Latour Bruno an Inquiry Into Modes of Existence an Anthropology of the Moderns PDF

8/20/2019 Latour Bruno an Inquiry Into Modes of Existence an Anthropology of the Moderns PDF

1/518


2/518

A I M E


3/518


4/518

·

·

A I

M E

An Anthropology of the Moderns

Translated by Catherine Porter

H U P

C, MtL, E


5/518

Copyrigh © by he Presiden and Fellows of Harvard College

All righs reserved

Prined in he Unied Saes of America

The book was originally published as Enquête sur les modes d'existence: Une anthropologie des

Modernes, copyrigh © Édiions La Découvere, Paris, .

The research has received funding from he European Research Council under he

European Union’s Sevenh Framework Programme (/-)

Gran ‘’ n°

Typeseing and layou: Donao Ricci

This book was se in: Novel Mono Pro; Novel Sans Pro; Novel Pro

( | )

Library of Congress Caaloging-in-Publicaion Daa

Laour, Bruno.

[Enquêe sur les modes d'exisence. English]

An inquiry ino modes of exisence : an anhropology of hemoderns / Bruno Laour ; ranslaed by Caherine Porer.

pages cm

“The book was originally published as Enquêe sur les modes

d'exisence : une anhropologie des Modernes.”

---- (alk. paper)

. Civilizaion, Modern—Philosophy.

. Philosophical anhropology.

I. Tile..

—dc


6/518

“Si scires donum Dei.”


7/518


8/518

·Contents·

•

T R: U’ M O C I ..............

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

•

·Introduction·

T I A? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A shocking question addressed to a climatologist () that obliges us to distinguish values rom the ac-

counts practi tioners give o them ().

Between modernizing a nd ecologizing, we have to choose () by proposing a dierent sys tem o

coordinates ().

Which leads us to defi ne an imaginar y diplomatic scene (): in the name o whom to negotiate () and

with whom to negotiate? ()The inquiry at first resembles the one involving speech acts () while we learn to identiy different

modes o existence ().

The goal is, first , to accompany a people vacillating between economy an d ecology ().

•

P O

H M I M E M P

·Chapter ·

D O I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An investigator goes off to do fieldwork among the Moderns () without respecting domain bounda-

ries, thanks to the notion o actor-network (), which makes it possible to distinguish networks as re-

sult rom net works as process ().

The inquiry defines a first mode o existence, the network[], through a particular “pass,” or passage ().

But networks[] have a limitation: they do not quali y values ().

Law offers a point o comparison through it s own particular mode o displacem ent ().

There is thus a definition o “boundary” that does not depend on the notions o domain or network ().

The mode o extension o obje ctive knowledge can be compa red with other ty pes o passes ().

vii


9/518

Thus any situation can be defined through a grasp o the [] type plus a particular relation between

continuities a nd discontinuit ies ().

Thanks to a third type o “pass,” the religious type, the investigator sees why values are difficult to detect

() because o their quite pa rticular ti es to institutions (), and this will oblige her to take into account

a history o values and t heir intere rences ().

·Chapter ·

C D I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The inquiry begins with the detection o category mistakes (), not to be conused with first-degree

mistakes (); only second -degree mistakes mat ter ().A mode possesses its own par ticular type o veridic tion (), as we see by going back to t he example

o law ().

True and alse are thus expressed within a given mode and outside it () provided that we first de-

fine the elicity and inelicit y conditions o each mode () and then the mode’s interpretive key, or its

preposition ().

Then we shall be able to speak o each mode in its own tonalit y (), as the etymolo gy o “category ” im-

plies () and as the contrast b etween the require ments o law and religion attes ts ().

The inquiry connects understandings o the network type [] with understandings o the preposi-tional type [] () by defining crossings that orm a Pivot Table ().

A somewhat peculiar [ · ] crossing (), which raises a problem o compatibility with the actor-

network theory ().

Recapitulatio n o the conditions or the inquir y ().

What is rational is w hat ollows the threads o the various re asons ().

·Chapter ·

A P C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To begin with what is most difficult, the question o Science () by applying principles o method that

entail identi ying passes (), which allow us to disamalgamate two distinc t modes o existence ().

Description o an unremarkable itinerary: the example o a hike up Mont Aiguille () will serve to de-

fine chains o reerence and immu table mobile s () by showing that reerence is attached ne ither to the

knowing subject nor to the known objec t ().

The notion o Subject /Object correspondence confl ates two passes () since it is clear that existent s do

not pass through immut able mobiles in order to persist in be ing ().

Although there is no limit to the exte nsion o chains o reerence[] () there are indeed two m odes

o existence that co- respond to each other ().

We must thereore register new elicity conditions () that will authorize a different distribution between

viii


10/518

language and existence (). This becomes particularly clear in the prime example o the laboratory ().

Hence the salience o a new mode o existence, [], or reproduc tion () and o a crossing[ · ]

that is hard to keep in sight () especially when we have to resist th e interer ence o Double Click ().

·Chapter ·

L M R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To give the various modes enough room () we must first try to gra sp existents according to the mod e

o reproduction [] () by making this mode one traje ctory a mong others () in order to avoid the

strange not ion o an invasive mater ial space ().

I those who have occupied all the space never theless lack room () it is because they have been unableto disamalgamate the not ion o matter () by the proper use o the [ · ] crossing ().

Now, as soon as we begin to distinguish two senses o the word “orm” (), the orm that maintains

constants and th e orm that reduces the hiatus o reerence (), we begin to obtain a nonorm alist de-

scription o ormalism (), which turns out, unor tunately, to be wiped ou t by a third sense o the word

“orm” ().

At this point we risk being mistaken about the course ollowed by the bein gs o reproduction () in that

we risk conusing two dist inct courses in t he idea o mat ter ().

A ormalist description o the outing on Mont Aiguille () generates a double image through a demon-stration per a bsurdum () that would lead to a di vision into primar y and secondar y qualities ().

But once the origin o this Biurcation into primary and secondary qualities has been accurately identi-

fied () it becomes a hypothesis too contrar y to experience () and the magic o rationalism vanishe s

() since we can no longer conuse ex istents with mat ter (), a matter th at would no more do justice

to the world than to “ lived experience” ().

·Chapter ·

R S S I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I we had to begin with the hardest part () it was because o an insistence on “straight talk” that con-

nects o rmalism with closing off discussion ().

Although this straight talk cannot rely on the requirements o reerence [] (), it leads to the dis-

qualific ation o all the other modes () by creating a dangerous amalgam between knowledge and pol -

itics [ · ] (), which makes it necessary to abandon the thread o experience in order to put an

end to debates ().

Fortunatel y, the method that allows us to recognize a crossing () will succeed in identi ying a veridic-

tion proper to politics [] (), which has to do with the continual renewal o a Circle () that the

course o reerence cannot jud ge properly ().

ix


11/518

Thus we have to acknowledge that there is more than one type o veridiction () to oil the strange amal-

gam o “indisputable acts” () and thus to restore to natural language its expressive capacities ().

The most difficul t task remains: go ing back to the division bet ween words and things () while liberat-

ing ourselves rom matter, that is, rom the res ratiocinans () and giving ourselves new capacities o

analysis and discernment () in order to speak o values without bracketing rea lity ().

Language is well articu lated, like the world with which it is charged (), provided that we treat the no-

tion o sign with skepticism ().

Modes o existence are indeed at sta ke, and there are more than two o these (), a act that obliges us

to take the history o inte rmodal inter erences into account ().

·Chapter ·

C S D C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The difficult y o inquiring into the Moderns () comes rom the impossibility o under standing in a pos-

itive way how acts are const ructed (), which leads to a curious connivance between the cri tical mind

and the se arch or oundat ions ().

Thus we have to come back to the notion o construct ion and distinguis h three eatures (): . the action is

doubled (); . the direction o the action is uncertain (); . the action is qualified as good or bad ().

Now, constructivism does not succeed in ret aining the eatures o a good construc tion ().We thus have to shif to the concept o instauration (), but or instauration to occur, there must be

beings with their own resources (), which implies a technical distinction between being-as-being and

being-a s-oth er () and thus several orms o alterit y or alterations ().

We then find ourselves acing a methodological quandary (), which obliges us to look elsewhere to

account or the ailures o construc tivism (): iconoclasm and the strug gle against etishe s ().

It is as though the extraction o religious value had misunderstood idols () because o the con-

tradictory injunction o a God not made by human hands (), which led to a new cult, antietishism

(), as well as the invention o belie in the belie o others (), which turned the word “rational”into a fighting word ().

We have to try to put an end to beli e in belie () by detecting the double root o the double l anguage o

the Moderns () arising rom the improbabl e link betwee n knowledge and be lie ().

Welcome to the beings o ins tauration ().

