You are on page 1of 29

War of the Worlds

What about Peace?
Bruno Latour

Translated from the French by Charlotte Bigg
Edited by John Tresch



Copyright © 2002
Prickly Paradigm Press, LLC The lesson does not seem to sink in. When did Paul
All rights reserved.
Valéry prophetically observe that, “We have now
Prickly Paradigm Press, LLC
learned that all civilizations are mortal?” Just after
5629 South University Avenue the so-called Great War. Many horrific disasters have
Chicago, Il 60637 passed since, and yet we are still surprised when
another attack seems to threaten the precarious forms of life so dear to our hearts. Since September
2001, we go on dialing the same emergency number,
ISBN : 0-9717575-1-8 911, and rightly so, since we have entered a state of
LCCN : 2002 102649 emergency. We look around frantically to understand
why all that we feel is worth fighting for remains so
fragile. I read in the news that Hollywood
scriptwriters rushed to revise the catastrophist

ready to break everything with the never more solid than a future possibility to struggle powerful weapon of critique—down with empires. already smashed to the My argument in this tricky. might not be able to modernize the whole planet Still. The word “war” is spewing out of every mouth. Does such all. than to imagine that there is no war at all and keep talking endlessly about progress.2 3 scenarios that suddenly looked obscene in the face of after all. and development—without realizing the price that must although it sounds so disheartening at first there be paid in reaching such lofty goals. Unity has to be the end result of a diplomatic beliefs. the most important one: what by the recent events? To realize that we are in the about peace? I will argue that we are not faced with a midst of a war might take us out of the complacency peace unfairly shattered.” aims? And finally. nihilism locked into the narrow confines of their own civiliza- used to look like a gold mine when it was applied tion. Westerners so-called “modern age”—this modern parenthesis. threatened by all others in a war of all against hypothetically to any value worth its salt. fetishes. it can’t be its uncontroversial starting point. for. This does not mean that they are forever a much harsher reality. make one accepted common world. It call civilization in great danger of being found is not the case that an already existing peaceful union hollow? Who needs to add another deconstruction has been savagely shattered. unity was hammer. and . finally be raised: who is involved? What are their war gent. prickly piece is that it ground. being “brought to light. We have merely been to a heap of broken debris? The courageous icono. not look a bit silly now that what she wanted to strike down lies in dust. icons. throughout the toward fuzzy modernist ideals. it is not simply clast waving her arm in defiance. aren’t we? Fine. with all the nations converging the worlds has been raging all along. Far from being self evident. idols!—does she effort. So we are at might be an opportunity to seize on these clarion war. But then three questions can calls. so proud of her observed. reminded that unity has to be made. nor with a “war of civiliza- with which so many people imagined an ever more tions. It just means that they counted a bit prematurely idle criticism not look superficial now that nihilism on possessing a sure principle that could unify the is truly striking at “us”—at US— putting what we whole world. and by people who do not fit at all the ideal might after all be better to be at war.” What is emerging. nothing proves we are on the wrong side. and thus to be of the critical avant-garde?! What has happened to forced to think about the diplomatic work to be the critical urge? Has it not overshot its target? done. In “emergency” lays a hidden word. ideologies. modernity. No. “emer.” but that we have first to fathom that a war of peaceful future. In the same way.

their disputes and the diversity of their customs and languages. who are the parties engaged in this conflict? In earlier times things looked simpler: despite all their disagreements. No. that physical anthropology could describe fairly well. what is needed is a new recognition of the old war we have been fighting all along—in order to bring about new kinds of negotiation. The worst course would be to act as if there were no war at all. What is sure is that it has to be waged explicitly and not covertly. On the other hand. we cannot afford to declare that all bets are off. contain. humans used to share. The false peace offered by the one nature/many cultures divide If we are in a state of war. if we are going to bring the wars of modern- ization to an end. only the peaceful extension of Western natural Reason using its police forces to combat. that senseless violence will answer senseless violence. They could be compared synoptically not unlike the way a museum’s white . that premodern savagery will be met with premodern savagery. and a new kind of peace. a common world. Thus the many diverse cultures known to social and cultural anthropology stood out against a back- ground of natural unity. the world of nature.4 5 nothing proves either that this war cannot be won. without even knowing it. and convert the many Empires of Evil. That is the mistake those who still believe they are moderns are in danger of making.

There may have been other words. with their many idiosyn. no matter democracy. but ultimately the passionate diversity to a reassuring and rational world (in the singular) external nature would be agreed upon reality. rational debates or careful scrutiny. then passions would be possibility of disagreement among specialists or calmed. we need differences of opinion. If cultural differ. To be sure. through This denominator was even more indisputably education. technical efficiency. even violent conflicts. this solution was convenient in solving the problem of the progressive composition of the common world . could to be classed in the same humanity. it could Different cultures existed. There may be many ways of tations. contradictory and subjec- tive representations humans had of it. but we can rely how far they went. but they all shared a itself. If. disagreements and violent only to increase the relative share of scientific objec- conflicts remained. be eased or alleviated if one only focused a little ences shined so vividly. its material reality. always seek solace in this haven of unity and peace crasies. which by construction—no! It is impossible now to realize the extent to which precisely. but at least there was only one nature with its offered by science. this was because the unity of more on this unifying and pacifying nature and a nature provided the common denominator. Even if humanity featured diver- enough to bring agreement among them all. Agreement was in principle always possible. little less on the divergent. There always remained the hope that tons. economic profitability and the subjectivity of the human mind without ever democratic debate. customs and arts. Finns and Laplanders. ecosystems and evolution which allowed them differences of opinion. one common when one moved from the world of human succeeded in bringing the one natural and physical nature to the world of non-human nature. Therefore. Thus one could always move from disciplines certainly remained. Conflicts between humans. on reason to reunite us. ideas and images that diverse cultures could bringing up children. differences. in masks hung side by side. muscles. when disputes occur. but they all had their source in tivity. Passions may divide us. never cut very deep. but there is only one embryo- have of a single biophysical nature. be fundamental since they did not affect the world Californians and Burgundians. remained limited to the represen. if common make-up of genes. gent religions.6 7 wall helps to bring out the differences between exotic In this blessed era of modernism. by nature—remained intangible. neurons. The reality into the debates. and the disputes will soon cease. its cosmology or its ontology. technology. engaging the world. not easy. economics and necessary laws. they could never Bantus and Baoules. skele. genesis. rights.

