sign in sign up
<<
Home , Michel Serres

rc L'nivcrsin'of Cambridge ctt. Cambridgc.CBZ 1RP Contents k, \\- 10022,L's.\ lbourne3 166, .\ustralia

Philosophr1987 rrd nunrber:88-20254 Preface

ContinentalInsularitv: Contemporarl.French Analvticalphilosophy PASCAL ENGEL irt Ptrblicutiottl)ata The Nlisprisionof Pragmatics:Conceptions of Languagein rr': su1-rplenrcnt ContemporarvFrench 2l Instituteof J. J. LECERCLE Ants and Women, or Philosophvwithout Borders +1 n Phillips), nrrcHÈlr'r,E D(EUFF ies 19-l N{otifs tovi'ardsa Poetics 55 MICHEL DEGUY

The Relevanceof Cartesianism 69 cguittgin Publication Data VINCENT CARRAUD A. Phillips osophy/edited b,v The Enlightenmentwithout the Critique: A Word on Nlichel Institute of Philosophy lecture Serres'Philosophv Philosophy1987 ." 83

) The Teleologicaland Deontologicalsrructures of Action: Aristotle 20th centurv. I. Griffiths, A. and/or Kant? 99 (l,ondon, England)III. Series: PALIL RICOEUR hl lecturcs:21. The Crisisof Post-modern tta 88-20254 the Imase I IJ CIP RICHARD KEARNEY

Merleau-Pontyand the Phenomenologvof perceptron t23 CYRIL BARRETT

EpistemologicalHistorv: The Legacyof Bachelardand Cansuilhem 141

History as Genealogv:An Explorationof Foucault'sApproach to History 157 ELIE GEORGESNOUJAIN Bevond ? l/5

Further Ad'entures of the Dialectic: Nlerleau-pontv,sartre. Althusser l9s GREGORY ELLIOTT

lll Contents

Paradoxes of the Pineal : From Descartes to zt5 Preface DAVID FARRELL KRELL

Notes on Contributors zz9 Index 231

These lecturesdelivered at tt cven in the caseof the first se, as representativeof French 1 so, since nothing can be repre sophv except contemporary hos'ever,reflect one of the ch r-rnderliesthis: its great divers Le Doeuff, and Bruno Latou \\'e are verv deeplv indebt Channel for advice on oossibl froni the beginning r*'i r*.r. Professor\larcel Regnier, SJ, to have opened the series,but his failing health. \\'e are also< Balliol College,for his advice These philosophersare not position of the volume. Nlanr and of thcse,a feu had to can, \\.asnot an unallaved misfortur gaveus their splendid papersi thenr. The EnlightenmentWithout the Critique:A Word on MichelSerres' Philosophy

BRUNOLATOUR

Il n'est de pur mythe que I'idée d'une sciencepure de tout mythe La Traduction,p.259 The French, it is well known, love revolutions,political, scientificor philosophical.There is nothing they like more than a radicalupheaval of the past,an upheavalso completethat a newtabula rasa is levelled, on which a new historycan be built. None of our Prime Nlinistersstarts his mandatewithout promising to write on a new blank page or to furnish a completechange in valuesand even, for some,in life. Each researcherwould think of him or herselfas a failure,if he or shedid not makesuch a completechange in the disciplinethat nothing will here- afterbe the same.As to the philosophersthey feed,from Descartesup to Foucault'sdays, on radicalcuts, on'coupure épistémologique', on completesubversion of everythingwhich hasbeen thought in the past bv everybody.No French thinker, indeed no student of philosophy, would seriouslycontemplate doing anythingshort of a completerevolu- tion in theories.To hesitate,to respectthe past, would be to com- promise, to be a funk, or worse, to be eclecticlike a vulgar Anglo- Saxon! The revolutions.ul'ere to be so deep and so completethat they left nothing intact of r.vhatthev had subverted.In the new order of things, and only there, there was everythingneeded to think-until, that is, a new upheavalrelinquished this order to the sameobscurity. Needless to say,this stateof affairsmade life in Parisrather difficult. Everyone couldoutwil every . No matter how radicalyou were, no matter how absolutelycritical you might have been, someonecould be still more critical, still more radical,still more revolutionarythan yourself: someonewho rn'ouldhave forced you to confessthis capitalsin: naiveté, gullibility. NlichelSerres is naiveand gullible beyonddescription. Every a 'coupure revolutionor a epistémologique'or an intellectualpronuncia- miento, has definitely reversedthe order of things, he still believesin what has been reversed: lvorse. he does not know how to choose betweenthe pastand the present,the losersand the winners.Not only Bruno Latour