Nothing but expe rience, but nothi ng less than experience ().

x


12/518

•

T

H B P M E

·Chapter ·

R B M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We are going to benefit rom ontological pluralism () while trying to approach certain invisible be-

ings ().

There is no such thing as a “ visible world,” any more tha n there are invisible wor lds () i we make an e-ort to grasp the networks [] that produce i nteriorities ().

Since the autonomy o subjects comes to them rom the “outside” () it is better to do without both

interiority and exteriority ().

Back to the experience o emo tion (), which allows us to spot the uncert ainty as to its t arget () and

the power o psychic shi fers and other “psychotropes” ().

The instauration o these beings has been achieved in therapeutic arrangements () and especially in

laboratories o et hnopsychiatr y ().

The beings o metamorphosis [] () have a demanding orm o veridiction () and particula r on-tological require ments () that can be ollowed rationa lly (), provided that the judgm ent o Double

Click[] is not applied to them ().

Their originality comes rom a certain debiting o alteration (), which explains why invisibility is

among their specificatio ns ().

The[ · ] crossing is o capital impor tance (), but it has been addressed mainl y by the other col-

lectives (); thus it off ers comparative a nthropolog y a new basis or negot iations ().

·Chapter ·M B T V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The singular silence im posed on technologies () and on their par ticular orm o tr anscendence ()

requires, in addition to an analysis in terms o networks [ · ] (), the detection o an original

mode o existence () different rom rep roduction [ · ] ().

We need to return to the experience o the technological detour (), which is hidden by Double Click

and the orm/unc tion relation ().

By drawing out the lessons o the [ · ] crossing on this point () we shall no longer con use tech-

nology wi th the object s it leaves in its wake ().

Technology offers a part icular orm o invisibility (): the technological labyrinth ().

xi


13/518

Its mode o existence depends on the [ · ] ruse () as much as on the persis tence o the being s

o reproduction[ · ] ().

The veridiction proper to [] () depends on an original olding () detectable thanks to the key

notion o shifing ().

The unolding o t his mode gives us more ro om to maneuver ().

·Chapter ·

S B F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multiplying the mod es o existence implies drain ing language o its impor tance (), which is the other

side o the Biu rcation bet ween words and the world ().To avoid conusing sense with signs () we have to come back to the experience o t he beings o fic tion

[] ().

Beings overvalued by the institution o works o art () and yet deprived o their ontological

weight ().

Now, the experience o the beings o [] invites us to acknowledge their p roper consistency () an

original trajec tory () as well as a particular se t o specifications ().

These beings arise rom a new alteration: the vacillation between raw material and figures (), which

gives them an especially demand ing mode o veridiction ().We are the offsprin g o our works ().

Dispatching a work implies a shiting () dierent rom that o the beings o technology

[ · ] ().

The beings o fiction [] reign well beyond the work o art (); they populate a particular crossing,

[ · ] (), where they u ndergo a small di fference in the discipline o fig ures () that causes th e

correspondence to be misunders tood ().

We can then revisit the difference between sense and sign () and find another way o accessing the

articulated world ().

·Chapter ·

L R A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To remain sensitive to the moment as well a s to the dosage o modes () the anthrop ologist has to re -

sist the tem ptations o Occidentalism ().

Is there a mode o e xistence proper t o essence? ()

The most widespread mode o all, the one that starts rom the prepositions while omitting them (),

habit [], too, is a mode o e xistence () with a par adoxical hiatus that prod uces immanence ().

By ollowing the experience o an attentive habit () we see how this mode o existence manages to

trace continuitie s () owing to its particular elicity condi tions ().

xii


14/518

Habit has it s own ontological dignit y (), which stems rom the act that i t veils but does not hide ().

We understand quite differently, then, the distance between theory and practice (), which allows us

to define Double Click more charitably [ · ] ().

Each mode has it s own way o playing with ha bits ().

This mode o existence can help define institutions positively (), provided that we take into account

the generatio n to which the speaker b elongs () and avoid the tempt ation o undame ntalism ().

·Conclusion, Part Two·

A M E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wherein we encounter an unex pected problem o arr angement ().In the first group, nei ther Object s nor Subjects are involved ().

Lines o orce and lineages [] emphasize continuit y (), while the beings o metamorphosis []

emphasize differ ence () and those o ha bit[] empha size dispatch ().

A second group revolves aro und the qua si objects ()[], [], and [], originally levels n + o

enunciation (), produced by a rebound e ffect at level n - ().

This arrangeme nt offers a conciliator y version o the old Subject /Object rel ation () and thus another

possible position or anthrop ogenesis ().

•

P T

H R C

·Chapter ·

W B S W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I it is impossible not to speak o a religious mode (), we must not rely on the limits o the domain o

Religion () but instead retur n to the experience o th e love crisis () that allows us to discover an-gels bearing tumults o the soul (), provided that we distinguish between care and salvation as we

explore their crossing [ · ] ().

We then discover a specific hiatus () that makes it possible to resume Speech () but wit hout leav-

ing the pathways o the rational ().

The beings o religion [] have special specifications ()—they appear and disappear ()—and

they have particularly discriminating elicity conditions () since they define a orm o subsistence

that is not based on any substance () but that is characterized by an alteratio n peculiar to it: “the time

has come” () and by its own orm o veridic tion ().

A powerul but ragile institution to be protected () as much against the misunderstandings o the

[ · ] crossing () as against those o th e[ · ] crossing () and the [ · ] crossing,

which produces unwarranted r ationalizations ().

xiii


15/518

Rationalization is what produces belie in belie () and causes the loss o both knowledge and aith

(), leading to the loss o neighb oring beings and re mote ones alike () as well as to the superfl uous

invention o the super natural ().

Hence the importance o always speciying the terms o the metalanguage ().

·Chapter ·

I P P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Can a contrast be lost? The c ase o the political ().

An institution legitimately proud o its values () but with no grasp o practical description (): be-

ore it can be universalized, some sel-examination is required ().To avoid giving up reason in politics [] too quickly () and to understand that there is no crisis o

representatio n () we must not overestimate the unre ason o[] () but rather ollow the expe-

rience o political speech ().

An object-or iented politics () allows us to discern the squaring o the politic al Circle (), provided

that we distinguish accurately between speaking about politics and speaking politically ().

We then discover a particular type o pass that traces the impossible Circle (), which includes or ex-

cludes depending on whet her it is taken up again or not ().

A first definition o the hiatus o the [] type: the curve () and a quite peculiar trajectory: au-tonomy ().

A new definition o the hiatus: discontinuity () and a particularly demanding type o veridiction

(), which the [ · ] crossing misunderst ands ().

[] practices a very distinctive extraction o alterity (), which defines a phantom public () in

opposition to the figure o Society (), which would make the political even more monstrous than it

is now ().

Will we ever be able to relearn the langu age o speaking well while speaking “crooked”? ()

·Chapter ·

T P L S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fortunately, it is not p roblematic to speak ab out law “legally ” () since law is its own explanation ().

It offers special difficulties, however (), owing to its strange mix o strength and weakness (), its

scarcely autonomous au tonomy (), and the ac t that it has been cha rged with too many va lues ().

Thus we have to establish a special protocol in order to oll ow () the passage o law paved with means

() and to recognize its terribly dem anding elicity condi tions ().

The law connects levels o enunciation () by virtue o its own par ticular ormalism ().

We can now understand what is distinctive about quasi subjects () while learning to respect their

xiv


16/518

contributions: first, beings o politics [] (), then beings o law [] (), and finally beings o

religion [] ().

uasi subjects are all regi mes o enunciation sensitive to tonalit y ().

Classiying the modes allows us to articulate well what we have to say () and to explain, at last, the

modernist obsession with the Subject/Object difference ().

New dread on the par t o our anthropologist : the ourth group, t he continent o The Economy ().

·Chapter ·

S O I O L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The second Nature resists quite differently rom the first (), which makes it difficult to circumventThe Economy () unless we identi y some gaps betwee n The Economy and ordinary e xperience ().

A first gap, in temper ature: cold instead o heat ().

A second gap: an emp ty place instead o a crowded agora ().

A third gap: no detect able differe nce in levels ().

All this allows us to posit an amalgamation o three dis tinct modes: [],[], and[] ().

The paradoxical situation o organization[] () is easier to spot i we start rom a weakly equipped

case () that allows us to see how script s turn us “upside down” ().

To organize is necessarily t o dis/reorganize ().Here we have a distinct mode o existence () with its own explicit elicity and inelicity conditions

() and its own particular alteration o being-as-other: the rame ().

So we can do without Providence or writin g the scripts (), provided that we clearly distinguish piling

up rom aggreg ating () and that we avoid the phantom me tadispatcher known as Socie ty () while

maintaining the methodological decision that the small serves to measure the large (), the only way

to ollow the operat ions o scaling ().

