The Cosmopolitical Proposal Isabelle stengers How can we present a proposal intended not 10 say what is, or what oughe to be, bue to provoke thought, a proposal that requires no other verifica- tion than the way in which itis able to “slow down” reasoning and create an opportunity t0 arouse a slightly different awareness of the prob- lems and situations mobilizing us? How can this proposal be distinguished from issues of authority and generality currently articulated to the notion fof “theory”? This question is particularly impor- tant since the “cosmopolitical” proposal, as | intend to characterte i, is not designed primarily for “generalists”; it has meaning only in conerete situations whece practitioners operate. Ie further- more requires practitioners who (and this is a political problem, not a cosmopolitical one) have learned co shrug their shoulders at the claims of ‘generalizing theoreticians that define them as sub- ‘ordinates charged with the task of “applying” a theoty or that capture their practice as an illustea- tion ofa theory. ‘This difficulty introduces one of the themes of this article: the distinetion and inseparable narure of political and cosmopolitical proposals. I try t0 show that when proposals corresponding to what can be ealled “political ecology” (the politicization ‘of “positive” knowledge-related issues or prac tices concerning “things”) become relevant, the ccosmopolitical proposal can become so as well. In other words, this proposal has striedly no meaning in most conctete situations today, but it can be useful ro those who have already effected the “political shit” associated with political ecology and thus learned co laugh not at theories but at the authority associated with them. Another theme in this article related t the first, is the question of the vulnerability ofthis type of pro- posal, exposed to all possible misincerprerations and above all to their very predictable theoretical hamessing, ax very likely to be told that, in thar case, I shouldn’s have taken a Kantian term, Was it not Kant who renewed the ancient theme of cos- _mopolitsm aimed ata projet ofa political kind, in this case that of a “perpetual peace” in which everyone might envisage themselves as members in theie own right of the worldwide civil society, in accordance with citizens’ rights? In this respect 1 have to plead guilty. I was unaware of Kantian usage while working on the first volume of what was to become a series of seven Cosmopolitiques in 1996; this term imposed itself on me, so to speak. [therefore wish to emphasize thatthe cos- ‘mopolitical proposal, as presented here, explicitly denies any relationship with Kant or with the ancient cosmopolitism. The cosmos, as T hope to explain, bears lite relation either to the world in which citizens of antiquity asserted themselves everywhere on their home ground or to an Earth finally united, in which everyone is a citizen, On the other hand, the cosmopalitial proposal may well have affinities with a conceptual character that philosopher Gilles Deleuze allowed to exist witha force that struck me: the ior. In the ancient Greek sense, an idiot was some- ‘one who did not speak the Greek language and was therefore cut off from the civilized commu nity. The same meaning is found in the word “idiom,” a semi-private language that excludes fom a form of communication characterized by an ideal of transparency and anonymity (inter- changeabilty of the speakers). But Deleuze's idiot, borrowed from Dostoevsky and turned into a con- ceptual character, is the one who always slows the others down, who resists che consensual way in which the situation is presented and in which emergencies mobilize thought or action. This is rnot because che presentation would be false or because emergencies are believed to be lies, but because “there is something more important”. “The seven vohanes were pubed by La Dcouvere/Les Epicure de pens eno Pai 9961997, 0 ep shed in ewo vohime by Ls Découvet 003 role is is blac idiot ¢ sess th Th slow ¢ good which the te pec alread into | apes guest the s1 there cates our pecul o ing t cates wha and t unde infer while forh “goo appe facts also thatcase, 1 of cos kind, in ‘which embers r0b does nally hich anbe sated wthe wyer shove cing signa 3 deaf Ipro- > that which blind als 10 speri= vugale anced imal lahe suffering af chimpanzee “counts” mere than that ofa mise). Ku this titacin ase em exp lence leads to all sorts af ascnes, fr it enous ges everyone tu manipulate the scales in the interest that each feels te be anost legitimate, leaving the comsequences 10 some sort of callee tive marker devision, Othees, and this is wha affordanee specific t the sation. We knosw that tn laboratories in which experiments are per fasted ot animal, all sors of ites and ways talking. anal veersng eo thuse animals exit attest ng to the researchers need to pote thesnselves The grand tales about dhe advancement of knove cedge, rationality dofined against sentimentality and the necessities of method are part of such ites, filling up the interstices ehrough whieh he Whar an I busy doing?” insistently nays. The correlate of the necessity of “deciding” on the legitimacy of an experiment would then be the invention of constraints directed against these protective maneuvers, forcing the researchers eo ceemed to expose themselves, to devide “in the presence of” those that may turn ont to be the vie tims of their decision. ‘The proposal thus cirre sponds to 2 form of self-reguation but has the advantage of presenting the "sell™ ay an issue, of ising is full significanee co che unknown element ‘What