is he unableto choosecamps but he goeson diggingin the leftovers,as if sure if it is part of the world wasbeginning, as if no revolutionhad happened,as if all the religion,or of literary past were still present,as if the loserswere equalto the winners. a Tintin comic strip, For instance,it is beyond doubt that there has been a Copernican of moderncommuni, revolutionthat startedthe Enlightenmentand establishedscience as a analyst,Hergé or Ha sureand definitiveaccess to truth, awayfrom religionand mythologv. Sciencehas outgrown its past, and irreversiblypassed over the Dark Agesof belief, opinionand storv-telling.How canyou doubt that?How l. Critique-an Ac: can a French person hesitateon this evidence,after Descartes,after Comte,after Bachelard? His ignoranceintrod Well, Serresis not too sure. He wavers. He fiddles. He seesthe featureof NlichelSe irreversibility as reversible.It mav be that Lucrecius is not so pre- philosophicalmovem scientific.It may be that a novelistllkeZola is not soascientific. It may in chargeof foundin; be that a fabulist like La Fontainehas things to sayabout logic aswell. tories,ruling opinion It may be that the Holy Scripture'sstory of the Last Supperis not so Minerva'sowl. If an1' antiscientific. and wise, but naive a 'critique' Well, one could say, then Serresis one of theseconservatives who A philoso alwaysscream againsi science, one of thesespiritualists who claim that tion betweenbeliefs there existother waysthan scienceto gain accessto ultimatetruth, one betweenideologies an of theseirrational cranks,or may be one of theseNietzschean philo- to take three avatarsr '-critique' sopherswho appealto the unboundedforces of life againstthe cold and worry of a 1 narrow certaintiesof science? the minimum that cor Not so. I saidhe is naive,so naivethat he doesnot evenbelieve what of the Critique,do nr revolutionariessay of themselves;he doesnot seescience as cold, and we canhold to onethr narrow. His hesitationto choosebetween scientific and pre-scientific dental,to the classstr discourseis perfectlysvmmetrical. NIaybe Carnot, the thermodynami- thing that allowsus tc cian,is aslively and interestingas Jules Vernes, the novelist,or Turner, Critique work is that the painter. Maybe set theorists,the mathematicians,are as exactas onethat is sureand c, Livius, the recollector of Rome's foundation myths. Mavbe that andin direneed of ber Brillouin, the informationphvsicist, is moreof a philosopherthan Jean- up...Outonrougl" Paul Sartre. Maybe that a chemist like Prigogineis as interestinga Well. Serresis bv t cosmologistas Hesiode. to Englishmen.Like Hold on ! Hold on ! Onehas /o choosebetween these adjectives. This one of the very few is a seriousmatter. You cannotput the wrong labelson the packagesof tena. Thus, out on documentsthat aresecurely safeguarded in religion,science, literature seasickpassengers, br and mythology.One might be allowedto savthat Livius is'touching'or Do we really need 'charming', 'rigorous'; but not that he is or one may saythat Carnotis a vocationof philosoph revolutionaryin phvsicsbut not that he is so in literature; or that La many lesssterile voce Fontaineis'amusing'but not thathe is a'structuralist'; that Prigogine is To understandin'n a goodchemist, but not that he is a .See ? Y ou are sure.You haveto takethe wor. distributeadjectives like'outmoded','charming','poetic','rigorous', cism. I havetwo reas 'scientific','fictional','mythical' with greatmastery. part of his careerSerr' But Serresis devoid of this mastery. He has never acquiredthis genre,and it is inside know-how. Facedwith a novel bv BaIzache reallv doesnot know for abroad.But also,it is