because funda- claim in the order of the world. Humanity. this world in the singular. curators. the one Anthropologists. there remained a slight suspicion that the in a museum or a reserve or a hospital and then be referee of all the disputes could be biased. as though the forever banned from participating in the serious task of unifying the world had been delegated matters of state. There were certainly mentally “the West” was not a culture “among” wars. who say Yankee…Unification proceeded. such as cultural diversity. physicians. of nature since they would never be able to return to Human Rights—in short the world of the Human— make a claim for their objectivity and request a place suffered from being a little ethnocentric. Democracy. one universal humanity. artists. in a somewhat unfair manner. this in itself did not seem shocking to most idiosyncrasies since they never threatened to stake a Westerners and their many clients. or even merely American. tradition. Australians and later Japanese certainly rights of man and of human beings as such. it was all too were locked up in convents for life. since it enjoyed a privileged access to nature world. etc. they would be clear. The many cultures were debarred from any ontological world had been unified. fitted out from head to foot. However even enjoy the luxury of “respecting” those diverse odd. In those possessed cultural traits which identified them as not-so-distant times. Like trifle imperialist. but there was only one others. Maybe turned into more or less collective forms of subjec. of tivity. unity had been ance—but of a very condescending sort since the fully constituted. the many warring parties engaged in local conflicts. Diversity could be handled by toler- the hard work had already been done. of the Market. speak of one planet. Their conservation did not threaten the unity Technology. if not a in the only real world under the only real sun. innumerable ones. made it possible to and its already-accomplished unification. Nature. For after all. which. as “values” to be respected. the Americans. In other words. known by Reason. not to the wives and children of overthrown monarchs. inner religious feelings. (although no one had actually delegated anything) to only one of the cultures of the world.8 9 (which is the name I give to politics). Although there could be resisted modernization—and if this failed. the leftovers could be gathered together Of course. could bearing the imprecise name of the West. but their access to nature . there could have been no wars unique cultural groups. and there remained only the claim to participate in the controversial definition of task of convincing a few last recalcitrant people who the one world of nature. without hesitation. one leftovers could always be stored among those thing was sure: there was only one arbiter. Europeans. of the worlds. madness. well. the world of Science.

fundamentally devoid of meaning. their harsh reality could neither be smelled. paradox of these strange times we call “modernity”— “modernization” was beyond doubt the common which retrospectively appear no longer as the motor property of humanity—and even if “modernization” of history. however. and even acknowledged it with a sort of sado- a nature known by reason. nor could they provide any truly human signi- rather coming closer to this fundamental. simply marked the more or less wipe away our tears. of all modernization. provide another. indisputable and declare. fication. which. “The great scientific discoveries.10 11 swiftly made these superficial differences disappear. surrendering to modernization and naturaliza. but increasingly as the partial representa- came to be disputed. many cultural representations. nor alism or voluntarily imitating a cultural model. “are incessantly common world and thus to draw nearer to unity. less as it was disenchanted! Herein lies the whole If “Westernization” could be challenged or rejected. a little hitch in this peaceful diverse cultures. They were surrendering to colorful pretensions. one’s motley cosmologies. Technology and the Market. because of its break with all the many ways of life with their rich rituals. dering to another people when they respectively though. wrenching us from our little village and hurling us Neither those who were developing nor those being into the frightening. “let us become adults at last. tion compelled one to mourn the passing of all one’s markets and democracy. it also had the serious draw- back. infinite spaces of an icy cosmos developed had the feeling that they were surren. imparting unification. It’s a pity but that’s the way it is: you can either choose to cling to your There was.” to connect directly to the objective origin of the they were glad to say with a shudder.” Ultimately. alternatively. “Let us cultural inheritances. this was not a matter of choice: moderniza- disseminated or adopted sciences. of being Thus. in the eyes of its very promoters. modernist version of politics: nature was as meaning. Objective facts in tion did not mean submitting to any given imperi. technologies. The solution always was masochistic joy. deeper uncontroversial bedrock For if nature had the immediate advantage of common to all. humanity is unifying—as if truth was finally shining through a leaving behind its myth-imbued childhood and is tear in the colorful screen clumsily painted by the stepping into the harsh reality of Science. and conflicts will not cease. or.” the modernists liked to dramatic eruption of nature. The modernists themselves were fully aware putable source of unification that was to be rooted in of this. indis. you can accept unity and the sharing of . but tasted. then “naturalization” could tion of one historical episode now come to an end. whose center we no longer occupy.

the hard core of nature.” but never had a anti. without this center conflicts by appealing to a single common world. since with truly admirable magnanimity. the ethnic group without rituals. thanks to Science. was thought to have borders. this was never the case for the of the word). The modernizing West may have been definition be applied to the West.” the Westerners. as Roy Wagner has argued. Technology and had a great advantage. Through the mediation of scientific objectivity. Whereas all the others had main. anybody all peoples and all nations have placed themselves in could join this fatherland without ancestors.12 13 a common world. the rock bottom of the difference between “us” and “them” as a great. but whose hidden strength was to The irresistible advance of the modernization front have reached. tech- lishing relations of trade.” unification is devoid of meaning? who evidently possessed more or less emphasized cultural traits. the most evenly distributed. this the center. culture. unifying nature through the hard work of criticism tained a fundamental equality between them. whatever his or her ethnic group according to Descartes. The term “ethnocentrism” cannot by any history. in that and rational discussion. having a particular ethnic group as its origin.” One may wonder “cultures. This How long can one survive in peace when torn by this was indeed precisely what enabled the difference to impossible double bind with which modernizers have be established between “them”—prisoners inside the trapped themselves together with those they have narrow confines of their cultures. incapable of modernized: nature known by reason unifies. For the twentieth-century world wars did not consist of this first time in history. All center was made of nature and not of any particular the more so. since the political formation been less ethnocentric than it. the West could occupy. but this grasping the unifying principles of nature—and “us. and then. relegating the others to the periphery. alone. like common sense it gave everybody. nical efficiency and economic profitability. they were all at the very least peoples. as Lévi- . the chance to become universal like itself.” but “we. odd way with which the West sought to pacify all the position of undeniable center. domination and avoidance. Although ethnocentrism. and although in estab. and only the West. contrary to what “naturocentric” or “ratiocentric. this world will be devoid of meaning. this country of reason. naturally (in every sense Strauss had often said. the backdrop of radical break. is of all things in the world of origin. this country without West. able to access escaped this fate. modernists: the others were “peoples” and Too bad. love it or leave it.and post-colonialists might claim. were only whether one of the many metaphysical origins of the “half” culture. universality. and that was to help define Economics’ slow work of erosion.

