Q U E S T I O N
263
TECHNOSCIEI.]CE
generate new politic'ùl iife. To obtain a stirring up of politics, vou have to add
uncertainty so that the actors,who until now knew what a river could and could
not tolerate, begin to entert'.rin sufficient doubts. The word "doubt" is in fact in-
adequate,since it gives the impression of scepticism,whereas it is more a caseof
enquiry, researchand experimentation. In short, it is a collectiveexperitnentationon
the possible associationsbetween things and people without any of these entities
being used,from now on, as a simple means by the others.i'5
Political ecology,as we hzrvenow understood it, is not defined by taking account
ofnature, but by the different career now taken by all objects.A planner for the lo-
cal agricultural authoriry an irrigatot a fisherman or a concessionairefor drinking
water used to know the needs of water. They could guarantee its form by assuming
its limits and being ignorant of all the ins and outs.The big difference befween the
present and the previous situation does not lie in the fact that, before, we did not
know about rivers and now we are concemed about them, but in the fact that we
can no longer delimit the ins and outs of this river as an object. Its career as an ob-
ject no longer has the same form if each stream, each meander,each sourceand each
copsemust serveboth as an end and a means for those claiming to managethem.
At the risk of doing a little philosophising, we could say that the ontological
fbrms of the river have changed.There are, literally speaking, no more things. This
expression has nothing to do with a sentimentalism of Mother Earth, with the
merging of the fisherman, kingfisher and fish. It only designatesthe uncertain, di-
shevelled character of the entities taken into account by the smallest river contract
or the smallest management plan. Nor does the expression refer to the inevitable
complexity of narurtl milieux and human--environment interactions, for the new
relationships are no more complex than the old ones (if they were, no science,
management or politics could be done on their behalf,as Florian Charvolin (1993)
demonstrated so well). It solely retèrs to the obligation to be prepared to take ac-
count of other participants who may appear unforeseen,or disappear as if by magic,
and who all aspire to take part in the "kingdom of ends" by suddenly combining
the relationshipsof the local and global. In order to rnonitor these quasi-objects,it
is therefore necessaryto invent new procedures capable of managing these arrivals
and departures, these ends and these means - procedures that are completely dif-
ferent from those used in the past to manage things.
In fact, to sumnrarise this irrgument, it would have to be said that ecology hirs
nothing to do with taking account of nature, its own interests or goals, but that it
is rather another way of consideringeverything."Ecologising" a question,an object
or datum, does not rnean putting it back into context and giving it an ecosystem.
It means setting it in opposition, term for term, to another activiry pursued for
three centuriesand which is known. for want of a better term. as "modernisation".
264
T O M O D E R N I Z EO R . , . :.-:.:; 5 E ? T H A TI S I H E O U E S T I O N
Acknowledgements
265
T E CHN O S CI EN CE
Noter
1 This tenn docs not l.ravethe san'respecific meaning in this cssayas it does in Anglophone
academicdebatessurrounding the political-economy of environmental usc,as in, for cxam-
plc, Bryant (1992) and Peet ar.rdWatts (1996). Rather,it sen'est\,vopurposeshcrc. trirst, it is
used as a generalterm uscd to signily the environmental movement as such or the green par-
tics and groups rvho in various rvayshave sought to politicise environmental issues.Seconcl,
though, its meaning is reconfigurcd as the chapter proceeds;seenote 7 below.
2 Thc book by Boltanski and Thévenot which Latour usesas his point of departurein this ar-
ticle is norv availablein English: On Justification.Econotniesof Worth,Ne'"vJersev; Princeton
Universitv Prcsc2006..
3 Âll the quotationsby officialsand activistson watcr uscdin the presentarticle are taken from a
srudyb1.theCcntre de Sociologiede L'innovation on the novclry of political ecology.Thenerv
larv oi 1992 on \\atcr requirescatchmcnt of sensiblerivcrs to be representedin "Con-rmissions
localcsdc lèrru"(CLE), which are a very original experiment in the Frcnch context since they
rirn in part to m.rke politicallyvisiblc the river'shealth and sustainlblc good .
-l "Non-humrrn"is ml.tcchnical term to designateobjccts freed f rom the obligation to do poli-
tics through nature.Nature is here considercdas rvhat assemblesall entitics into one wholc.