This way we can bring the arrangements or economization into the oreground () and distin-

guish between two distinct senses o propert y () while including the slight addition o calcula-tion devi ces ().

Two modes not to be conflated under t he expression “economic rea son” ().

·Chapter ·

M B P I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Whereas the whole is always inerior to its parts (), there are several reasons or making mistakes

about the experience o organization (): conusing it with the Political Circle [ · ] (); con-

using organization with organism[ · ] (); ballasting scrip ts technologicall y[ · ] ();

conusing unequal distribu tion o scripts with scaling (); all this leads to an inverted experience o the

social ().

xv


17/518

By returning to the experience o what sets scripts in motion () we can measure what has to be

passed through in order or beings to subsist () while discovering the beings o passionate interest

[] ().

But several obstacles to the depiction o this new experie nce have to be removed: first, th e notion o em-

bedding (); then the notion o calculating preerences (); then the obstacle o a Subject/Object

relation (); ourth , the obst acle o exchange (); and fifh an d last, the cult o mercha ndise ().

Then a particular mode o alteration o being appears () with an original pass: interest and valoriza-

tion () and specific elici ty condit ions ().

This kneading o exis tents () leads to the enigma o th e crossing with organizatio n[ · ] (),

which will allow us to disa malgamate the mat ter o the second Nat ure ().

·Chapter ·

I E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Detecting the[ · ] crossing () ought to l ead to praise or accounting dev ices ().

However, economics claims to calculate values via value-ree acts (), which transorms the experi-

ence o being quits () into a decree o Providence capable o calculating the optimum () and o

emptying t he scene where goods a nd bads are distr ibuted ().

While the questi on o morality ha s already been raised or each mode (), there is neverthe less a newsource o morality in the un certain ty over ends and means ().

A responsible being is one who responds to an appea l () that cannot be universal withou t experience

o the universe ().

We can thus draw up the specifications or moral beings [] () and define the ir particula r mode o

veridiction: t he taking up o scru ples () and their par ticular altera tion: the quest or t he optimal ().

The Economy is transormed into a met aphysics () when it amalgamate s two types o calculati ons in

the [ · ] crossing; () this makes it mista ke a discipline or a science () that would describe

only economic mat ter ().So The Economy puts an end to all moral exp erience ().

The ourth grou p, which links quasi object s and quasi subjects (), is the one that the intermina ble war

between the t wo hands, visible and invisible, misund erstands ().

Can the Moderns become agnostic in matters o The Economy () and provide a new oundation or

the discipline o economics? ()

·Conclusion·

C W P C C? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To avoid ailure, we must use a series o tests to defi ne the trial that the inqui ry must under go ():

First test: ca n the experiences detec ted be shared? ()

xvi


18/518

Second test: does the de tection o one mode allow us to respect th e other modes? ()

Third test: can account s other than the author ’s be proposed? ()

Fourth test: can the inquiry mutate into a diplomatic arrangement () so that institutions adjusted to

the modes can be de signed () while a new space is opened up or comparat ive anthropolog y () by

a series o negotiat ions over values? ()

For new wars, a new peace ().

•

xvii


19/518


20/518

T R:

U’ M O C I

This book summarizes an inquiry ha I have been pursuing raherobsinaely for a quarer cenury now. Thanks o a generous subsidy from heEuropean Union, I have been able o creae a plaform ha will allow you noonly o read his provisional report bu also o exend he inquiry by using heresearch apparaus available a ..

Begun in soliude, my work is being exended here wih he help of a smalleam brough ogeher under he code name : An Inquiry ino Modes ofExisence, he English ranslaion of he French : Enquêe sur les Modesd’Exisence. If all goes well, our plaform will allow us o mobilize a consider-ably larger research communiy.

Once you have regisered on he sie, you will have access o he digialversion of his book, and hus o he noes, bibliography, index, glossary, andsupplemenary documenaion ha we have provided. The digial inerface as

such is now well anchored in conemporary working pracices; ours is flexibleenough o muliply ways of reading while providing a consanly evolving cri-ical apparaus benefiing from he commenary ha you and oher readers willno fail o add. (The boldface erms in he ex refer o he digial glossary.)

Wha makes his projec so ineresing, and also, of course, so difficul,is ha you are going o find yourself invied no only o read he work bu oexplore a somewha unfamiliar environmen. The digial inerface is designedo provide you wih enough handholds o le you rerace a cerain number

of experiences ha lie, as I see i, a he hear of he hisory of he Moderns,whereas he Moderns’ own accouns of hese experiences do very lile o makehem undersandable. In my view, his conradicion beween he experiences

xix


21/518

hemselves and he accouns of hem auhorized by he available meaphysics iswha makes i so hard o describe he Moderns empirically. I is in order o movebeyond his conradicion ha I invie you o join me in paying close aen-ion o he conflics of inerpreaion surrounding he various ruh valuesha confron us every day. If my hypohesis is correc, you will find ha i ispossible o disinguish differen modes whose paired inersecions, or crossings, can be defined empirically and can hus be shared. I encourage you o paricipaein his sharing via he digial environmen we have developed for he purpose.

For I am convinced ha, once you have discovered new ways of familiar-

izing yourself wih he argumens of he inquiry, you will be able o proposequie differen answers o he questionnaire around which i is srucured.Thanks o he digial inerface, you will be able o navigae in each mode anda each crossing where wo modes inersec. A er you examine he documensha we have begun o assemble, you may be prepared o conribue ohers. Theenire ineres of he exercise lies in he possibiliy ha you and oher paric-ipans, wheher or no hey have read he book, will exend he work begunhere wih new documens, new sources, new esimonies, and, mos impor-

an, ha you will modif y he quesions by correcing or modulaing he projecin relaion o he resuls obained. The laboraory is now wide open for newdiscoveries.

In a final phase, if you wish, you will even be able o paricipae in an orig-inal form of diplomacy by proposing accouns differen from mine as inerpre-aions of he experiences ha we shall have revisied ogeher. Indeed, in aplanned series of encouners, wih he help of mediaors, we shall ry o proposeoher versions, oher meaphysics, beyond he ones proposed in his provi-

sional repor. We may even be able o skech ou he lineamens of oher insiu-ions beer suied o sheler he values we shall have defined.

This projec is par of he developmen of somehing known by he sill-vague erm “digial humaniies,” whose evolving syle is beginning o supple-men he more convenional syles of he social sciences and philosophy.Alhough I have learned from sudying echnological projecs ha innovaingon all frons a once is a recipe for failure, here we are deermined o explore inno-vaions in mehod, concep, syle, and conen simulaneously. Only experi-

ence will ell us wheher his hybrid apparaus using new echniques of reading,

xx


22/518

wriing, and collecive inquiry faciliaes or complicaes he work of empiricalphilosophy ha i seeks o launch. Time is shor: we are obliged o concludehis aemp o describe he Moderns’ advenure differenly by Augus —acenury aer anoher, ragically memorable Augus ’. You can already see whyhere is no quesion of my succeeding in his enerprise on my own!

xxi


23/518


24/518

A

The publicaion of his work as well as he developmen of he pla-form were made possible by a research gran from he European ResearchCouncil, no. . I hank he European Research Mission of Sciences Pofor supporing his projec from sar o finish, and also he École des Mines forhe wo sabbaical years I was graned, in and again in .

xxiii


25/518


26/518

O

Since I canno disguise he difficuly of he exercise I am going o askreaders o underake, I am going o ry o give hem he overall hrus a hesar, so hey will know where I wan o lead hem—which may help hem hangon during he rough passages. A guide leading he way can announce he rialso come, exend a hand, muliply he res sops, add ramps and ropes, bu i is

no wihin his power o flaen he peaks ha his readers have agreed o crosswih him.I have divided he repor on his invesigaion ino hree par s. In Par One,

I seek firs of all o esablish he objec (Chaper ) and hen he daa needed forhis raher unusual invesigaion (Chaper ). I mus also remove he wo prin-cipal obsacles ha would make all our effors o advance our undersanding ofhe Moderns incomprehensible and even absurd. These wo obsacles are obvi-ously relaed, bu I have neverheless disinguished hem by devoing wo chap-

ers ( and ) o he key quesion of objecive knowledge—why has he advenof Science made i so difficul o grasp he oher modes?—and wo more chap-ers ( and ) o he quesion of how consrucion and realiy are conneced—why can’ we say of somehing ha i is “rue” and “made,” ha is, boh “real”and manufacured, in a single breah? A he end of Par One, we shall knowhow o speak appropriaely abou a pluraliy of ypes of beings by relying onhe guiding hread of experience, on empiricism as William James defined i:nohing bu experience, yes, bu nothing less han experience.