84 A Word on Michel Serres' PhilosoPhY

thermodynlm,r_cs,of_history of g in the leftovers,as if sure if it is part of the discipline of how naivehe is?Worse. Faced with rappened,as if all the religion,o. oi lit.ruty criticism.See for sureif this is not the besttheory I to the winners. a Tintin comic strip, he cannottell everbeen written. Who is a better rsbeen a Copernican of modern co--r.ti.ution that has know. FIe doesnot' tablishedscience as a analyst,Hergé or Flabermas?You igion and mythology. rassedover the Dark voudoubt that? Hou l. Critique-an Acritical Philosophy ifter Descartes,after us to what I seeas one of the first important His ignoranceintroduces 'Critique' He is not part of the fiddles,He seesthe feat.,i. of N,IichelSerres' philosophy. not seephilosophy as the discipline :reciusis not so philosophicalmovement. He does Pre' beliefs,ad-jucating terri- soascientific. It ma.v ir, of founding knowledge,debunking "h"rg" not a crepuscularbird similar to rv aboutlogic aswell. tories,iuling opinioÀs.Philosophy is andbright morningbird. Not sad Last Supperis not so Nlineiva'soi't.lf anythingit is a light and wise, but naive and brisk. taskas that of establishinga distinc- se conservativeswho A'critique' philosophersees his hand and knowledgeon the other, or lalistswho claimthat tion betwËenbeliefs ôn the one democracyand terror-just to ultimatetruth, one betweenideologies and science,or between To be takenin, that is the main ,e Nietzscheanphilo- to takethree avatars of the'Critique'. we are looking for e againstthe cold and worry of a'critique' philosopher.Since-Descartes, the minimum thât co,rldb" saidto be safeand certain.We, the knights asceticand thrifty. Provided not evenbelieve what of the Critique, do not askmuch. We are to thecogito, to the transcen- : scienceas cold, and we canholdio onething, evenrninuscule, analysis,to discourse'one tiny fic and pre-scientific dental,to the classstru[gle, to language to sèéthrough the-rest,we feelh"ppy andsafe.The , the thermodl'nami- thing that allowsr. of the rvorldinto two packs,a little enovelist, or Turner, Critique work is that of a reduction restwhich is simply believed ;ians, are as exact as one tËatis strreand certain,the immense re-educated,straightened myths. NIaybethat and in dire needof beingcriticized, founded, rough water, the critique alwayslooks for a lifeboat. nilosopherthan Jean- up . . . out on no doubt this trait willappeal re is as interestinga Well, Serresis b1:traininga sailorand to Englishmen.Like St John Perse,one of our greatestpoets' Serres is the oceansare the only heseadjectives. This orr" oi the very few French for whom firma is not looking for a lifeboat like :ls on the packagesof terra.']hus, out on rough water he like a weatheredhelmsman' rn, science,literature seasickpassengers, but siaysat the stern survive?Is the Critique the only -iviusis'touching'or Do *e real[' need a Critique to is no. There existmany other ways, v savthat Carnotis a vocationof phiiosophy'? His answer iterature;or that La many lesssterile vocations for . not a Critique philosopher,we list';that Prigogine is Tô understandin u,hatsense Serres is mundanesense of literary criti- e?You are sure.You have to take the word critique in the reasonsfor startingfrom this point. First, for a large ,'poetic','rigorous', cism. I havetwo which appearto pertainto that f\! part of his careerSerres published books he is still bestknown never acquired this grr,r., and it is insidelanguage departments that everyscience, including the lv doesnot know for Tbroud.But also, it is m-vconvicti'on that 85 Bruno Latour