if not solving. although we which triggered a frantic search throughout the are able to grasp it objectively. The the hypocritical condescension of cultural relativism solution for diminishing. tolerant and multiculturalism should not hide the price that interested eye. and. collective. b) the West. so rightly criticized by Donna Haraway. you have the right to cherish your culture. since. and all of them equally disengaged from . only led to despair at others likewise have this same right. on the other. the more one belonged to reality. on of the cultural relativist. Multiculturalism is nothing more than the centric. condescending. But the notion of culture. ideological form of mere repre- belonging had any significance: a strange paradox. but all who. biophysical. Let us sum up the situation as it was when modern- is relational: ethnic groups do not belong in the same ization was at its height: a) we possessed a privileged. And don’t be mistaken. it should not be forgotten. was to make the notion of “culture” sacred. somewhere. The evading this common world with a simultaneously impression of great open-mindedness given by watchful. we may recognize best a sociobiological Darwinian machinery. when it was finally found. neuronal—at respect and complete indifference. “You possess meaning. For. the less this subjective. cultures packed with make no real difference anyway. reinvented. the rich diversity provided by many cultures. imprisoned by their own symbolic representations one perspective on otherness. “but you no longer have remained unsolved. conserved. this contra. gories have engendered everywhere. not as charming and meaningful as these delightful respected. the meaning of this existence still perhaps. whole planet to discover the generic human being. occasionally even made up productions which human whim and arbitrary cate- from scratch. and certainly not the might think. even if they are Cultures began to be cherished. To the eyes diction between a unifying but senseless nature. whatever some humans is but one of the possible ways of relating to others. we could profit from peoples had to pay for the preservation of their exis. c) in addition. ontological category as cabbages or turnips.14 15 But in the end. or else you have it merely in the symbolic. meaning but no longer entitled to rule objective nature continues to unify reality by means of laws reality. alone in not being ethno- only one. and all cultures the sight of what had turned out to be again mere are valued by us equally. contemplated the multiplicity of ways of flipside of what may be termed mononaturalism. all tence in the form of culture. those cultural differences the one hand. sentations of a world that escapes you. Culture natural world already unified. this fatherland without father or mother. comparable. that are indisputable and necessary.” In this combination of nature: animal. dismayed.” they were told. genetic.

enriching and orna- menting. a general increase in the dose of universal nature would bring agreement straight away. Pasteurs. engineers. They affected representations. the very fabric of the world. Newtons. the harsh world of facts and reason—provided. despite the wars that were unleashed one which had never recognized the existence of a on an ever more staggering scale. the now vanished From mono. Curies.” A peculiar offer of peace. To speak like philosophers. may the world of harsh reality come in cannot help but be struck by the extent to which it to pacify your disputes. no reality wars: worlds were never at stake. never the “primary multi-naturalism world which the alliance of mononaturalism and multiculturalism had proposed. d) as an added bonus. was peaceful. and if your disputes tion—a few short centuries of violent spasms—one are too noisy. Voila. only the many symbolic representations of the one and only world. in a few words. the many worlds are yours. politics always appeared—and still . economists and democrats. “The one world is Looking retrospectively at the episode of moderniza- ours. by means of values and passions. cultural conservatism was indis- pensable for embellishing. no real wars. e) since this universal nature had no human meaning. unity was already complete. we were offered some sort of peace proposal which presupposed that there could be no conflict whatsoever. only the “secondary qualities” were at stake. even to the Oppenheimers. This is not a war in the first place! paradox: the West was fundamentally peaceful since disagreements could never go very far.16 17 the construction of the common natural reality.” To the Galileos. but they never touched the substance. which was left safely in the hands of culture-free scientists. Finally. of course. that none of these cultures claimed any ontological pretensions.

psychologized. tion: the invention of a tolerant society. Or if it could efficiently. more than a highly biased interpretation of events that there were wars in the world.18 19 appears to Steven Weinberg—as a violent fire that a of their cerebral movie theaters. divisive. in the fying and stabilizing was this feeling of inner peace eyes of Tocqueville and François Furet. Westerners were all convinced that peace was always within But this solution is no longer available to those who arm’s reach. it could always be internal. There passions and our representations. for instance. sunk into the private depth of West became entangled with every nation and every our inner selves. Only history. This is what the West had managed living and non-living entity on Earth. there existed no source of was happening has been active. However terrifying the conflicts were. Religion had to become a with the progressive imbroglios of humans and non- mere culture so that nature could become a true reli. opinions and feelings—so modernists about becoming at last released from the long as they remained within the narrow boundaries shackles of the past? The harsh reality of becoming . To be sure. interpretation of the events in which the West participated.” Yes. accurate account of the strange ways in which the ized. and sometimes very conflict that could not be wiped out. Living side the West? Which one of these three following by side implied no re-negotiation of the common phenomena should the anthropologist study most world already constituted. grati. more modern than the French revolutionaries. In this sense the West has never been Already we have forgotten just how reassuring. but simply the acceptance carefully: the self-congratulatory talk of the of others’ eccentricities. just behind the narrow walls of our no longer live under the sway of modernism. humans at an ever-expanding scale that characterizes gion—what brings everyone into assent. For all vations. but not wars of science. How to recon- so successfully with “religious peace. it does not involve the world. but I have become convinced that the best the “others” were at war because of the archaic way is to treat “modernism” as an anachronistic calling of their subjective passions. What a perfect solu- little more objective science could always snuff out. modernism as a theory of what those great ancestors. but no. but it was never an not be made to disappear. but never wars of with different and sometimes entirely opposite moti- the worlds—except in science-fiction stories. How could they are many ways to interpret modernism and its define any war aims? There was no war at all. have been that the modernists enjoyed: this absolute certainty revolutionary. Modernism has never been anything that there would be wars. religion is cile. only progress and detachment from any archaic constraint one’s private salvation. the war cry for emancipation. in molding the events.

causes for concerns. but instead many of the former hybrids of law. science. the only a lot like “us” now—and this is why we are finally at possibility now seems to add to the turmoil of war with them. with it. Matters of fact were supposed ated anymore. longer looks like “the West.” “They” look solid importation of indisputable facts. it was still possible to imagine also its inner peacefulness and. which had been dance started by multiculturalism—after the latter conceived as the filling up of the world with ever was blown to pieces along with the hypocritical more matters of fact. The fount of peace no longer exists “out there. issues. “objects” Whichever choice is made. technology. To use another etymology. Mononaturalism has been replaced by a place. that is. it has lost While in earlier times. in the sense of the mixture of assem- Through the cracks of the call for universal reason blies. No one wants to be just toler- to call states of affairs. thus requiring ways through which the talk about progress inter. have become “things” the events it purported for so long to interpret. chose. Facts are no longer the mouth-shut- entanglements of humans and non-humans that are ting alternative to politics. but what sort of battle are we passions the turmoil generated by hotly disputed expected to lead? states of affairs. What looked at first like a tempest in a teacup monster inconceivable only ten years ago: multinatu- has revealed itself as the tiny tell tale sign of a much ralism (to use the neologism devised by Eduardo larger transformation. One way to sum up this sea Viveiros de Castro) which has joined in the devilish change is to say that modernity. data. passion and facts have become controversial issues that create social ties? Or. another quasi-legal or quasi-political procedure to feres. accelerates.20 21 more attached every day to ever more opaque nature out there. its complete quieting down the turbulent political passions by a asymmetric distance from the “others. No one can bear to be just one to bring agreement by appealing to the objective culture “among others” watched with interest and . but what has to be stabi- being generated on an ever-expanding scale? lized instead. causa. law suits. cultures no longer wish to The slogan invented by journalists a few years ago be mere cultures.” In addition. now appears a rather monstrous animal that no controversies which the words res. again. aitia. blinds and perturbs the many bring closure.” If it has ceased to be ding have designated in all the European languages. is now full of what I would like tolerance it entailed. there is no longer any which had been conceived as wholly exterior to the overlap between modernism as an interpretation and social and political realm. We are now facing wars of the has been well chosen: “Science Wars” are taking worlds. should she follow instead the perverse more dissent than agreements. familiar to the eyes of the anthropologist.