Thus when he ground has been cleared, when experience has becomea reliable guide once more, when speech has been freed from he awkwardconsrains peculiar o Modernism, we shall be in a posiion o profi, in Par

xxv


27/518

Two, from he pluralism of modes of exisence and o ge ourselves ou of heprison, firs, of he Subjec/Objec division. The firs six modes ha we aregoing o idenify w ill allow us o offer an enirely differen basis for comparaiveanhropology, hese being he conrass on which oher culures have focusedparicular aenion. We shall hen be able o undersand he emergence of hemodes, he flucuaion of heir values, he adverse effecs ha he emergence ofeach one has had on our abiliy o grasp he ohers. I shall ake advanage of hisanalysis, oo, in order o arrange hem in a somewha more sysemaic way byproposing a differen sysem of coordinaes.

This sysem will allow us, in Par Three, o idenify six addiional modes,more regional ones, closer o he habis of he social sciences; hese modes willhelp us ge around he las major obsacles o our invesigaion: he noion ofSociey and above all ha of The Economy, ha second naure ha definesprobably beer han all he oher modes he anhropological specificiy of heModerns.

Jus as, a he beginning of Fellini’s Orchestra Rehearsal, each insrumen-alis, speaking in fron of he ohers, ells he eam who have come o iner-

view hem ha his or her insrumen is he only one ha is ruly essenial ohe orchesra, his book will work if he reader feels ha each mode being exam-ined in urn is he bes one, he mos discriminaing, he mos imporan, hemos raional of all . . . Bu he mos imporan es is ha, for each mode, heexperience whose guiding hread I claim o have found can be clearly disin-guished from is insiuional repor. This is he only way o be able o proposemore saisfying repors in he nex phase. A he end of hese wo Pars, we shalla las be able o give a posiive, raher han merely a negaive, version of hose

who “have never been modern”: “Here is wha has happened o us; here is whahas been passed along o us; now, wha are we going o do wih his hisoricalanhropology or, beer, wih his regional onology?”

Wha o do? This is he objec of he general conclusion, necessarily verybrief because i depends on he fae of he collaboraive research plaformin which his ex, a simple summary repor on an inquiry, aspires o inereshe reader. Here he anhropologis urns ino a chief of proocol o proposea series of “diplomaic represenaions” ha would allow us o inheri he se

of values deployed in Pars Two and Three—all of which define he very localand paricular hisory of he Moderns—bu wihin renewed insiuions andaccording o renewed regimes of speech.

xxvi


28/518

Then, bu only hen, migh we urn back oward “he ohers”—he former“ohers”!—o begin he negoiaion abou which values o insiue, o mainain,

perhaps o share. If we were o succeed, he Moderns would finally know whahas happened o hem, wha hey have inheried, he promises hey would beready o fulfill, he bales hey would have o ge ready o figh. A he very leas,he ohers would finally know where hey sand in his regard. Togeher, wecould perhaps beer prepare ourselves o confron he emergence of he global,of he Globe, wihou denying any aspec of our hisory. The universal wouldperhaps be wihin heir grasp a las.

xxvii


29/518


30/518

A shocking question addressed to a

climatologist → that obliges us to distin-

guish values rom the accounts practi-

tioners give o them.

Between modernizing and ecolo-

gizing, we have to choose → by proposing a

different system o coordinates.

Which leads us to define an imaginary

diplomatic scene: → in the name o w hom to

negotiate → and with whom to negotiate?

The inquiry at first resembles the oneinvolving speech acts → while we learn to

identiy different modes o existence.

The goal is, first, to accompany a people

vacillating between economy and ecology.

·Introduction·


31/518

A

→

B —I !— , Ineed o offer a forease of wha is a sake in such an inquiry. Since hesmalles elemens can lead sep-by-sep o he larges, le me begin wih

an anecdoe.They’re siing around a able, some fieenFrench indusrialiss responsible for susain-able developmen in various companies, facinga professor of climaology, a researcher from he

Collège de France. I’s he fall of ; a bale is raging abou wheherhe curren climae disurbances are of human origin or no. One of heindusrialiss asks he professor a quesion I find a lile cavalier: “Bu

why should we believe you, any more han he ohers?” I’m asonished.Why does he pu hem on he same fooing, as if i were a simple differ-ence of opinion beween his climae specia lis and hose who are calledclimae skepics (wih a cerain abuse of he fine word “skepic”)? Couldhe indusrialis possibly have access o a measuring insrumen supe-rior o ha of he specialis? How could his ordinary bureaucra be ina posiion o weigh he posiions of he expers according o a calculusof more and less? Really, I find he quesion almos shocking, especially

coming from someone whose job i is o ake paricular ineres in ecolog-ical maers. Has he conroversy really degeneraed o he poin wherepeople can alk abou he fae of he plane as if hey were on he sage of


32/518

a elevised jousing mach, preending ha he wo opposing posiionsare of equal meri?

I wonder how he professor is going o respond. Will he pu hemeddler in his place by reminding him ha i’s no a maer of belief buof fac? Will he once again summarize he “indispuable daa” ha leavescarcely any room for doub? Bu no, o my grea surprise, he responds,aer a long, drawn-ou sigh: “If people don’ trust the institution o science, we’re in serious rouble.” And he begins o lay ou before his audience helarge number of researchers involved in climae analysis, he complex

sysem for verifying daa, he aricles and repors, he principle of peerevaluaion, he vas nework of weaher saions, floaing weaher buoys,saellies, and compuers ha ensure he flow of informaion—and hen,sanding a he blackboard, he sars o explain he pifalls of he modelsha are needed o correc he daa as well as he series of doubs ha havehad o be addressed on each of hese poins. “And, in he oher camp,” headds, “wha do we find? No compeen researcher in he field who has heappropriae equipmen.” To answer he quesion raised, he professor

hus uses he noion of insiuion as he bes insrumen for measuringhe respecive weigh of he posiions. He sees no higher cour of appeals.And his is why he adds ha “losing rus” in his resource would be, forhim, a very serious maer.

His answer surprises me as much as he quesion. Five or en yearsago, I don’ believe ha a researcher—especially a French researcher—would have spoken, in a siuaion of conroversy, abou “rus in heinsiuion of science.” He migh possibly have poined o “confidence

inervals,” in he scienific sense of he erm, bu he would have appealedo cerainy, a cerainy whose origin he would no have had o discussin deail before such an audience; his cerainy would have allowedhim o rea his inerlocuor as an ignoramus and his adversaries as irra-ional. No insiuion would have been made visible; no appeal o ruswould have been necessary. He would have addressed himself o a higheragency, Science wih a capial S. When one appeals o Science, here isno need for debae, because one always finds oneself back in school,

seaed in a classroom where i is a maer of learning or else ge ing a badgrade. Bu when one has o appeal o rus, he inerlocuory siuaion isenirely differen: one has o share he concern for a fragile and delicae

Trusing Insiuions Again? •


33/518

insiuion, encumbered wih erribly maerial and mundane elemens—oil lobbies, peer evaluaion, he consrains of model-making, ypos inhousand-page-long repors, research conracs, compuer bugs, and soon. Now, such a concern—and his is he essenial poin—does no aimo cas doub on research resuls; on he conrary, i is wha ensures hahey are going o become valid, robus, and shared.

Whence my surprise: How can his researcher a he Collège deFrance abandon he comfor provided by he appeal o indispuablecerainy and lean insead on rus in science as an insiuion? Who

sill has confidence in insiuions oday? Is his no he wors momeno se forh in full view he frighful complexiy of he counless offices,meeings, colloquia, summis, models, reaises, and aricles by meansof which our cerainies abou he anhropic origin of climae disrup-ion are milled? I is a lile as hough, responding o a caechumen whodoubs he exisence of God, a pries were o skech ou he organiza-ional char of he Vaican, he bureaucraic hisory of he Councils, andhe counless glosses on reaises of canon law. In our day, i seems ha

poining one’s finger a insiuions migh work as a weapon o criicizehem, bu surely no as a ool for reesablishing confidence in es ablishedruhs. A nd ye his is acually how he professor chose o defend himselfagains hese skepical indusrialiss.

And he was right. In a siuaion of heaed conroversy, when i is amaer of obaining valid knowledge abou objecs as complex as hewhole sysem of he Earh, knowledge ha mus lead o radical changesin he mos inimae deails of exisence for billions of people, i is infi-

niely safer o rely on he insiuion of science han on indispuablecerainy. Bu also infiniely riskier. I mus have aken a lo of nerve forhim o shi his argumenaive suppor ha way.