hard ones,is defined b,va certainrvay of practisinga peculiarkind of exegesis.Tell me how vou commenton a scriptureor an inscription, and I will tell you what sort of epistemologvvou hold on to. Under- standingSerres's conception of the commentarvis thus alsoa u'aYof understandinghis conceptionof the sciences. The literarycritic comments upon a text (seeFigure 1). He or shehas a vocabulary;so has the text or thework underscrutiny. First, there is a questionor direction.\\:hich one is doingthe interpretation?The critic of course.He or she is the one who providesthe rnetalanguagerhat makessense of the infra-languageof the text. Second,there is a ques- tion of size. The critic's vocabular.vis enormouslvshorter than the text'srepertoire. This is rvhv the metalanguagemav be saidto explain something. With one u'ord in the critic's repertoire, for instance 'Oedipus' For instance,take . complex', vou can explain four dozen novels and five svstemsof interpreta hundredplays. Third, thereis a questionof precedenceor of masterv. It is a poem in vt Who dominatesthe other?Ànsrver: the commentator.Critics are much seriouslv,can vou? It strongerthan the text thev dominateand explain,establish and analyse. naive ph1'sicsof tho: The mastervis so complete,Serres argues, that the texts, the novels, phvsics. think c the plavs,the mvths, slorvlvdisappear, buried beneathstronger and Just Lucreciusrl'rote it, a more powerfulcommentaries. readthe commentar\ In comesNlichel S So our definition of p Corlmentary savs.Remember also thepoem not teachus of the clinamencoul Serresargues, provic flou's,fluxes, meteorr its emergence.If bv 1 Vocabulary2 falling bodiesstartec Text to be commented rather out of the r'vav Figure I old is Lucrecius'par Phvsics' I renembe Serresis first of aii a reader,a marveilousreader. As much asany People, Today, ev other commentator,he usesall the tricks and instrumentsthat exegesis vearsago. may haveinvented over the centuries.But he doesit with a . physicsof chaos.Thi so It is not that he appealsto the pure beautv of the untouchedtexts the mainstreanl, t( hispoem, ofl beyondthe boringscholarship of the critique,although there is someof all along fluctu that ploy in his writings-he hatesfor instancethe lovelvAnglo-Saxon to understand to comment on art of footnoting.\Vhat he doesis to reshufflethe cardson the commen- used as of an outdatec tator'stable (seeFigure 2). First, thereis no metalangtage.Second, it phv resurrected,he is impossibleto distinguishwho is providingthe explanation;is it the anew, up non-l commentedtext or the commentar-v?Third, and consequently,there is measure to: I havenot c no precedenceand no masterveither. I know

86 A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy

ing a peculiarkind of ure or an inscription, u hold on to. Under- , is thus alsoa way of igureI ). He or shehas 'utin\.First, there is a rpretation? The critic rc ntetalanguage that cond,there is a ques- Vocabulary I Vocabulary 2 lslr shorterthan the Figure 2 rtarbe saidto explain rertoire,for instance zen novels and five For instance,take Lucrecius'De \-atura Rerum and placein the two edenceor of masterv. systemsof interpretationI just sketched. ltor. Criticsare much It is a poem in verse.So, the critics sav, vou cannottake it too establishand analvse. seriously,can vou? It rsan amusingand outmodedu'a,v of exposingthe the texts,the novels, naive physicsof those ages.Lucrecius u,'aswrong on every point of reneathstronger and physics.Just think of his .Poor thing! Let us explainwhy Lucreciuswrote it, and do not forget the footnoteson the wav. Better readthe contmentarvthan the texi. It will be much faster. In comesNlichel Serres. Remember that thereis no metalanguage. So our definitionof physicsmav not be the bestjudge of what the poem rlary I savs.Remember also that there is no orderof precedence.So whv could thepoem not teachus something on our physics?What? This non-sense of the clinamencould be the judge of our own commentary?Sure, Serresargues, provided you read the text. What is it about?Clouds, flows, fluxes,meteors, fluctuations, turbulences, chaos. the u'orld and its emergence.If bv phvsicsvou meanthe tinv repertoireof solid and - Vocabulary2 falling bodies started bv Galilean physics,ves indeed, Lucrecius is rather out of the rvav. If bv physicsvou meanfluid statephysics, how old is Lucrecius'passionatedescription of it? It is still tomorroza's physics. ler. As much as anv People,I remember,laughed lvhen Serresoffered this answera few 'umentsthat exegesii yearsago. Toda.v,even the ScientificÂrneican carriesarticles on the sit with a difference. physicsof chaos.This turbulent objectis slowl1'being reintroduced in the untouched texts the mainstream,so to speak,of phvsics.Serres argues that Lucrecius, oughthere is someof all alonghis poem, offersa longer,richer and more accuratevocabulary : lor.elvAnglo-Saxon to understandfluctuations than the confined repertoireof concepts ardson thecommen- usedto commenton the Epicurian poem. \\re thought of this philoso- language.Second, it phy asof an outdatedremnant of the pre-scientificera;but hereit is, explanation;is it the anew,resurrected, helping us to grasprn'hat the bestlaboratories trv to onsequently,there is measureup to: non-laminarflows and turbulences. I know I havenot convincedvou. Horru'cana mere poem carrv weight