than just Things look just as bad on the side of multiplicity. and is no longer the obvious solution to all unity and the crisis of multiplicity. of world unity. Light was seen at the end of the tunnel. total and in the process of completion. who brings to humanity. fragmentation is now beginning to make tolerance look equally problematic. Reality is spoken of nowadays. Another paradox? No. say. in 1790. “We” were all who in the past would have been mad enough to put going to share the same world. the crisis of solved. the corner. of the human being. a tragedy. “the” up barricades against universality? Against nature? world in the singular never appeared more global. in Seattle or Porto Alegre. during the times of misconceived impression that contemporary modernization. despite their fond- discourses on globalization might give. Oddly enough. if not positively dangerous. Contrary to the conflicts as it was before. Victory was around titiously resorted. in their negative renderings. the global or the world- “globalization” and “fragmentation. a crushing once again becoming the issue at stake. learned. 1968 or 1989. ization” and start noisily demanding the right to 1918. Today. maintain their “cultural exception”—something that marks of particular significance to the Europeans. José Bové. since American imperialistic grab on food production! For we were under the impression of having connected the first time. for they indicate. or as a challenge to be taken up. to take a few simple land. 1848. before the period when the word “globalization” While globalization is causing problems for unity.22 23 indifference by the gaze of the naturalizers. of progress and of world citizens. as a front striking symptom of these changing times. for when globalization is Has anyone sufficiently remarked upon the oddness . 1945. objective publicly what is at stake in a merciless war—and no source of unity and peace. Going global or be a mistake not to take these “globalloneys” very worldwide has become a serious problem to be seriously. In their positive as much as The conjunction of two words repeated ad nauseam. necessity. the model for which was longer the invisible unity to which everybody surrep- provided by the natural sciences. barricades go up against globalization and its perils: Modernization was about to triumph. started ringing in our ears. of Berkeley a smelly Roquefort in order to stop the planet Earth.” constitutes a wide are spoken of as a war-like uprising. it is as a fatal danger. It would or a battle which could be lost. a passionate commitment. Even the French. It would have been inconceivable even ten years ago! was still possible at these different dates to speak of They worship a farmer. respectively. the global is becoming visibly and history to the single rational. our age is ness for republican universality. rally “against global- much less global than it was.

from a situation of total war led by longer sounds at all like “natural. we ought to be rejoicing: if globalization is dangerous. is well and truly over. about humanity. human rights and the fact that we except in the realm of superficial representations. opponents. the hypocritical nature as it was deciphered by reason. which allegedly prevents any common world. have seen the last of tolerance. It is To put things in a more positive and less bellicose possible to measure the staggering speed of transfor. as Isabelle Stengers provocatively said.” and “fragmented” absolute pacifists. should we not be welcoming globalization with open arms. within the mation with this tell tale sign: the word “global” no past few years. Is it not peace of modernity. which is blamed for unifying too rapidly and without negotiation? Because. There is which themselves did not really involve the world of now a war of the worlds.24 25 of complaining simultaneously about fragmentation. Fragmentation shatters mononaturalism. are all similar inhabitants of the same world. along with the hypocritical respect The modernists were never really at war since they of comparative anthropology. we identify precisely the deep transformation that took us out of modernism and the convenient solution it offered to the problems of unity and multiplicity. whether the aim is to create “Qui vis pacem…declare war” multiplicity or unity. after all. and about globalization. fronts and violent contradictions are finally starting to appear. as some- thing which at last provides unity and common sense? In complaining so unfairly against both globalization and fragmentation. astounding that the modernists managed to wage war all over the planet without ever coming into conflict . then long live the fragmentation that shatters its hegemony. but if supposedly post-modern fragmentation is so terrifying. Peace. globalization destroys multicultur- alism. way. to a situation of open warfare no longer sounds like “culturally respectable. and smug assertions did not recognize the existence of possible conflicts.” We which offers genuine prospects for peace. On both sides. one might say that we have moved.

without ever declaring war? Quite the As a result. but which collective fights everywhere and all the time. unin. by force of understand the demands of peace. were educational! Even talks? There is no war! We are just tidying things up. only a misunderstanding about symbolic . When one benefits from a mandate given unbridgeable gulf. profound peace. one is no pre-existing common world whose necessary laws longer running a war but simply carrying out police some irrational minds refuse to recognize. of course. which say that that the modernist civilizers never had considered themselves to be no more than simple enemies and modern history has never really police operations undertaken in the name of an witnessed a proper war. the necessities of diplomacy. common mediator to whom both sides can turn for arbitration.26 27 with anyone. Yes. not a real conflict. Schmitt says. reality. their conquests. If this is true. the uncer- terrupted progress. indisputable civilization. in any case.” The only good of the people. which never even could declare war.. They had no adversaries or tainties involved in negotiation. since there is no such gulf. of war aims. What diplomacy? Which war aims? What peace their wars. not a conflict about war with anybody.. Sent to work by the “call of could negotiate. “What negotiation? enemies in the proper sense—just bad pupils. We are expressing the reality of the order re-read Captain Cook or Jules Verne: there were that has always been there. How could they come to a close if putable arbiter. then one can indeed recognized the enemy’s status as an enemy. nature having always given them a mandate more imperative than those of the League of Carl Schmitt contends that only where there is no Nations. but always for the representations had somewhat obscured. the writing down arms. Who operations. Science and its undertaken if war was never declared? Contact need unified matters of fact. Reason and its way to reach not be established between the two sides of an agreement. became as unpacifiable as they they always deferred to the authority of an indis. they cannot even begin to contrary! All they did was to spread. indisputable mediator. since the conflict did not involve nature” the modernists thus simply policed the world two sides—and. is there an enemy against whom one It is clear that such latent wars. were open ended. their massacres were purely pedagogical! We should that’s all. Even when fighting fiercely. “That should teach them a wars the modernists ever waged were Wilsonian lesson…” wars. there wasn’t really a and could say with pride that they had never been at conflict. of a mediator far above all possible they had never started? How could peace talks be forms of conflict: Nature and its laws. only a by a mediator who oversees the conflict.