It is thus a political definition tirat is sometimes oPPosed to hum;tn politics or, as is the case
here,mergcd with poiitics. On the genealogyof tl.risbizarre way of doing politics through the
notion of a naturc cast arvayfrom all l-rurnanpolitics, seeLatour 1997.
5 For a cornparisonof health and ecologyseeD. S. Barnes(1994),W. Coleman (1982) and
R. J. Evans (1987). Thc anthropocentrism of the 19th-cenrury health movement clearly
distinguishesit lrom ecology.Nobody championcd the causeof miasmasand microbes .
6 Apart from the many re2lsonsspecificto France developedin A. Rogcr and F. Guéry (1991).
Francc is interesting becauscthc idea ofa nature untouched by human hands does not havc
the cvocativestrenglrt of 'rvhatit has in the Unitcd Statcsor Germanli
7 Bryan Wynne in England, Charis Cussins in the Unitcd States, Camillc Limoges and
Alberto Cambrosio ir-rQrebec, Rémi Barbier in France,and severalothers, have begun to
collect detaiied analyseson thc practicalwork of militant ecologists.It would be interesting
to make a systematiccomparison r.vhich,to my knorvledge,has not be atten-rptcd.But see
Wcstern ct al. (1994) for thc cascof "communify bascd conservation".
8 I hirvc used the term "political ccology" patterned out of the very wcll know tcrm "political
economy" to designlte not thc scienceofecosystems -ecology-, nor the day to day political
struggle -Green parties-, but the wholc intercsection of political philosophy of human irnd
non-humans. In the course of this paper thc meaning is going to shift from a conccrn fbr
naturc to a concern ftrr a ccrtain way of handling associationsof human and non-humans
thlt would be an alternativc to modernizltior-r.He r-rcethe rather idiosyncratic sense of the
266
--
T O M O D Ê R N I Z EO R I O t - C O . O C S E ? T H A TI S I H E Q U E S I I O N
2ô7
TECHI..]OSCIENCE
about. I am not all encmy of the ecologists,but there is a collectiveintcrest that must come
before inàwidual interests."
15 This is the solution explorcd b1. Godard (op. cit.). See also the classicrvork of E. Weiss-
Brown (1989).Witncss the increascin generaliry on the part of the mayor of a tiny village
in the Côte d'Or rcgion of F'rancewho is addressinga local meeting on watcr. He turns to
a Cistercian monk-who is prcsent in the locll parliamcnt of water becausehis rnonastery
has been divertir.rgwater from the river since the XIIth century!- to call him to witness:"Be
fiuitful, rnd multiply irnd control the Earth."That's in the Bible! Father Frédéricwiil not say
othcrwisc, it is essentialfor our grandchildren to havc clcan water." (We can note in passing
thlt the theol-rgicalthemc of thc Crcation is interprcted here in a somewhat contradictory
manner sincc, in giving freedom to his creature,God gave man a level of control that he
denieshimself to his felklw creatures.We only have to treat nÀrurers our Crcator treated us,
to completely overturn the supposcdlink between Christianitl'and control over nafure.)
16 Witness this remark by onc of the few French elected representativesrvho is an ecologist,
and rvhr>boldll,combines a concen) for nature rvith civic concern for the region and conccrn
for the rnarket cconomy: "Upstream the region Limousin wants thc most narural rivcr rvater
and environmcnt possibic,notJbr itvlfhut for cconomic developrnent.The presen ed part of
the environment \s our trump card,we cannot make up for thirfy yearsof heary industry,wc
must not opposeecology and economy,lveare not yet polluted, we have 700,000 inhabit'.rnts,
xot:tttn play the qunlity-oJ.liJè nrd."
17 How long r'vill it be befbre the self-interest anthropoccntrism behind this phrase will bc
recogniz-cd:"The rivcr Gardon is an umbilical cord, rvc are all vcry much attached to it, in
the fir.ralanall'sisrve have neither the right to pollute it, nor to harncssit, so as not to deprive
othcrs of an element that thcy necd, we will invitably have to rvork out a rvay of sharing"?
Or bchincl this other phrase that gives the rir.er free rein while ât the same time draining
European Communiry funds: "On the lower river Doubs farnrerslvanted to kcep the river in
chcck rvith stone pitching, but the policl' 1vr. blocked in favor of creating a free meandering
section of the river, where fàrmers change their crops itt order to receilLtsubsidies under the
European Comrnuniry article 19 on agro-environrncntll measurcs"?