87 Bruno Latour

in physics?We all know too well that poetry hasno objectivemeaning, Society,the Econom, it has survivedto thesedays only by keepingsafely away from objec- could Serresaccept tt tivity and science.To be sure a poem may have other qualities,like Consideragain his pr beautyand depth, but it cannotcompete with Plzl'sicsRerieu or with rigorous,more livell', the Proceedingsof the Royal Society. This objection is strong if you providesa richer repe believethat the literary genre of sciencehas definitely overcomeand tor. Who overmasters outdatedevery other genre-at leastas far as accessto the objective Still, one could say world is concerned.But again,Serres does not believein this overcom- overemphasison discc ing and outdating. To call the De Natura Rerum a poem, for Serres, commentary to texts, doesnot meanthat, on his desk,this morning, it is not as freshas the things. The things?I weekly issue of l\iature-not that it is a nice way of relaxing after Frenchman talk abou readingscience, but becauseit might be technicalh'accurate. does, and unabashedl Still, I feel I havenot convincedvou. You believe(even on the other knowledgeof it; they, sideof the Channel)that therehave been revolutions in science.The our commentary on 1 pasthas been abolished by the presentstate of knorvledge.To be sureit Body's Five Senses') may survive as an object for antiquarians,or as a footnote in the things, things seen b textbooks,but it is fundamentallydisacti'"^ated when handedout to knowledge,this is a ra historians.The pastof science,foi Serres,is still active.No revolution point of viewof the Ar in physicshas coveredup the Epicurian approachof fluctuations,no would also be an eml more than the invention of the genre of scientificwriting has disacti- imaginethat? That is r vatedmythology, cosmogony, foundation stories or fables.He doesnot and culture, and so to' only saythat you shouldbe fair to the losersof the historyof science;he philosophicaltraditior claimsthat they arenot losersat all, that they arestill tacklingthe same What Serresdoes or problemsat hand asthe modern sciencesdo. 'There is onlv one m,vth: of the textsto the thin that of a sciencepurified from all myths.' to the world. I saidtha You might now guessthe main sourceof pleasureand strengthof exegesisand the defin Michel Serres'swritings. He visits our past like the Charming Prince still clearer.Scientific visitsSleeping Beauty's palace. Lucrecius had beenput safelyasleep far nor doesit revealits es awayin the pre-scientificera; a kiss;and hereit is, vawning,stretching, problematicof hiding breathingagain, as young as when it was written. Livius's foundation and Darkness,of the I myths had been mothballed for centuries. Thev are standing alive the world; it is inside today, and it is today that the Vestalsare stoned bv the turba, themob, part, in brief of its mr revealingin front of our very eyesthe foundation of Rome and the French philosophersr creationof the ob-jects,ob-jicere, that is, what lies,stoned by the mob, well educatedin it, an buried under a tumulus of stones.So many commentatorsgive vener- his naiveté.as I said.tr abletexts the kissof death,that, to all thosewho haveheard Serres talk, , as myth this resurrectionechos what was said to Lazarus:'Take off the grave Serresdoes not sayth clothesand let him go' (Jn. I l: 43). the sciences,other w: would deny that? He After this brief encounterwith Serres'sexegetic principles, we can noneof them having t now seehow little he is a'Critique'philosopher.Since Kant we define by the presentstate of the Critique hasa Copernicanrevolution that makes,at last,the things offering the measure< turn aroundthe mind (or aroundwhatever has since Kant beendefined Instead of the imap asthe focusand masterthat occupiesthe Centre:the Unconscious,the definitiveand irrevers