and to resume the And yet peace is at stake here. if we now stoop so peace. In contrast to the history that sought to Whites have only met the specter of the irrational modernize. an immense task which we will need to accom- task of composing the common world and take plish one step at a time. the West has to admit to the existence of and the archaic. ready to accept all other centuries of servants of reason. to refuse to accept mere tolerance. for this operation to begin. like nature. it is not already constituted. they are now at war. They had no enemies. to take seriously the diversity of worlds. as Samuel Huntington advises us these conflicts. our forefathers and tell them without feeling (“Why do other people hate us so much?” ask the ashamed that we have given up the worthy goal of post-911 Americans. on condition of no longer claiming to grasp that it could be reached without being at war with reality for good. for good. “when we are so sincere. the solution cannot be to abandon the of us. peace is what we construction of both the local and the global. common world? It is not this plain-spoken. It is not above us. taking themselves to be by universality. but only the strange idea exist. but ahead Of course. How could we. the West will goals? Who could delight in being forever at war? have to go through the most painful period of What sort of intellectual would I be if I kept mourning a unity lost. the real enemies. which themselves might easily co. The existence of culture and forgetting the task of common world is now up for grabs.28 29 representations. And it should be longing for. the descendants of birth global citizens. so living in one single. The common world we took condoning such bellicose talks? But the question is for granted must instead be progressively composed. look in the eyes of cultures no matter how extravagant their diversities. final goal that is to blame. so how could they ever think about peace? enemies. what could become the subject of to do. creating a common world—not to mention the horrendous difficulty of partitioning the planet into This brutal transformation may admittedly give homogeneous “civilizations. In the march of civilization. This would mean believing once again in the compromise—should negotiation take place. The common world is not behind us and ready made. low as to abandon. the promised land of they liked everybody. so good-natured?”) . it is what is at stake in one’s own culture. how to reach peace. so well-meaning.” The whole of Western Westerners cause for despair: they used to live in history would have been in vain. Who could pursue other is true that. like the refuge behind the blinkers and behind the bunkers of arbiter who mediates conflicts. They were never faced with war in order to make peace: to accept that it has had enemies.

Negotiating the sovereignty of ontologies and so many conflicting metaphysics. only the means are different—and the teenth century. they were convinced of the unity might have provoked. alas. the Westerners. the used to be the case (in the times of modernism and modernists. unity and multiplicity A complete metamorphosis is now required of the cannot be achieved unless they are progressively former modernizers: let them look again. to decide globalization and fragmentation at the same time. their objects. that is. It was they have to start all over again. their ontology. to . but what about negotiating background of an indisputable (and. What they thought was a done deal is just up with so many worlds. But nothing arbiter of all conflicts? proves that this “bifurcation of nature. this pandemonium of nature and the diversity of cultures. and centuries and are allowed.” as A. ceased to be “others” in the older. by generously offering nickname one might wish to give them) will have to to let the others in. nineteenth. Their goals remain modernism was invented somewhere in the seven- the same. modern sense) to but the only hope for those fighting against both define what “global” might really mean.” They had an Compared to the light shiver that cultural relativism infallible solution. their others for the first time. and suddenly can only evoke at first repulsion and dismay. their times and their spaces. right in the pieced together by delicate negotiations. forced to attempts must be made to develop a protophysics— fight again like the others (who meanwhile have an indescribable horror for the modernizing peoples. as if history has given them souls. eighteenth. is the Whatever follows modernism at least has the advan. in the twenty-first. the final less) nature full of matters of fact. There is no doubt that the war of the worlds is taking place. or twentieth after physics but now precedes it as well. tage of being clearer. the Whites (whatever later post-modernism). a few years later. final state of history. It was in order to avoid having to put timing. in an incredible second chance and they were back in short. Whitehead calls this catastrophic solution. this mess. Nobody can face of this Gorgon they had tried to hide from. on condition that they leave at act as if they are once again making contact with the the door all that is dear to them: their gods. here they are. so many contradictory beginning anew. And yet they have precisely to steer clear of all of this horror that nothing to be despondent about. meaning- the status and the sovereignty of nature. what meaning to give to “multiplicity. Metaphysics no longer comes the seventeenth. that Jerusalem might seem like the most difficult of they were wisely set up as (in)different entities on the diplomatic quandaries. N. as However strange it might seem at first sight.30 31 Suddenly. constitute the unity of the world for anybody else.

which beings. everything to fire and the sword with the aim of pacifying them in the name of a fundamental and Modernism distinguishes itself from its successor— already-constituted peace. All pieced together. with the same tension. could once again fall on our heads and those of our The modernists knew on good authority that the children in the form of radical climate changes. Let them of progress—even if the inexplicable resurgence of finally agree that they have enemies. conquerors should rather be they are at risk of losing. the sky. . And that’s enough to change everything. While the inter-cultural duced so efficiently by Ulrich Beck. all over the West.” intro- tiate. it?) and the incomprehensible rise of irrationality (and how could they have understood it?) often gave To arrive unannounced among other peoples and put them cause to despair the slow pace of civilization. the same fire and now on the battle is about the making of the the same swords.32 33 introduce themselves properly. as appearing. since there was no real duced themselves so badly in previous centuries battle. consequently. and fighting on the battlefield to common world and the outcome is uncertain. is as swift as it is imperceptible. those who put up barricades against globalization. only the inevitable march through the most ruthless imperialism. battle was won in advance. of the motif of “risk. so that they can archaism (and how indeed could they have explained make offers of peace. it indi- world is already common and that there is a cates rather that everyone has once again. “Non-modernity”?— in this one small respect: from perhaps with the same violence. is not the same thing. the impression that things could go petty disputes. Who ever mentioned dialogue? Who asked gration. no battle for reality. and in earnest. That’s decide which common world should be progressively all. they who had intro. the negotiation we should be wrong. For instance. all erant conquistadors with specialists of inter-cultural those who fight against fragmentation and disinte- dialogue. ance. It is not a matter of replacing intol. by no means dialogue implies that ninety per cent of the common signifies that life has become more dangerous. in their universal referee waiting for the parties to settle their day-to-day life. The sudden appear- and that. replaced by enemies capable of recognizing that those facing them are enemies also and not irrational Two little expressions illustrate this transition. the what should it be called? “Second modernity”? same mission. this very sky my Gallic prepared for includes the ninety per cent—God. that the outcome of the battle is uncertain. ancestors feared was about to fall on their heads. Nature and souls included—and there is no arbiter. it may be necessary to nego. understand the implications of a war which for tolerance? No.