Sill, I don’ hink he professor was quie aware of having slippedfrom one philosophy of science o anoher. I hink, raher, ha he nolonger had he choice of weapons, because his climae-skepic adver-saries were he ones alk ing abou waiing o ac unil hey had achievedoal cerainy, and who were using he noion of insiuion only o pu

him in a bind. Weren’ hey in effec accusing climaologiss of being a“lobby” like any oher, he model-makers’ lobby? Weren’ hey akingpleasure in racing he moneary circuis necessary o heir research as

Introduction•


34/518

well as he neworks of influence and compliciy ha were aesed byhe e-mails hese skepics had managed o ge hold o? And how did heycome by their knowledge? Apparenly, hey could boas of being righwhere everyone else was wrong because Cerainy is “never a quesionof numbers.” Every ime someone alluded o he hrong of climaologissand he scope of heir equipmen and heir budges, he skepics raisedindignan voices agains wha hey called “an argumen from auhoriy.”And repeaed he loy gesure of Cerainy agains Trus by appealingo Truh wih a capial T, which no insiuion can corrup. And wrapped

hemselves in he folds of he Galileo affair: didn’ Galileo riumph allby himself agains insiuions, agains he Church, agains religion,agains he scienific bureaucracy of he period? Caugh in such a vise,he professor had lile choice. Since Cerainy had been commandeeredby his enemies and he public was beginning o ask rude quesions; sincehere was a grea risk ha science would be confused wih opinion, hefell back on he means ha seemed o be a hand: rus in an insiuionha he had known from he inside for weny years and ha he uli-

maely had no reason o doub.But about which no one ever speaks. Here is where we find he fragiliy

of he buress on which he chose o lean. If he found me looking a hima bi wryly as he sruggled o respond, he will have o forgive me, for Ibelong o a field, , which has been working hard o givea posiive meaning o he erm “scienific insiuion.” Now, in is earlydays, in he s, his field was perceived by many scieniss as a criiqueof scienific Cerainy—which i was—bu also of reliable knowledge—

which i mos cerainly was no. We waned o undersand how—wihwha insrumens, wha machinery, wha maerial, hisorical, anhropo-logical condiions—i was possible o produce objecivi y. And of course,wihou appealing o any ranscenden Cerainy ha would have all aonce and wihou discussion raised up Science wih a capial S againspublic opinion. As we saw i, scienific objeciviy was oo imporan obe defended solely by wha is known by he umbrella erm “,”a erm used oo oen o bring debae o a hal when an accusaion of irra-

ionaliy is hurled agains overly insisen adversaries. Well before ques-ions of ecology came o he forefron of poliics, we already suspecedha he disincion beween he raional and he irraional would no



35/518

←

.

suffice o sele he debaes over he componens of he .As we saw i, he quesion of he sciences was raher more complicaedhan ha; we sough o invesigae he manufacure of objeciviy in anew way. And ha is why we are always asonished, my colleagues inhe hisory or sociology of he sciences and I, a he hosiliy of cerainresearchers oward wha hey call he “relaivism” of our inquiries,whereas we have only been rying o prepare scieniss for a finally real-isic defense of he objeciviy o which we are jus as aached as heyare—bu in a differen way.

So my mild surprise a he climaologis’s response will be under-sandable. “Well, well, here you are, speaking posiively of he rus onemus have in he insiuion of science . . . Bu, my dear colleague, whenhave you ever publicly invoked he necessiy of such rus? When have

you agreed o share your manufacuring secres? When have you pleadedloud and long ha scienific pracice mus be undersood as a fragileinsiuion ha has o be carefully mainained if people are o rus hesciences? Are we no he ones, on he conrary, who have done his work

all along? We, whose help you have spurned somewha gruffly by callingus relaiviss? Are you really ready for such a change in episemology?Are you really going o give up he comforing accusaion of irraionaliy,ha maserful way of shuing up everyone who picks a quarrel wih

you? Isn’ i a lile lae o ake refuge suddenly in he noion of ‘rus,’wihou having prepared yourselves for his in any way?” If I did no raisesuch quesions wih he climaologis ha day, i was because he ime odebae he “relaivism” of “science sudies” had passed. This whole affair

has become oo serious for such squabbles. We have he same enemies,and we have o respond o he same emergencies.

This anecdoe should help he reader under-sand why we have o inquire ino he role o be giveno he key noion of , and more especiallyhe insiuion of science, since we find ourselvesfacing ecological crises ha are unprecedened inkind and in scale. If I have commied myself o

such an inquiry, i is because, in he professor’s response, one can readilydiscern, if no a conradicion, a leas a powerful ension beweenhe ha he wans o defend—objeciviy—and he account he

Introduction•


36/518

proposes o define his value. For he seems o hesiae, in effec, beweenan appeal o Cerain y and an appeal o Trus, wo hings ha involve, aswe shall discover, enirely differen philosophies, or raher meaphysics,or, beer sill, onologies.

I am well aware ha he had no had he ime o ge a good handleon his difference; i is no he sor of deail ha one expecs of a clima-ologis. Bu my own work as a sociologis, or philosopher, or anhropol-ogis (he label hardly maers) is o explore his disconnec in as muchdeph as possible, for as long as i akes, and hus o propose—and for me

his is he whole poin of he projec—a soluion ha will make such avalue shareable and susainable. As we shall see, he proposiion I amexploring hrough his inquiry consiss in using a series of o disinguish he values ha people are seeking o defend from heaccoun ha has been given of hem hroughou hisory, so as o aempo esablish hese values, or beer ye o insall hem, in insiuions hamigh finally be designed for hem.

I am all oo well aware ha he words “value” and “insiuion”

can be frighening, can even sound erribly reacionary. Wha! Go backo values? Trus insiuions? Bu isn’ his wha we’ve finally goenaway from, wha we’ve done away wih, wha we’ve learned o figh andeven o dismiss wih scorn? And ye he anecdoe analyzed above showsha we may have acually enered a new era. The scope of he ecologicalcrises obliges us o reconsider a whole se of reacions, or raher condi-ioned reflexes, ha rob us of all our flexibiliy o reac o wha is coming.This a leas was he hypohesis wih which I began. For a researcher a

he Collège de France o shi from Cerainy o Trus, somehing ruly“serious” has o happen. This is he seriousness ha weighs on our workogeher.

My goal for his inquiry is o creae an arrangemen ha I call, one ha would make i possible, if I could make i work (buI can’ do i alone), o help our researcher who has been aacked in hename of “raionalism” by offering him an alernaive definiion of whahe holds dear. Can I succeed in redefining objeciviy hrough rus in

a scholarly insiuion wihou leaving him wih he sense ha he haslos he value for which he has been fighing? Even if, once he workhas been done, he will have o rely on a oally differen philosophy of



37/518

B

,

→

science? And can I do his with him? Such are he sakes of his research:o share he experience of he values ha my informans seem o holddear, bu by offering o modiy he accoun, or more accuraely he mea-physics, hrough which hey seek o express he experience in he overlyconflicual cases where hey risk losing i while defending i clumsily.Can cerain of he conceps ha we have learned o cherish be offeredhe opporuniy for a ype of developmen ha he much oo narrowframework of modernizaion has no given hem? Aer all, he noionsof “susainable developmen” and “proeced species” can also apply o

conceps!Why can so many values no longer hold upagains aacks? Because of anoher phenomenonha I have been seeking o documen ever since I wasiniiaed ino fieldwork, in Africa, in he early s,

and ha can be designaed as he “end of he modernis parenhesis.” Ineveryhing ha follows, he erms “modernizaion” or “M” areopposed o “.” Beween modernizing and ecologizing, we have

o choose.In a book published some weny years ago, We Have Never BeenModern, I sough o give a precise meaning o he overly polysemic word“modern” by using as a ouchsone he relaionship ha was beginningo be esablished in he seveneenh cenury beween wo worlds: haof Naure and ha of Sociey, he world of nonhumans and he world ofhumans. The “we” of he somewha grandiloquen ile did no desig-nae a specific people or a paricular geography, bu raher all hose

who expec Science o keep a radical disance from Poliics. All hosepeople, no maer where hey were born, who feel hemselves pushed byime’s arrow in such a way ha behind them lies an archaic pas unhappilycombining Facs and Values, and beore them lies a more or less radianfuure in which he disincion beween Facs and Values will finallybe sharp and clear. The modern ideal ype is he one who is heading—who was heading—from ha pas o ha fuure by way of a “- ” whose advance could no be sopped. I was hanks o

such a pioneering fron, such a Fronier, ha one could allow oneselfo qualify as “irraional” everyhing ha had o be orn away, and as“raional” everyhing oward which i was necessary o move in order

Introduction•


38/518

o progress. Thus he Moderns were hose who were freeing hem-selves of aachmens o he pas in order o advance oward . Inshor, who were heading from darkness ino ligh—ino E.If I used Science as my ouchsone for defining his singular sysem ofcoordinaes, i was because any disrupion in he way he sciences wereconceived hreaened he enire apparaus of modernizaion. If peoplebegan o mix up Facs and Values again, ime’s arrow was going o iner-rup is fligh, hesiae, wis iself around in all direcions, and look likea plae of spaghei—or raher a nes of vipers.