88 A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

no objectii'emeaning, Society,the Economy, the Language,the Epistémèand so on). How fell'awavfrom objec- could Serresaccept that a Copernicanrevolution has ever taken place? e other qualities,like Consideragain his principle: the text under scrutiny is alwaysmore li1'sicsRet:iew or with rigorous,more lively, more modern, than the commentatorand always :ction is strong if you providesa richer repertoire.Who turns aroundthem? The commenta- [initelvovercome and tor. Who overmastershim? The humble and outdatedtexts. ccessto the objective Still, one could say, this is a philosophvof texts, a typicailv French :lievein this overcom- overemphasison discourse.Not so. What Serresdoes on the relationof ?r â poem, for Serres, commentaryto texts, he also does it on the relation of languageto t is not as fresh as the things. The things? How can one talk about the things? How can a uav of relaxingafter Frenchmantalk about them after hundred yearsof idealism?Serres allv accurate. does,and unabashedlyat that. Again, things are not reducedto our eve(even on the other knowledgeof it; they, too, arericher, more accurate,more precisethan rtionsin science.The our conrmentaryon them. In his latest book, Les Cinq Sens ('The rs ledge.To be sureit Body's Five Senses'),Serres provides a pre-Copernicanversion of as a footnote in the things, things seen before the commentarvof the sciences.To my rvhen handed out tr,r knowledge,this is a rare attempt, in philosophy,to seethings from the active.No revolutiorr point of view of the hnown, not of the knowing. A French personwho ch of fluctuations,no would also be an empiricist-even though a queer sort-who could ic r,r'ritinghas disacti- imaginethat? That is the difficulty of Serres,so Frenchin his language or fables.He doesnot and culture, and so totallv un-French,that is to savun-German, in his ,history of science;he philosophicaltradition. stilltackling the same What Serresdoes on the relationof the commentaryto the texts,and rereis only onemvth: of the textsto the things, he alsodoes it on the relationsof the sciences to the world. I saidthat therealways exists a link betweenthe practiceof lsure and strengthof exegesisand the definition of what is a science.In Serres,this link is the CharmingPrince still clearer.Scientific knowledge does not reduceor abolishthe u'orld, 'n put safely'asleepfar nor doesit revealits essence.Nothing is more foreignto Serresthan the , varvning,stretching, problematicof hiding and revealingthings, the problematicof Light .. Livius'sfoundatiorr and Darkness,of the Enlightenment.Scientific knorvledge is added to lv are standing alive the world; it is insideit; is part of its beauty,mvstery and monsters, *, lhe turba, themob, part, in brief of its myths, of its culture. Serresis one of the verv few .on of Rome and the French philosopherssince Bergson who readsscience, who has been s, slonedby the mob, well educatedin it, and who doesnot despiseor worship it. It is part of nentatorsgive vener- his naiveté,as I said,to takethe sciencesto be asinteresting as Livius or aveheard Serres talk, Jules Verne, as mythical as Homer. I insist on this essentialpoint: 'Take ;: off the grave Serresdoes not savthat there is beyond,or above,or below, or beside the sciences,other ways of thinking and believingthan science,who would deny that? He saysthat there is one huge reservoirof attempts ic principles,we can noneof them having beenovercome, outn-roded, outwitted, affieben, SinceKant we define by the presentstate of science.They areready at hand, irreducible,all (es,at last,the things offering the measureof eachother. ce Kant beendefined Insteadof the image of the Copernicanrevolution, that picturesa the Llnconscious,the definitiveand irreversiblereversal of the forcerelations between centre Bruno Latour