34 35 Back to square one. which were. media- friendly. often despised words which instead point to the world’s tremendous sea change. The first contacts are made. which has of course nothing to do with suspending action. What? Does this mean we now have to act with care and precaution. up until now. There is indeed no reason to think that. comes also the possibility of winning! And for good this time. the pre-modernists whom the civilizers tried to replace in the risk-free running of the planet? Yes. of risking loss. of fighting. like the others. all over again. . and in any case there is today no theme more widespread in Western societies than the principle of precaution. what advantages nevertheless arise for the ci- devant modernists! With the opportunity of intro- ducing themselves properly this time. the Westerners will find themselves at a disadvantage. to the ebbing tide of modernism. exactly. the cowards.” “precaution”: here are a few of the popular.” “risk. “Globalization. but simply marks the return of anxious and vigilant procedures in the areas connected with science and technology. in piecing together the common world of the future. characterized by absolute certainty.” “disintegration. What sort of unity? Jus naturalism or constructivism? Despite the feeling of horror that this change in circumstances might at first provoke in them and in others.

peace. Diplomats know world war. To castigate oneself.36 37 On the condition that they don’t move. the extension—of rationality. After all. the martingale which used to ensure your success at ders the white man’s crushing burden is nothing every draw. in the mean. but there is no reason either why you other than continuing to always define by one’s self should now always lose. reason is not so and in the name of all. No one is even asking them to abandon advantage of getting to work after the balance of their search for universality. taken place. nowhere. become self-satisfied and complacent. nor pardon. since in any case all forces has become visible on the ground. What is at stake here is war. commerce. To be sure diplomats are others by violence. management and admin. Now that time. and neither is toler. the construction of the common space. to carry on one’s shoul. for lack of the common world. Only one thing is asked of them complicities. Just as no one had asked the real enemies acknowledged as such…Reason has modernists to take themselves for universal pacifiers. Screaming “relativism!” whenever one now: that they cease to consider universality as their is faced with trouble is not enough to keep oneself own already established territory. The desperate guilt up in a hair shirt and scratch at one’s scabs like Job trip for past crimes committed will get them on his dung heap. dialogue is not the issue. get up on your feet! It’s up to you now ance. this fundamental metaphysical war about that there exists no superior referee. the impossible task of defining too long since it had a chance to fight. no arbiter able . Again. backroom compromises. greed. and that they in good marching order. it is no longer the time to dress self-flagellation and penitence. to the rationalists. often hated as potential traitors ready for seedy evangelization. but they have the great istration. from civilizing and modernizing arrogance to the task is at hand. knowledge. not before peoples now find themselves involved in this other as in the case of police operations. ready for the extension— finally agree to negotiate for it after the battle has yes. to fight for your place in the sun! You perhaps no negotiation. guilt. it has got used no one asks them today to take themselves for to the Capuan luxury of naturalism and to its easy universal culprits. without the others having weak that it can never win. It has just been a little delegated anything. Westerners. and neither will it win them forgiveness. conquest. It’s just required of them that they finally become worthy of the prodigious initiative The sticky point is that to the short-term reason of they once took—no matter if it was due to God. diplomacy and the construction of longer benefit from the absolute winning formula. one should add the long-term Gold or to Science—to come into contact with reason of the diplomat.

but it is also perfectly suited to define the parley among declared enemies who. polit- modernizers to archaic and backward opponents. as they will tion between jus naturalism and constructivism. there is no war. Negotiation cannot even start. they are ‘pure’ fabrications. could introduce a distinc- not know how to assemble peace talks.” that God must be “produced. undermining. Whereas rationalists would modernists. landscapes and nations. to present them- and should be disciplined. in the sense of whole of the modernist solution. laws: there exists out there a nature whose necessary mats is that they don’t know for sure what are the laws make it possible to judge by contrast the diver- exact and final goals—not only of their adversaries sity of cultural idiosyncrasies. after all. tradition that played out in closed rooms. When we say that nature is different ways to achieve the goals of the parties at “constructed. “So. gods. The great quality of diplo. the tiny margin of the negotiations possess another. it is there. . If a solution is to be selves more politely than before. The parties to the is much richer and that we can call constructivist. with them here and talks in a less counter-productive way. Nothing proves in advance the person must be “fabricated. on condition that Carl Schmitt.” one could object. jus natu- but also of their own people.” it is immediately that modernizers might not be willing to modify the assumed we are attacking. term “natural law” is predominantly used in legal tional. the former now and nowhere else. Reason At first glance though. to be sure. since it suffers from entirely different if you pit proponents of different one of modernism’s major faults: it is usually associ- common worlds one against the other. to introduce the found. criticizing ways to achieve their cherished goals if they were their supposed solidity. “neither nature. values. among them.” that war. works of art. almost contradictory. However. But the outcome might be does not seem very compelling. The not give seats to those they call “archaic” and “irra. but there is no possible peace either. nor the divinities. Because then ated with social construction and with the vocabu- diplomats could begin to realize that there are lary of criticism. ical arenas. It is the only leeway ralism is not the modernists’ only tradition: they they possess. are fabricated. for instance. shown that the cult of nature makes it impossible to outraged.38 39 to declare that the other party is simply irrational To formulate their peace offers. If you oppose rationalist and so are fetishes. be willing to alter slightly Facts. conflicts may. nor reach them. what they were fighting for. the notion of construction recognizes no enemy. persons ‘really’ exist. including their own.” diplomats might know how to organize a theory. as their etymology indicates. may become allies after the peace the notion of “rule” be extended to include physical negotiations have ended.