woul the esearcher decide ‘fat “his/hervell™ were actively tf he question: “oi hse ov shed of the kinds of protection current decisions seem to need? This of question corresponds to aperspee tive that [call “etho-ecological,” affirosingg the inscparailty of exlus, she way af behaving pect lia ta being, and ios, the habitat of that being andl the way in which that habitar satisfies or Doppeses the demands associated with ehe ethos or affords opportanities for an original ethos to risk itself Inseparability does not necessarily mea Hependence, Aa ethos is not contingent an its environment, its oikos: it will always belong to the boeing that proves capable oft Ireanot be trans formedin any predictable way by transforming the environment, But no ethos, in itself, contains its tows meaning oF niasters its own reasons, We never know what a being is capable of oF can become capable of. We could say thac she eaviton= meat proposes fut thar the being disposes, gives ‘or reluses to give that propos an ethological sig nilfeation, We done know what a researeh who today aliems the leiiniacy or even the necessity ‘of expenments on animals is capable of becoming, in-an oakos thar demsands thar he or se think “in the presence ol” the vietins of his or her decision. OF nyportance isthe fr that an eventnal bec ing will he the researcher's own becoming iis thar respect ear it will be an event and that what F call casts can be named, Locally, the cvologi- tion, an articulation will have been created between what scemed to be contradictory: the necessities of research and their consequences for its vietims, A “cosmic” event This example may indicate why I emphasize that the idiot docs not deny articulated knowl cs, does nor denounce ic Tes no te id= len source of knowledge that transeends them. The consteaints proposed are idiot in the fllow= ing sense: They refer t© no arbitrator capable of judging the validity of the ur cexperin seriously hypothetical basis (i xxl fal) the fact chat these experimenters’ ethos, defined as a sncies that the snters claim to exist, Rather they take problem by the opponents of ul experiments, seems to need an “aseptic” environment, They refuse on the fight to seh a environment: We may agree with your arguments, but we have to inake sure that you are fully exposed to thei con sequences. 1 would he interesting to extend this example touather eases in which anestheties seem to be part swe are fel und parcel of s sithation, For insta fon discourse that requires us ro are that the elo sure of production plants and dhe retrenchment of ehoussanals of workers are harsh but inevitable con- soauiences of the economic wae, our industries cannot make “the sscrfices” at competitiveness sheen sacs hit bigs a eames skis wld ~to theme pent hci fmm ants snmp shen hast syne he That a ‘resentment alae au to lag he ‘obit edecva vente nay or ater Holand “alone dherecucher wh pact nh eco the method deity hy from the emis of ‘On these ste worl ky Vince Despre Onde ap tna apc be picts de eer, ars, 2008demands, we ate told, they will be defeated! and ‘ve will all lose out. So be it, bur in har ease the jobless ought to be considered and collectively honored as war victims, those whose sacrifice ‘enables us to survive: Ceremonies are their due, medals, annual processions, commemorative plaques all the manifestations of national recogni sion ofa debt that no finan offset. But imagine the repercussions if ll the sul= fering and mutilations imposed by the economic war were thus “celebrated,” commemorated, actively protected from falling into oblivion and indifference, and not anesthetized by the themes ‘of necessary flexibility and the ardent mobilization ofall for a “society of knowledge” in which every- ‘one has to accept the rapid obsolescence of what they know and to take responsibilty for their con stant self-recycling. The fact that we are caught in ‘a war with no conceivable prospect of peace might become intolerable. It is an “idiotie” proposal since it does not concern a program for another world, a confrontation between reasons, but a diagnosis of our “etha-ecological” stable accept- ance of economic war as framing our common fate. would nove like to deploy the cosmopoltical proposal in relation to the political ecology theme. Political ecology, per se, already constitutes an eco-ethological gamble. Ie implies, for instance, a transformation of the state’s role, which means dlisentangling the public servant's ethos from any already formulated definition of the general inter- estand associating ie with the active refusal ofany- thing transcending the issue in its concrete envi= ronment, To serve the public then means to promote an oikos that spurns any generality seen to be evading or predetermining the issue. And this demands no blind confidence (as if we lived in 1a world in which proclaimed good intentions could be considered reliable) bur te building up of an active memory of the way solutions that we might have considered promising turn out to be failures, deformations or perversions. In order to participate in such politcal ecology assemblages, the concerned researchers’ ethos ‘would also have to be transformed: They would bbe required to construct and present what they know in a mode that makes them “politically active,” engaged in che experimentation ofthe dif- advantage can ever 998 ference that what they know ean make in the for inulation ofthe issue and its envisaged solutions. Memory of exp c built up ifthe concer for relevance does not predominate, This does not mean rejecting the methodological neu trality of science. There would