and periphery he offers another geographicalmetaphor, a much /ess crossed rvith attributr radicalone, that of the North-West Passage,this chaosof islandsand metaphor,his aim is to lands and ice and packs disseminatedin North Canada.No direc- to the sameargument tion; no obviousmastery; no clear-cutdivide betweenthe firm landsof Needlessto say, su( science and the soft resourcesof the humanities. If one wanted deputies, of thésards an imagefor the Two Culture debatethat so much obsessesthe human- anotherdomain. Who < ists,here it is: the two culturesdo not exist,except as the infinitely far to train a retinue of on the other. horizonsof Canadaon the one hand and the North Pole inventiveas I am when What existsis this chaosof passagesand deadends. Where is'the sure overpowerpositions ar pathof the science'sodear to Kant'sheart in this Daedalianlabl'rinth? decidewhether a studv Lost. No ! It is there,but local,onlv localand transitory when the wind is good and the fog hascleared . end of my presentati; Beforeclosing this first part, we can seeagain the relationsbetween To sum up, I wouk two conceptionsof science,two ways of practisingcommentaries and beena long parenthesi 'Critique' alsotvn'o ways of discipliningdisciples and definingthe seriousnessof a dutiesof the 'Critique' study. philosophersfirmlv install their metalanguagein the reversethe forcerelatio centreand slowly substitutetheir argumentsto everv singleobject of wantsto bring religior the periphery; organizingthe Critique is a tantamount to a careful, philosophy,enter'on tl obstinateand deliberateempire-building. A por,r'erfulcritique being of this reversalof powr onethat ties,like a bicvclewheel, everv point of a peripheryto oneterm and the mind from the t At end, holding of the centrethrough the intermediaryof a prox\,. the the world. the centre is tantamount to holdins the u'orld. A scholarlvwork is What doesthe taskol recognizableto the continuit\', hoirogeneitvand coherenieof the metalanguage, metalanguageused all along to subsumethe periphery. do not Serres'pre-critical philosophv lives under rather different assump- revolutions,when you tions. There is no centreand no substitutionof one metalanguagethat definitively overmaster would overmasterthe others.The result of his commentarvis a crnss- you get when you put t ov-er,in the genetic sense,whereby charactersof one languageare in store, if anl'? Serrt questionswithout bein during the Critique pa century. I am struggling for a philosophy.'Positive'r,r word a dubiousposterit his Comte very well. ove rcoming, out w itting Nothing overshadows,r comes anything. Serre believethat negationan, the midwivesof our so quickly, without strugl Serres' philosophv is I from one Substitutionof the metalanguage Cross-over violencemay or may no to the infralanguages repertoire to another of the periphery in politics, in economi Figure 3 innocentas well asposir