are constructed. if we understand it in ated. Constructivism. nature cannot be generalized. in contrast. while construc- “How do you manufacture them?” And. it is the very notion of jus naturalism that the notion of “nature” itself has been made. that is. (the former “others”).” After all. le in those new parleys if we were presenting only to travail du deuil. unity is always the one thing that is no real and beyond fabrication after the fabrication has longer at stake. above all. others have this new (very old) positive sense. even the very the slow composition of the common world. they persist in clinging to those representations. construction rhymes with Exactly the opposite is the case: by definition. From both sides of the table (if indeed it else). might suggest that the former modernists are the They must face their loss—the loss of the possibility only ones to make this opposition: for the others of reaching assent by an appeal to external nature.” have seen. extending to the whole planet. On the other hand. as we forces the opposition with “artificial. an production. but you might be . objects and worlds are taken to be instance culture. to prevent a progressive agreement about “subjective. if While the concept of nature implies antonyms. If opposite. they are simply irrational. Such is the event no one could foresee. parties. More agreement about nature cannot be reached. “Is it or isn’t it constructed?” but rather: now. the notion of construction could “constructed” entities. may be shared by all—at least it “How do you verify that they are well constructed?” is worth a new diplomatic attempt. because this result leaves Westerners the others our constructivist profile?” And yet. the your worlds as much as ours. entities that could fail serve as a lingua franca for beginning to understand (and the notion of construction implies nothing each other. persons. your selves as much as ours.” “human.” “fabricated. You cannot Here is where negotiations could begin: with the dream any longer of the modern definition of nature question of the right ways to build. which does not need to be negoti- taken place. Once nature enters the debate. authentication and qualification. then here is perhaps a means of opening the is a table) one would then hear: “At least we can be peace talks again by rephrasing the war aims of all sure of one thing: that your gods as much as ours. because exactly. would have no only subjective and biased representations of it. we without what they believed was their highest virtue.” last decades and that the label postmodernism The relevant question for the diplomats would no covers so badly: contrary to modernists’ beliefs up to longer be. With word “fact” designates what is fabricated and what is nature. for gods. your sciences as much major transformation that has been going on for the as ours. tivism.40 41 ‘simple’ social constructions? How could we not lose This is where the mourning should take place.

the Individual. forgotten or hidden by modernism and its the end. by definition. dressed up as a civi- modern. diplomacy cannot begin until we suspend our assumptions about what does or does not count It is at this turning point in the negotiations that the as difference. showing the others their “Occidentalism” in this context may be understood constructivist face instead of their naturalizing gaze. In this respect. confronting good and bad constructions of worlds. it is istic goals. Economics and painted savages—that they themselves adopt towards Politics) as points beyond any discussion or conces- other cultures. There are more ways than one to former modernists could appeal to their own differ—and thus more than one way to agree—in resources. Likewise. But to do that they have to sort out who were civilized as irrational or as archaic their heritage: they should be proud of its universal- survivors on their way towards a single world. as long as the sion. in the sense of “Orientalism”: it is equivalent to Rather than take the defining elements of the seeing the Europeans or the Americans with the modernist constitution off the table (Science. resolved in a negotiation involving all the parties to one treats them with the same cheap exoticism one the composition of the common world? finds disgusting in the tourist brochures when applied to other peoples. It is one thing to possible unless both sides give up exoticism and its present oneself to the world under the cover of perverse complacency with the false difference universal Science. since it forces them into a far too supply more answers to questions relating to proper exaggerated otherness. secluded harems and Nature.42 43 able to go a long way towards the goal of unity by introduced by the one nature-many cultures divide. In other words. the former modernists are perhaps tion. pretensions. but not of its of its first “naturalist” even more unfair to describe the civilizing peoples attempts to realize them. and quite another to present . if modernization cannot give an better off than they believe. The modernists felt. either. Let us try to bring them as rational and modern. This would be a form of back to the negotiating table. perspective—all tropical palms. what if they accepted these as matters to be modernists are taken to be what they say they are. If it is unfair to portray the peoples lizing people. God. in the of Westerners? The Whites have never been days when they paraded about. but this time let them inverted exoticism. Peace negotiations are not Take the example of research. “Modernism” or approach politely. For indeed. and will be able to account of others. uncomfortable in the borrowed garb of moderniza. how could it give an account methods of construction than they thought.

nearly fanatic attachment to the non-constructed making this list even longer and complicating yet character of the unity of God be largely a response further the learned confusion. meanwhile. A universal Science to the unifying role of nature. but. If “nature” was a political concept that the modernists be saved from themselves. premature modernist “propositions” that lengthen the list of beings with projects to unify the planet. risk-laden sciences—with a small “s. offer to retain the case. has to do with earlier. against which the great religions of the Book took cation or localization. which. And the modernists already prayers and the manufacturing kits that would allow produce both at the same time: they have put forth it to be compared with the ways of producing other an image of Science as a political project of unifica. Isaac Independent. for instance. negotiable. they also revolting. so that tried to unify too quickly and without piece-by- they may share the sciences with others and leave piece composition of the common world. in the end. The diplomatic issue has shifted: can enlightening. Can a positive construc- which the common world must be pieced together. the thrice-holy city? Can the diplomats. that he is well or badly constructed? Do about agreement. the comparison with nature is the conflicts. the rituals. tions have agreed to limit? If the latter becomes salized for good. scandalous. The second case is much Take the case of religion. even more than more uncertain: the sciences make suggestions or Science. why not the former too? Do we mandate mental or emergent universalization can. during the peace nego- tiations. depending on the outcome of their stand? And yet.” In the first without being seen as traitors. affairs may. attractive and complex sciences amount to a reversion to the horrible archaism which may participate in multiple projects of unifi. asocial matters of fact cannot bring and Jacob. could not Science aside—this Science that they believed up to the same be said of the unity of God? Just as now to be non-negotiable. blasphemous? Would it not produce multiple. but hairy. tivism be applied in this instance? Might not the but still more propositions may be made by others. like the status of sciences differ profoundly from Science. of the God of Abraham. but sciences that aspire to incre. entangled states of we allow them to point to the objects. might not . or of universality could eventually be better composed? humbly changing sides and submitting to the modernists’ pedagogy. the recipients of such an offer only have the power of the sciences and to let Science go so that option of withdrawing into the irrational. which the negotia- cannot be negotiated and thus it cannot be univer.44 45 oneself as producer and manufacturer of local and Jerusalem. the diplomats to dare to say. kinds of divinities? How could such an offer not be tion without negotiation.

the “personae. it is quite another to authorize our diplomats to present our types of add to the astounding history of the elaboration of subjectivities and all of the complex institutions and human masks. it is another kind of visage to add to tale signs of constructivism? What do we know the series—and the least one can say in its favor is about the religions of the former modernists? The that this figure does not stand out as particularly discourse of fabrication. the question of the humanity. fetishes Take the case of the manufacture of persons. The modernist subject does not enter the possible to think that the rights-bearing human. generalized instantly. It is lineages. mostly been used for critical denun. After all. Once this price has been paid. modernist subjects too are possessed by what Tobie uals and that they are all free and human. we bring to the negotiating table a divinities that make them hold together and that do character that is particularly bound.” their “proprietors. until now. might be unified in the slowly constructed future? instead of exploring the free-floating individual they have multiplied the attachments—gods. costly and elaborate that they surely cannot be religious dialogue. Here again. subjects. point is the indisputable fact that there are individ. psychology constitutes the indisputable base of all in the company of the others. not reside in the inner sanctum of private subjec- weighted down by this peculiar history: the Western tivity. charged up.” If in the first case. for them the Western individual is a monster rights-bearing individual by asserting that it must be that should be fiercely resisted. invention and deception unusual in the great procession of the masks has. then the tion of the modern self.” a more fruitful and even tech. But again. instead of a hypothetical “inter. at a single stroke. is it not Individual. individuals or rights-bearers.” the second case. so we not have here. proposed by the “others. Why not use it positively. if we generalized to the whole world. in the other the components of the right ways of constructing good divinities? Would Western psyche appear so local. for good? . and re-formulate. belonging that make it seem free-floating. nical exchange of procedures? The all powerful nothing can speed up the negotiation: most other already existing absolute God sends his devout to parties to the conflict do not recognize that there are holy war. the discussion to put things in order. ancestors—that produce possible subjectivi- one thing to claim to have discovered the free and ties. so provincial.” the strange composi. In the first case the starting negotiations might resume in earnest.46 47 the diplomat discover in religious practices the tell ations: rather. nor does it offer free individual might win in the end—but this time the one and only face concealed beneath all the vari. in the Nathan calls their “owners. modern ciation. but what about the relative God which humans.