never have been experimental science laboratory researchers had rot been passionately interested in what works, ‘what makes a relevant diference, and had been dealing with observations that were methodologi- cally impeccable but unlikely to be of any conse quence Bat the etho-ecological gamble associate with politcal ecology also implies the possibilty ofthe emergence of an agreement that does not need an external arbitrator responsible for ensuring chat the general interest prevails. Tis gamble therefore implies the possibilty ofa process in which the problematical situations that deaw cogether the “experts,” those with che means to object and t0 propose, have the power to induce such an event. ‘That i why, from the outset, posted that noth ing chat I put forward has the slightest meoning if those | am addressing have not already learned ¢o shig thes shoulders atthe power of theories that define them as subordinates. For the power of a theory isto define an issue simply asa case that as sch, is unable co challenge it. That power pre- vents the representatives ofthe theory from giving the isue the power to oblige them to think. The etho-ecological gamble therefore implies thatthe thos associated with a researcher incapable of ving up the position of spokesperson ofa theory ‘or method supposed to make of him or her a sc- ents, s by no means a serious and insurmount- able problem. Its nota matter of “ether that or stop being a scientist.” but rather one ofthe miliew (cis) that favored such a position. Hence, poiti- cal ecology situated in the perspective of that could be called a “utopia”. Bu there are all sorts of “utopias: Some make it possible to do withour this world in the name of promises that tanscend it ‘others (and this is the ease here, I would hope) prompc us to consider this world with other ques tions, ro disregard the watchword that presenti as “approximately normal”. In this case the utopia docs not allow us to denounce this word inthe name of an ideal proposes an interpretation that indicates how a taansformation could take placehe for +d solutions. vile up ifthe niinate, This ‘logical nee have been marchers had vhat works, vd hed been rethodologi- # any conse- elated with ibility of the not need an suring that ale therefore 1 which the ogether the Sject and to meaning if ylearned to heories that power of a case tha, power pre- from giving think. The ies chat the capable of of theory aehera sci- ver that oF | sfehe miliew ee, polit ive of what 2allsorts of without this aanscend its ould hope) other ques- st present i the utopia ‘ord in the ation that take place that leaves no-one unaffected; in other words, ic call into question all che “one-wvould-just-need f 10” statements that denote the over simplistic vie 1y of youd over evi The cosmopolitical proposal takes this type of uutopia even further, weighted by the memory that wwe live with ina dangerous work, where nothing standy to reason, where any proposition may he “invented polities” als Produced the means co reduce ic 10 4 largely tempty wae, leaving outside what way at work, Producing, oF destroying, ou worlds falsified, where we who One aspeet of the cosmopolitical proposal is thus to accentuate our own rather fightening par ticularity among the people of the world with whom we have to compromise, Understanding this particulirity was aleeady Joseph Needham’s intention at the time of World War Il, when he wondered why, in Furope, technical inventions thar China had absorbed could be considered to be atthe origin of the great upheaval that is called the “industrial revokition"° M. physics that made the di y Say thae i was rence, the great discov cry of the fecundicy of mathe les for describing the world. Needham did not stop there. As an embryo he knew just how limited that feeun lity was. The work of Galileo or Newton explained nothings it was the very fact that they that they were assiciated with 3 that needed ro be explained. The expla won that Nevdham chose is the une that hig lights the freedom of European entrepreneurs at the time. They actively constructed increasingly wide networks, regardless of any ontological sta bility, Featlessly linking human interests. with increasingly numerous and disparate non~ humans. Galileo was in feta builder of networks. His knowledge concerned above all the way in which smooth balls rll along a tilted surface: such knowledge, cogether with his telescopic obse tions, enabled him (@ add arguments to support the Copernican astrononsieal hypothesis. Bat he all hat indirect relation to the great question of authority, of the rights of enteqprising know! edge with reyard to faith, to the role of facts as boeing able to destroy philosophical and theolog cal traditions, Finally, his condemnation puta stop to nothing in. a Europe fragmented into rival states, while in the unified Empire of China he 999 ‘would prohably have heen prevented from under taking anything. The stakeholders, thoxe who have interests int how enterprise binding them together, should not he limited by anything exte work! must be frce ro emerge fro the rmulipicity The common of their disparate links, aad the only reason for that emergence is the spokes chat they constitute inone another's wheels. The connection has often been highlighted between mechanies and this cow ception of tree emergence, without transeen- lence. Entrepreneurs (and a constimer is also an contreprencur) “compose,” like mechanical forces, by addition, and emer the consequences ofthe factual obstacles that they ‘constitute for one another. Each entrepreneur is thus motivated by his or her cleaey