18 Scientific knr>wledgecontinucs to remain, with extremelv rare exceptions,e blackbox in the
ccomovements,where the social scicncesrarely sen'e as a point of refèrencefbr opcning
controversiesbetween experts.See Latour, Schrvirrtzand Charvolin (1991).
19 For a detailed criticism of the thcory of natural brlance, see D. B. Botkin (i990). For its
history, seeJ-NI. Drouin (1991,).
20 For a caricatureof an appeal to scicntism that is nonethelcssunablc to climinatc scienti{ic
conrroversies,seeEhrlich and Ehrlich (1997)
21 SeeP. Descola op. cit. and, fbr a recent analysis,N{. Strathern (199.5).Sce alsoWestern et 'al.
(1994) on "communiry basedconservation" and the recent w<-rrkof Charis Cussins (op.cit.).
22 A position which is particularly clear in Lervis (1992). See also Lrtt>ur (1994b) on this
constantinvolvcmcnt.
23 This is rvh.rt Luc Fcrry did with grcat efficao,,succcsstullykilling much of the Frcnch intcl-
lecnrals'interest in ecoloqy (Ferry 1992).
2,1 As we will sec below, deep ecology is no more part of ecology than thc cartesianfornrs of
humanisnr becauseit dr>csclosc off the questit>nthat rvàsjust reopened,by stating uncquivo-
cally that "humaniry-is obviously part of narure".
25 In fàct "naturc" is rnerely the uncodcd category that modcrnists oppose to "culrurc", in the
sâmeway that, prior to lèminism, "man"was the uncoded category'opposedto "woman". By
268
: , S E ? T H A TI S T H E Q U E S T I O N
269
I E C H N O S C I EI . ] CE
References
Barbier,R (1,992),Unecitédel'éco/og'ie,
trHESS, Mémoire de DtrA.
- thèsedesocio-éconornie
Barbier,R (1996),La politirJuedesdéchets del'innovation,
E,coledesmines,Paris.
Barnes,D. S (1994),TheMaking of a SocialDisease. in 19th Cennry
Tùberculosis
France,B erkeley,C aliforniaUniversiryPress.
Beck,U (1995),Ecologiru/
Politicsin theAge of Risk,Cambridge,Poliry Press.
Boltanski,L and L.Thévenot (7991,),Delajustification.Leséconomies
dela gran-
deur, Parîs,Gallimard.
Botkin, D. B (1990), DiscordantHarmonies. the20th Century.
A Nezt:EcologyJbr
Oxford, Oxford UniversiryPress.
Charvolin,F (1993),L'inttentiondel'environneînent enFrance(1960-1971).Les
pratirJuesdoutmentairesd'agrégationà /'originedu Ministère de la protection
dela natureet de/bnr,tironnement,Ecole nationalesupérieuredes minesde
Paris.
Chase,A (1987),PlayingGodinYellowstone.TheDestructionofAmerica\First
Nationsl Par*,New York, Harcourt Brace.
Colenran,W (1982),Death is a SocialDisease.
PublichHealtlt and PoliticalEconomy
in Eurly IndustrialFrace,Madison Wisconsin,Universiryof N'IadisonPress.
Cussins,C (2002),"WhenElephantsStandfor CompetingModelsof Nature",
iri Law,J and Mol, A (eds.),Complexityin Science, and Medicine,
Tbchnology,
Durham: Duke Ur"riversity Press.
Descola,P ([1986]1993),In theSociety in Arnazonia
Native Cosntology
oJ'Nature.
Carnbridge,CambridgeUniversityPress.
Descola,P and G. Palsson(eds.)(1996).Natureand Society.
Anthropological
Perspectives,London, Routledge.
et sonhistoire(préface
Drouirr,J.-N{ (7991),Réinpenterlo nonffe.L'écologie de ;
Michel Serres),Paris,Descléede Brouwer.
Ehrlich, P. R and A. H. Ehrlich (1.997),Ben'ayalof Science HotuAnti-
and Reason.
EnttironmentslRhetoricThretttens Ou' Future,Washington,DC, Island Press.
R.J (1987),Death in Haruburg.Society
Eva.rrs, ond Politicsin tbe CholeraYears
1830-1910,Harmondsworth, PenguinBooks. ;
270
t Z<E- : : : _ - . : : E ?T H A T
T O M O D E R I . IO t ST H EQ U E S T | O N