One didn’ have o be a genius, weny years ago, o feel ha modern-izaion was going o end, since i was becoming harder and harder by heday—indeed, by he minue—o disinguish facs from values becauseof he increased inermixing of humans and nonhumans. A he ime, Ioffered a number of examples, referring o he muliplicaion of “hybrids”beween science and sociey. For more han weny years, scienific andechnological conroversies have proliferaed in number and scope,evenually reaching he climae iself. Since geologiss are beginning o

use he erm “A

” o designae he era of Earh ’s hisory hafollows he Holocene, his will be a convenien erm o use from hereon o sum up he meaning of an era ha exends from he scienific andindusrial revoluions o he presen day. If geologiss hemselves, rahersolid and serious ypes, see humaniy as a force of he same ampliude asvolcanoes or even of plae econics, one hing is now cerain: we have nohope whasoever—no more hope in he fuure han we had in he pas—of seeing a definiive disincion be ween Science and Poliics.

As a resul, he ouchsone ha served o disinguish pas frompresen, o skech ou he modernizaion fron ha was ready o encom-pass he plane by offering an ideniy o hose who fel “modern,” haslos all is efficacy. I is now before G ha we are summoned o appear:Gaia, he odd, doubly composie figure made up of science and myhologyused by cerain specialiss o designae he Earh ha surrounds us andha we surround, he Möbius srip of which we form boh he inside andhe ouside, he ruly global Globe ha hreaens us even as we hreaen

i. If I waned o dramaize—perhaps overdramaize—he ambienceof my invesigaive projec, I would say ha i seeks o regiser he



39/518

←

.

aershocks of he modernizaion fron jus as he confronaion wihGaia appears imminen.

I is as hough he Moderns (I use he capialized form o designaehis populaion of variable geomery ha is in search of isel) had up onow defined values ha hey had somehow shelered in shaky insiu-ions conceived on he fly in response o he demands of he moderniza-ion fron while coninuing o defer he quesion of how hey hemselveswere going o las. They had a fuure, bu hey were no concerned wihwha was o come—or raher, wha was coming. Wha is coming? Wha is

i ha is arriving unexpecedly, somehing hey seem no o have anici-paed? “Gaia,” he “Anhropocene” era, he precise name hardly maers,somehing in any case ha has deprived hem forever of he fundamenaldisincion beween Naure and Sociey by means of which hey wereesablishing heir sysem of coordinaes, one sep a a ime. Saringfrom his even, everyhing has become more complicaed for hem.“Tomorrow,” hose who have sopped being resoluely modern murmur,“we’re going o have o ake ino accoun even more enanglemens

involving beings ha will conflae he order of Naure wih he order ofSociey; omorrow even more han yeserday we’re going o feel ourselvesbound by an even greaer number of consrains imposed by ever morenumerous and more diverse beings.” From his poin on, he pas has analered form, since i is no more archaic ha wha lies ahead. As for hefuure, i has been shaered o bis. We shall no longer be able o emanci-pae ourselves he way we could before. An enirely new siuaion: behindus, aachmens; ahead of us, ever more aachmens. Suspension of he

“modernizaion fron.” End of emancipaion as he only possible desiny.And wha is worse: “we” no longer know who we are, nor of course where weare, we who had believed we were modern . . . End of modernizaion. End

of sory. Time o sar over.Is here anoher sysem of coordinaes ha can

replace he one we have los, now ha he modernisparenhesis is closing? This is he enerprise ha I

have been doggedly pursuing, alongside oher endeavors, for a quarer of

a cenury, and ha I would like o share and exend hrough his book andis accompanying digial apparaus. I believe ha i is acually possibleo complemen he sark ly negaive ile We Have Never Been Modern wih

Introduction•


40/518

a positive version of he same asserion. If we have never been modern,hen wha has happened o us? Wha are we o inheri? Who have webeen? Who are we going o become? Wih whom mus we be conneced?Where do we find ourselves siuaed from now on? These are all ques-ions of hisorical and comparaive anhropology ha we canno begino approach wihou a horough inquiry ino he famous moderniy hais in he process of shuing down.

Why do I believe I am capable of proposing such an inquiry andoffering such an alernaive? Simply because, by suspending he heme

of moderniy in order o characerize he advenure of he Moderns, Ihink I have localized he experience of a cerain number of values hacan be presened, I believe, in alernaive versions.

I am convinced, for example, ha he experience of objeciviy didno seem o proec Science wih a capial S very well because no one hadever really fel a need o defend i. As soon as objecivi y is seriously chal-lenged, as i was in he anecdoe relaed above, i becomes desirable odescribe he pracice of researchers quie differenly, offering scieniss a

differen represenaion of hemselves, one ha would make i possibleo regain rus a las in a profoundly redefined scienific insiuion.As we shall soon see, he work of redescripion may be of value in hai may allow us o give more space o other values ha are very commonlyencounered bu ha did no necessar ily find a comforable slo for hem-selves wihin he framework offered by moderniy: for example, poliics,or religion, or law, values ha he defense of Science in all is majesy hadrampled along is way bu which can now be deployed more readily. If i

is a quesion of ecologizing and no longer of modernizing, i may becomepossible o bring a larger number of values ino cohabiaion wihin asomewha richer ecosysem.

In all ha follows, I am hus going o offer readers a double disso-ciaion: firs, I shall ry o ease ou an proper o each valuefrom he accoun radiionally provided for i; nex, I shall ake i uponmyself o give his experience an enirely provisional alernaive formu-laion ha I shall pu on he bargaining able and submi o criique. Why

proceed his way? Because i seems o me ha an experience, providedha i is pursued wih care, can be shared, whereas he alernaive



41/518

formulaion ha I offer of ha experience canno be—in any case, noa he ouse.

The sudy of scienific pracices ha I have been carrying oufor so long can serve as an example: I have rarely heard criiques of hedescriptions ha “science sudies” has given of scienific neworks (on heconrary, he veraciy of hese descripions has always been recognized,as if, aer Harvey, we had discovered he veins and areries of he schol-arly bloodsream). And ye he alernaive versions my colleagues and Ihave proposed in order o accoun for he fabricaion of objeciv iy have

been holy conesed by some of he very researchers whose values wewere rying o make comprehensible, a las, o ohers. The very words“nework” and “fabricaion” are someimes enough o shock our iner-locuors, which only shows how badly we have gone abou i. Wha poordiplomas we have been!

Since he goal is ake an invenory of he Moderns in order o knowwha we are o inheri, i would be ragic o confuse hree ingrediens inparicular: he accouns he Moderns have invened in he course of heir

various sruggles; he values hey have held o during his same hisory,hrough experiences ha can be shared; finally, my own formulaion,overly paricular or overly polemical, of his same experience.

This is why he apparaus I wan o offer readers is presened in wosequences; he repor of an inquir y o which hey are welcome o add, orsubrac, whaever seems o hem o correspond, or no, o wha is givenin he experience; second, a procedure ha really has o be called nego-iaion by means of which he auhor and some readers—who will have

become —can envisage paricipaing in a shared refor-mulaion of hese same experiences.

Such is my aemp. To pu i blunly, I hink I am righ in hedeecion of he experiences ha I am going o ry o bring o he read-er’s aenion; I am sure ha I am oen wrong in he expression ha Ihave proposed for each of hem while seeking o offer an alernaive omodernism. And if I am wrong, i is by consrucion, since a diplomacanno be righ all alone. He can only offer a formula for peace and send

i ou o be picked apar bo h by hose whom he represens and by hosewho are on he receiving end. The objec of his book is hus o serve

Introduction•


42/518

W

: →

as he repor on an inquiry and also, perhaps, as a preliminary sep in apeacemaking process.

The srangeness of his diplomaic siuaiondoes no sem solely from he procedure chosen (adigial environmen!) or from he naure of hoseha I claim o represen (obviously, wihou heslighes mandae!); i also sems from he conflic iself, for which heinervenion of diplomas is finally required. For modernizaion neverakes he form of a war ha could appropriaely be brough o an end.

Wha conflic, hen, has so exhaused he paries ha hey now dreamof holding peace alks? A srange conflic in which none of he proago-niss can be defined: neiher he aforemenioned Moderns, since hey“have never been” modern, nor of course he “ohers,” since hey were“ohers” only by comparison wih a moderniy mainained in vagueness.The diplomaic scene—a perfecly imaginary one, I confess—ha I seeko se forh hrough his inquir y is one ha would reunie he aforemen-ioned Moderns wih he aforemenioned “ohers” as Gaia approaches.