defined inter ests, To be sure, they may be open to whatever we is nothing other than makes then advance but only in so faras it makes them advance. They are persons of “opportunity,” af and blind 10 the question of the world tha their forts conteibute towards constructing. Kis precisely this disconnection of scales (those of i together, they eause {0 emerge) that allows the “market” as an autor matic composition to be put into machen 2 funetion that economists will choose to compare with the collective good. Any inerusion in the name of another priniple of com wing, any break: from deafness, can then be put into the same bag: ‘They will be condemned nor deseribed, for all have the effect of reducing what the free market ‘masimizes, (the power of the mathematical theo: rem. This i» what Greenpeace clearly understood when it contrasted stakeholders with what it called “shareholders,” a somewhat inappropriate term since having market shares means having a eiated logical about with- jon of inthe model «s the “Obey ay (the her on 9). This under all the with in hem to ing not eeived the old who fusing defini= be pos sfered. IE you seal Frangois Jllicn’s wonderfol book, The Propensity of Dbings, youl discover an aet of ceimergency that 1 fay close to that af the chemist fullon describes the avay i which the Chinese hour what we despise: manipwlation, the art ofthe disposition that makes it posible take vantage ofthe propensity of things, 6 fol them in such a way thar they spontanconsly accomplish what the artist, the man of war or the politician want, Al this aside From aay eppesision Fherween submission and freedoms a thought fovused on efficacy ‘One may say that isa strange model far pal ties burt this feeling of strangeness reflects our ides thae "yood” polities ha to emiboxly a form) af un versal emancipation: Remove the alienation said te separate hima From their hberty, and youl adlomocriey. The ides ‘ofa politi art or “technighe” is then anathema, suet something ese aan artifaet separating humans from their truth, Referring to the chemists artis affieming eat the political assembly about it, Whae we call deniers Teast ad way of managing the human flock or a has nothing spontancats y is either the amble focused on the question nor af what humans ate bur whar they might be capable of, R's the question that John Dewey pur atthe venter of his life: how co favor democratic habits. How, by Which artifacts, which procedures, ea we slow down political ecology, bestow efficacy on the murings of the idiot, the “there is sonmething, more important” that is 80 easy to forget because * because the thing chat it cannot be “taken into accoun idiot ni her objects nor proposes We thus come co che junetion berween the Fist axl the second! aspect af the cosmopolitial po. posal, In onder @ protect the emergence of the kind of age szamles from its mechanistic redhction or its bi logical sublimation, we may use the model pro posed by the etho-ecological aet of the manipuki- tive chemists, Politics fs then disentangled from tan which political evology any reference to some universal human eruth ie ‘would make manifest. In particulag its nota mat ter of individual or collective good will, one which ‘could then be required of the idiot oF Of Bartleby SIF you want 1 exist for us, come and explain yourself, become a shareholder with ws. Politics is su art anal an art has no ground to demand! com> pphanee from what t deals with, I has to create the ners tha will enable ic a become able to cea wth shat it has to deal with, Sal maners may be fond in other tations, other arty of emerging agreement. [anv thinking, snaunly of what f learned from the “pabaver™ sys tem anal the way in which itinvedves what wouk call. in short, the world order. OF parca inter lest iy he face that this ritusl assemblage, whieh seus to assume the existence of a transcendent world order that will peavide a fair solution to problemarieal is ‘confers no authority om that tordee I there is paver, is because those who gather together, who are recognized as knowing something about that order, do not f they are gathered together, i is because of an issue in relation to cease, on how it applies which none of their knowledge is slficint, world order is therefore nor an arguments itis what confers on the participants a rake that *e= Psychologies them, thar causes them to appear as “owners” of thee opinions but as author ied te attest to the fact that the world has an ‘one says, nor challenges the person. The palaver proceeds “in presence of” the world order and Iwhar emerges is eevognized as its wnfoling, From the poine of view of the old chemists art, the face thatthe palaver requires the protagonists not co decide bur to determine how the world ‘onler applies here, gives thar onder a role omps ") that alissolves ad enables the chemical actants to enter into proximity, ar to the fire that setivates them. fy short, it can be characterized in terms of eff tie tualize” themselves, in a mode that ives the issue around which they are all gathered the power to activate thinking, a thinking that belongs to ao ‘one, in whieh no-one is right. Asa sevond example, I would take the art of image, as practiced not by suviving imporaty US activists, the Can we take magic sexi- ously? We certainly carry on talking about magic rable to the ack! solution (the “menstr ceacy: Ir compels everyone to produce, to ious domains, We talk about the black magic fof Nazi rituals hut alse of the magie ofa moment, a book, a gaze, everything that enables us to think ean es Dh Prony of MTs ator of iscy a Chin, Ze Dr Cis M995.