obedience. It is one thing to request that complex is the entanglement we call a “market. tion. Is it really rational to believe in the inevitable extension of Homo economicus to the whole planet? Those who want to extend the rule of law and Strangely enough.” but to see how practice of democracy. one which is even more tion is not simply to add some human values to the fragile than the ecosystems of a coral reef. it is the harsh reality of the “dismal science. The other choice than to prove that it can also be a first presentation is not negotiable and to oppose it is representative democracy—even if imitation often tantamount to archaism. Here again. It is one thing to present the market forces as always. courts. what they civility? In the first case. fragile set of mechanisms to explore the representation. tradition. rule of law or late. the rest of humanity has no are worth and how they should be distributed. localism and results in caricature.” everywhere citizens should assemble in democratic something which is so obviously constructed. In the second case. to enjoy the benefits of wealth and freedom. how to modify market organiza. and for legitimate dissent about how to calculate. tory messages. habits. be carefully constructed. solidarity. it is another to recognize that for the largest clearly local that it cannot be spread without further part of humanity and the longest part of history. liberties. essential negotiability of market organizations? arrangements in which humans were only tiny . the ques- irrationality. backwardness. If there is one institution that has to macy of dissent in matters of economics? The ques. what to the outcome here. cohesion. as always. so agoras. tain.48 49 Economics too has naturalistic and constructivist Finally. is once again uncer- take into account. the former modernists issued two contradic- the natural bedrock of all humanity since the begin. it is The second message indicates a profound uncer- quite another to present market organizations as a tainty about the nature of politics: is it a question of rare. world. The second deploys a rather large arena tion of how to define “politics” is re-opened. much of our diplomats that they recognize the legiti. as faces. values. What will we really lose in acknowledging the other types of assemblages have been sought. local. the first one a war cry (all the while ning of time. a common many attachments of people and goods and to calcu. through risky and disputable accounts. take the example of politics. this most obviously contingent democratic debates to the whole earth should know Western elaboration is also the one that Westerners the price they are asking others to pay in terms of have tried to naturalize most! Is it really asking too institutions. media. forms of life. as the fundamental logic to which denying that war was taking place): humanity will be everyone should submit without discussion in order democratic or it will not be rightfully constituted. feelings. ado.

when they started having doubts about modernization and they became post- modern. and helping them carefully distinguish between what they thought was worth dying for—univer- sality—from what they really care about—the construction of universality. how to practice the much more difficult but much longer-lasting task of cosmopolitics—meaning. . the former modernists clearly have more than one trick up their sleeve. The reason they have appeared so clumsy up to now in making offers of peace is because they did not think there was any war. Further. and then. It is now time to help them. As always. they became even more clumsy because they replaced arrogance with guilt. religion. of course. like mine. economics or politics. in the terms of Isabelle Stengers. modernization seemed to them so obvious that it was not open to any compromise. The task of the diplomats is to help them find out. to bring them tactfully to the negotiating table. Here again should we mandate our And. ■ citizen or should we also encourage them to learn. along with their opponents. diplomats to teach everyone how to behave like a may fail. making sure they recognize that there is indeed a war of the worlds. but without entering into more negotiations than they had before.50 51 participants. the parties in the conflict do not know exactly what they are fighting for. their offer of mediation. the politics of the cosmos? Whether in matters of science. psychology.

E. Gille Deleuze.52 53 Acknowledgments Further Readings Translated from the French by Charlotte Bigg. 1998. Politiques de la nature. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond. [1952]1987. B.. Cosmopolitiques . “Les pronoms cosmologiques et le perspectivisme amérindien” in E. Cosmopolitiques . Callon. ed. Sahlins. Une vie philosophique. The Laws of the Market. Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte.. thank the participants for many helpful comments. _____. Sophie Houdard and Masato Fukushima. been revised in December 2001 and again in April 2002 Anthropological Perspectives. Impostures intellectuelles.Tome 7: ‘pour en finir avec la tolérance’. P. 1996. Paris: Denoël. Alliez (ed. Nature and Society. I have also greatly Jurdant. Lévi-Strauss. 1997. pp. and G. 1994. 1997. Latour. . 1998. eds.). 1996. the meeting “Guerre et paix des cultures” organized by Christin. L'influence qui guérit. 429-462. thanks to John Tresch’s careful reading. 1999. Oxford: sion to write this piece was provided in August 2000 by Blackwell. M.Tome 1: la guerre des sciences. Paris: La Découverte. London: Routledge. The occa. It has Descola. How "Natives" Think: About Captain Cook. I la raison politique au 16° siècle. B. Les malen- benefited from remarks by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. T. Viveiros de Castro. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob. Paris: La Découverte & Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond. C. tendus de l'affaire Sokal. Paris: Le Seuil. Stengers. for Example. M. La paix de religion. Paris: La Découverte & Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond. Race et histoire. L'autonomisation de Tobbie Nathan and Isabelle Stengers at Cerisy La Salle. I. Palsson. O. 1995. ed. 1998. Nathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

founded in Britain by Keith Hart and Anna Grimshaw in 1993. Prickly Paradigm aims to follow their lead in publishing challenging and some- times outrageous pamphlets.uchicago. but on other academic disciplines.prickly-paradigm. and the contempo- rary Design and layout by Bellwether Executive Publisher Marshall Sahlins Publishers Peter Sahlins Ramona Naddaff Bernard Sahlins Seminary Co-op Bookstore Editor Matthew Engelke Paradigm Press. www. LLC is the North American successor of Prickly Pear Press. can be found on our website. . as well as contact addresses for all A list of current and future titles. Prickly Paradigm is marketed and distributed by The University of Chicago Press. www. not only on anthropology. the arts.