The siuaion ha I would like o skech ou is one in which he Modernspresent themselves once again o he res of he world, bu his ime finallyknowing, for real, wha hey value!

This may appear asonishing and even some-wha backward-looking, bu i is in he Moderns, in“Occidenals,” yes even in “Europeans,” ha we aregoing o have o ake an ineres, at last, in his inquiry. No o worry:here is no narcissism here, no nosalgic search for ideniy. I is jus ha

for a long ime has aken i for graned ha i has had ose up a conras beween “he oher ” and a process of modern-izaion ha was European, or in any case Wesern, in origin, a processha no one had ried o specify furher, and ha anhropologiss did nosee i as heir job o sudy. Neverheless, i was always in relaion o hasandard, defined by defaul, ha he irraionaliy, or, more chariably,he alernaive raionaliies manifesed by oher culures were judged.As respecful as anhropologiss waned o be of “he savage mind,” i

was from he saring poin of “culivaed” or “learned” minds ha heyhad o conceive of he difference. This is he ideal of moderniy ha hasbeen used o idenify he “culural,” “archaic,” or “reacionary” elemens

←

→



43/518

wih which “moderniy” iself has remained imbued. Moreover, i is inrelaion o his modernizaion fron ha some are sill rying o pene-rae he secres of he fuure (are culures going o converge, diverge,ener ino conflic? and so on). The resul of an approach like his is hawe sill lack an anhropology of he Moderns.

The fac is ha hese populaions wih elasic borders have alwaysposed a real problem of descripion for hemselves and for ohers, since,even if hey have never been modern, hey have cerainly thought ofhemselves as such. The Moderns have never been modern, bu hey

have believed hey were modern, and his belief oo is crucial, for i hasmade hem ac in a housand conradicory ways ha we mus learn osor ou—while we may have o abandon, for our par, he very noion of“.” In oher words, here is an opaciy proper o he Moderns wihwhich comparaive anhropology will have o reckon sooner or laer. Thisopaciy is all he more enigmaic in ha i conrass wih he Moderns’claim o pracice self-awareness, self-analysis, criique, lucidiy—andalso wih he odd idea ha he “oher culures” would be he ones ha are

opaque and in grea need of ehnography. I is o comba his opaciy—orhis false ransparency, perhaps—ha I have needed o develop a specialproocol for inquiry. As we shall see, he anhropology of he Moderns isin no way easier han ha of he “ohers”—who, moreover, having ceasedo be “he ohers,” have hereby probably become easier o analyze hanhe Moderns, who remain as opaque as ever!

I am going o proceed as if he Moderns had discovered during heirhisory—mos oen as borrowings from oher civilizaions, moreover—

a number of values ha hey hold dear and ha consiue, as i were,heir very self-definiion, even hough hey have never had an enirelyfirm grasp on hese values. Because of his lack of assurance, I am goingo proceed as if hey have no managed, his ime on he heoreical level,o find a way o respect heir own values—and sill less, hen, o respechose of ohers. In oher words, in his hypohesis he Moderns did noinves as much energy in he overall design of heir values as hey puino discovering hem in pracice, one aer anoher. I is no simply ha

he Moderns are wo-faced, like “whie men wih forked ongues.” I israher ha, encumbered by heir reasures, hey have never had he occa-sion o specify clearly wha i is ha hey really hold dear. A maer of

Introduction•


44/518

← ?

excessive gourmandise, or greed? Who knows! In any case, hanks o hissor of charitable fiction, I shall be able o exend my ehnographic inves-igaions even as I acknowledge he immense gap beween he officialand he unofficial versions, wihou seeking o criicize hem for all ha.I is in his sense ha I can claim o be offering a posiive raher han apurely negaive version of modernizaion—a he risk of appearing everso slighly posiivis and of being accused, basically, of connivance wihmy subjec (bu aer all, isn’ connivance anoher name for he aribueof ehnologiss ha we call empahy?).

This ficion of an embarrassmen of riches,as will soon become clear, is no a all aimed arendering he Moderns innocen by washing hemclean of all heir excesses. Is goal is above all o propose a las a some-wha realisic descripion of wha could be called he modern adven-ure, while no longer confusing i all—for beer and for worse—wihhe adven of a modernizaion fron. If i is really a maer of war, henle war be declared; in paricular, le is objecives be defined so ha we

can finally figure ou how o end i. This descripive projec is useful iniself, since if i were o be successfully compleed, i would allow us oprovide comparaive anhropology wih a sandard ha would no longerbe a fanasy (as wa s he adven of Reason) and ha would no be, eiher, anegaive or simply criical version of he goal of modernizaion. Bu i isuseful in anoher way, oo: if we were finally o learn wha “we” Modernshave really been, we could renegoiae ha “we” from op o boom—and hus also renegoiae wha we migh become wih he “ohers,” as we

face he new horizon of Gaia.The fac is ha comparaive anhropology remains hanging in he

air as long as we do no have access o an a lernaive version of he poin ofcomparison ha always remains in he background: he “W” (a frigh-fully vague erm o which we ough o be able o give a precise meaning alas). As long as we have no aken he invenory of he Moderns’ legacy,we canno underake an auhenic comparaive anhropology, nor canwe—and his is perhaps even more serious—come up wih any long-

erm hypoheses abou he fuure of heir relaions wih he res of heworld. A “res of he world,” a “remainder” whose definiion obviouslyvaries depending on wheher “we” have been modern or somehing else



45/518

enirely; o begin wih (bu his was already becoming clear), his worldno longer remains by any means a “remnan”!

Aer he errifying scenes of empires in which all he oher popu-laions wached wih alarm he downfall of he brillian madmen whowere overurning heir own values along wih hose of ohers in an inde-scribable disorder while chopping up he plane in a sor of juvenile fury,heir eyes fixed on he pas as if hey were fleeing backward away fromsome dreadful monser before covering everyhing over wih he cloakof an ineviable modernizaion and he irreversible reign of Reason, I

would like o proceed as if he madmen could calm down, go home, gea grip, chill ou, and hen come back o presen hemselves, no in ordero apologize (who is weak enough o demand apologies?) bu o explainwha hey were looking for, and o discover a las, on heir own, whahey were ulimaely holding ono. I is no oally fanciful o imagineha he “ohers” migh hen ake an ineres, in par, in he “Wesern”projec—a las.

This recalling of moderniy, in all senses of he word “recall”

(including he meaning i has in he auomobile indusry)—is moreuseful for preparing “Occidenals” for heir fuure han heir srangeclaim o be exending he modernizaion fron o he anipodes. I isenirely possible—indeed, i is already largely he case—ha he Wes(Europe, a leas, unquesionably) is finally in a siuaion of relaive weak-ness. No more quesion of hubris; no more quesion of repenance. I ishigh ime o begin o spell ou no only wha happened in he name of“moderniy” in he pas (a parimonial ineres, as i were) bu also and

especially wha his word will be able o mean in he near fuure. Whenhe inconroverible auhoriy of force is lacking, when i has becomeimpossible o “seal hisory,” migh he diplomas’ momen finally be ahand?

This inquiry ino values, as hey have been exraced, cherished,misundersood, misreaed, pached back ogeher, and appropriaed byhe Wes as is parimony, seeks o conribue o he planeary negoia-ion ha we are going o have o underake in preparaion for he imes

when we shall no longer be in a posiion of srengh and when he oherswill be he ones purporing o “modernize”—bu in he old way and, asi were, wihou us! We shall claim, even so, ha we have somehing o

Introduction•


46/518

T

→

say abou our values—and perhaps also abou hose of he ohers (buwih none of he privileges of he old European hisory). In oher words,“Occidenals” will have o be made presen in a compleely differenway, firs o hemselves, and hen o he ohers. To borrow he remark-able expression used in chancelleries, i is a maer of making “diplo-maic represenaions” in order o renegoiae he new froniers of selfand oher.

Bu if here is o be diplomacy here have o be diplomas, ha is,people capable—unlike hose who dispach hem—of discovering,

finally, wha heir principals really cherish—a he price of some sacri-fices ha hey learn o deec during oen inerminable negoiaions. Adelicae exploraion ha has o proceed by feeling one’s way in he dark,effors ha accusaions of reachery mus no inerrup and ha willoccupy a privileged place in his inquiry.

The wo quesions ha jusify his work, hen, are hese: can wefinally offer a realisic descripion of he modern advenure, one hawill allow us o give comparaive anhropology a more credible basis

for comparison? Can his comparaive anhropology serve as a prelim-inary o he planeary negoiaion ha is already under way over hefuure of he values ha he noion of modernizaion had a oncerevealed and compromised? We shall be old ha i is oo lae o plungeino such an exploraion. Too lae because of he crimes commied;oo lae because Gaia is irruping oo urgenly. “Too lile, oo lae.” Ibelieve, on he conrary, ha i is because of he urgency ha we musbegin o reflec slowly.

How are we going o proceed? To use expres-sions ha would be more suiable o an analyicphilosopher, le us say ha he inquiry will allow uso clarify, fairly sysemaically, for a large number ofunexpeced subjecs, bearing on wha I have calledhe various .

By comparing conflics of values in pairs—scienific versus reli-gious, for example, or legal versus poliical, or scienific versus ficional,

and so on—we shall observe very quickly ha a large proporion of heensions (ensions ha explain in par he opaciy I menioned above)sem from he fac ha he veracity of one mode is judged in erms of he



47/518

condiions of veridicion of a differen mode. We shall have o spend agood deal of ime on his essenial issue; i clearly presupposes ha weaccep he pluralism of modes and hus he plurality of keys by means ofwhich heir ruh or falsiy is judged.

Bu he difficuly is no so grea, aer all, if we urn o he work doneby J. L. A and his successors on “speech acs.” T he noions of , now solidly esablished in our inellecualradiions, make i possible o conras very differen ypes of veridic-ion wihou reducing hem o a single model. The difficuly will come

laer, when we shall need o go beyond he linguisic or language-boundversion of he inquiry o make hese modes more subsanial realiies.Bu in he meanime, he hear of he invesigaion will involve an efforo clariy asserions bearing on he ruh or falsiy of an experience. Thisis he only es ha is worhwhile, i seems o me, for he reader: does heredescripion of a mode of exisence make i possible o clear up conflicsbeween values—conflics ha had previously given rise o more or lessviolen debaes—or no? Thus he ruh and falsiy of disinc forms of

experience will be our firs concern. I urns ou, hough, ha here areseveral ypes of ruh and falsiy, each dependen on very specific, prac-ical, experienial condiions. Indeed, i can’ be helped: here is morehan one dwelling place in he Realm of Reason.

When I speak of several ypes, I am no making a relaivis argu-men (in he sense given his erm by he papacy) abou he impossibiliyof reaching any ruh whasoever, bu only an argumen abou he facha here are incompaible feliciy condiions ha neverheless allow

us, each in is own way, o reach inconroverible judgmens (in prac-ice, of course, hey always generae conroversy) on he ruh and falsiy(relaive and no relaivis) of wha hey are o judge. This is, for example,he case for L [] (a opic on which we shall spend a good deal ofime), which manages o persevere in is own sysem of ruh and falsi y,even hough his value in no way resembles any of he ones ha migh beapplied, wih jus he same ase for discriminaion, o judgmens said obe “scienific.” And when we show how fragile hese ruhs are, each in

is own mode, he poin will no be o sress heir deficiencies, as skepicsdo, bu o invie aenion o he insiuions ha would allow hem o

Introduction•


48/518

←

.

mainain hemselves in exisence a lile longer (and i is here, as we havealready seen, ha he noion of trust in insiuions comes o he fore).

Our projec is hus in fac a raional projec (if no raionalis) fromsar o finish, provided ha we agree o define reason as wha makes ipossible o ollow he various ypes of experience step-by-step, rackingdown ruh and falsiy in each mode aer deermining he pracicalcondiions ha allow us o make such a judgmen in each case. I havealways hough ha he meaphor of Occam’s razor is misapplied wheni is used o suppor a claim ha one mus empy he world of everyhing

ha is no raional; he meaphor is confused, i seems o me, wih hemeaphor of he Gordian kno, which Alexander sliced hrough wih hissword raher han going o he rouble of unying i. I have always imag-ined for my par ha he sory of Occam’s razor alluded o a lile casemade of precious wood like hose once used by surgeons, in which a greamany ools adaped o all he delicae operaions of reason lie nesled ingreen fel comparmens. Shouldn’ even he mos hardheaded raional-iss rejoice ha here are several ypes of insrumens, as long as each one

is well honed? Especially if his allows hem o reconnec wih he oherculures o prepare hemselves for wha lies ahead.Bu why speak of an inquiry ino modes o exis-

tence? I is because we have o ask ourselves whyraionalism has no been able o define he adven-ure of modernizaion in which i has neverheless, aleas in heory, so clearly paricipaed. To explain his failure of heory ograsp pracices, we may sele for he chariable ficion proposed above,

o be sure, bu we shall find ourselves blocked very quickly when we haveo inven a new sysem of coordinaes o accommodae he various expe-riences ha he inquiry is going o reveal. For language iself will be defi-cien here. The issue—and i is a philosophical raher han an anhro-pological issue—is ha language has o be made capable of absorbinghe pluralism of values. And his has o be done “for real,” no merelyin words. So here is no use hiding he fac ha he quesion of modesof exisence has o do wih or, beer, —regional

maers, o be sure, since he quesion concerns only he Moderns andheir peregrinaions.



49/518

In fac, as will quickly become clear, o deploy he diversiy offeliciy condiions i would do no good o sele for saying ha i is simplya maer of differen “ language games.” Were we o do so, our generosiywould acually be a cover for exreme singiness, since i is to , bu sill no to being, ha we would be enrusing he ask of accouningfor diversiy. Being would coninue o be expressed in a single, uniqueway, or a leas i would coninue o be inerrogaed according o a singlemode—or, o use he echnical erm, according o a single .Whaever anyone migh do, here would sill be only one mode of exis-

ence—even if “manners of speaking”—which are no very cosly, fromhe sandpoin of ordinary good sense—were allowed o proliferae.“Keep alking: I’m ineresed!” wouldn’ be oo unfair a way of

qualifying his curious mix of open- and closed-mindedness ha hasmade i possible, in he Wes, o welcome he diversiy of culures. I isrue ha hey ineres us; bu i is also rue ha hese are “jus mannersof speaking.” Through a somewha perverse menal resricion, on heone hand we acknowledge he mos exreme diversiy among hese

represenaions, while on he oher we deny hem any access o realiy.Relaivism, in oher words, never raffics in hard cash. All he weak-nesses of he abored dialogues abou he diversiy of culures, hepluraliy of worlds, he fuure composiion of a common world, heuniversals o be exended, can be explained by menal resricions ofhis sor, by a bizarre mix of irenicism and condescension. In circles likehis, no one pays he onological price for open-mindedness. Differenwords, a single realiy. Pluralism of represenaions, monism of being.

And, consequenly, no use for diplomacy, because every represenaiveis convinced ha a boom he arbiraion has already occurred, else-where, a a higher level; each pary is convinced ha here is an opimaldisribuion, an unchallengeable arbier and hus, somewhere, a GameMaser. In he final analysis, here is nohing o negoiae. Violenceresumes under he benign appearance of he mos accommodaingreason. We haven’ advanced an ioa since he era of Divine Judgmen:“Burn hem all; he Real will recognize is own!”

To speak of differen modes o existence and claim o be invesi-gaing hese modes wih a cerain precision is hus o ake a new look ahe ancien division of labor beween words and hings, language and

Introduction•


50/518

being, a division ha depends necessarily on a hisory of philosophyha we shall have o confron, I am afraid, along wih everyhing else.The goal will be o obain less diversiy in language—we shall have o payin cash and no on credi—bu more diversiy in he beings admied oexisence—here is more han one caegory, or raher, he will o knowl-edge is no he only caegory ha allows us o inerrogae he diversiyof being (we shall spend a grea deal of ime addressing his difficuly).Condiions of feliciy or infeliciy do no refer simply o manners ofspeaking, as in speech ac heor y, bu also o modes of being ha involve

decisively, bu differenly in each ca se, one of he idenifiable differencesbeween wha is rue and wha is false. Wha we say commis us muchmore exensively han we would like o hink—enough o make us slowdown and ponder before we speak.

Conversely, hough, we may benefi from an onological pluralismha will allow us o populae he cosmos in a somewha richer way, andhus allow us o begin o compare worlds, o weigh hem, on a more equi-able basis. I should no be surprising if I speak hroughou wha follows

abou “he beings” of science, of echnology, and so on. Basically, we haveo go back o he old quesion of “wha is X? ” (wha is science? wha is heessence of echnology?), bu in he process we shall be discovering newbeings whose properies are differen in each case. Wha we shall lose infreedom of speech—words bear heir weigh of being—we shall regainhrough he power o ener ino conac wih ypes of eniies ha nolonger had a place in heory and for which a suiable language will haveo be found in each case. A perilous enerprise if ever here was one.

I would have been more reasonable, I admi, o limi he inquiryo

Documents

Latour Bruno an Inquiry Into Modes of Existence an Anthropology of the Moderns PDF