90 A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

I metaphor, a much /ess crossedwith attributes of another origin. To take a less humble this chaosof islandsand metaphor,his aim is to producea localPentecost, each reader listening orth Canada.No direc- to the sameargument in his own mother tongue. )etu'eenthe firm landsof Needlessto say, such an aim preventsthi creationof students,of tanities. If one wanted deputies, of thésards extending the conceptsof the centre to still tuch obsessesthe human- anotherdomain. Who doesnot want to takeover a centre,does not need xceptas the infinitelv far 'Be to train a retinue of followers. as inventive as the text, \oith Poleon the other. be as inventiveas I am when inventingthe text anew',is ends.\Vhere is'the sure not a mot d'ordre to overpo\rrerpositions his Daedalianlabvrinth ? and chairs. (As to the tell-talesthat allow one to :ransitorywhen tËewind decidewhether a study is seriousor not I u'ill tacklethis questionat the end of my presentation.) rin the relationsbetu.een To sum up, I would sav that, for N,lichelSerres, the Critique has :isingcommentaries and been a long parenthesisthat is now put to a close.The task and the 'Critique' ning the seriousnessof a dutiesof the philosopheris to reversethe peckingorder, to reir metalanguagein the reversethe forcerelations between masters. The'Critique' philosopher to everysingle object of wants to bring religion to an end and make all disciplines,including antamount to a careful, philosophy,enter'on the surepath of a science'.The politicalovertone por.r'erfulcritique being of this reversalof power relationswas to at last emancipatethe people f a peripheryto oneterm and the mind from the tyrannv of the senses, rxr'.At the end, holdinq of beliefs,of the things,of the world. ld. A scholarlvr,r'ork is ' and coherenôeof the what doesthe taskof philosophylook like u'henyou do not believein eripherv. metalanguage,do not consider that history has been divided up by 'atherdifferent assump- revolutions,when you do not take the new focusof masteryas having f one metalanguagethat definitivell'o'ermastered the world? What sort of Enliehtenmentd; I commentarvis a ao.çs- you get when you put the Critique to rest?\4'hat emancipation is there :rs oI one languageare in store, if any? Serres'philosophyis an attempt to explorethese questionswithout being too influencedby u'hat philosophyhas done during the Critique parenthesis,let us sav since the mid-eighteenth century. I am struggLngfor a word that would best describeMichel Serres' 'Positive'r"'ould philosophy. cometo mind if Comtehad not giventhis word a dubiousposterity-let us not forgethowever that series knows his Comte very well. All the words like dépassement,auJhebung, oaercoming, outwitting, oL^ermastering,are foreign to his vocabulary. Nothing overshadows,nothing buriesanvthing else. Serres n.u.r ou"i- comes anvthing. Serres' philosophf is free from negation. We all believethat negationand thus dialecticsare the gr.at muJtersof history, the midwivesof our societies.Nothing is achieved,we all admit tôo quickly, u'ithout struggle,and dispuù, and wars, and destrucrion. Serres' philosophy is first ross-overfrom one of all a reflection on violence, on what )pertoi-reto another violencemay or may not achieve,and this he doesin all spheresof life, in politics, in economies,in scholarship,in physics. The world is innocentas well aspositive and new. There is no divide, no camps,no

9l Bruno Latour

limes, no boundariesthat are worth a crime. It is not that, like in death. Of course,Re Nietzsche,the man of resentmentbecomes, after endlesscrisis, the relationsinside the c man of affirmation,the later-da-vadept of agaya scienza.No, Serresis religiousanthropolog born endowedwith this gaya scienza.We can sav of him what Péguy neverworth a fight, sir said of Victor Hugo: he u'asborn into a world as fresh as it waswhen or justification.The o leavingthe Creator'shands, the illusion that somel Serres,on the other Girard. They are not 2. Crisis-an Anthropology of Science worthless.Thev aresz humanone. Objective What hasbeen lost u'ith the Critique parenthesis?A certainbelief in the tive politics, it is a lat sciences,a certain confidencein their abilities to reconcilehumans victim for another. Tl together. Serres did his thesis on Leibniz, the reconcrliatorpar different in kind from excellence.But then he slou'lyrealtzed that the scienceswere not a way scale; it allowsa bigge to limit violencebut to fuel it. He decidedto hearand to feelthis terrible apart the collectiveanr earth shaking tremor travelling from Hiroshima, the only date in both grow. \-iolencei historv that he takesas a realturning-point; the earthhas been shaking increased. ever since. His rupture with ,with Bachelard,with Insteadof believine Canguilhem,with the Critique project,comes from this realization:all studieshou' az_r,diviàt these eminent gentlemenare deaf to the noise made by the atomic present,between cultr bomb; they go on as if physics was businessas usual; as if the betweensubject and c emergenceof thanatocratl,-his u'ord for the black triad made bv order and disorderand scieniists,pohticians and industrialists-had not reshuffledfor everthê scholarlydisciplines. I relationsbet'*'een society and the sciences. sideof the divide,of th The Enlightenment of the eighteenthcenturv was defined by a and the ssms-gs11sss confidencein the abilitiesof scienceto dissipateawav the darknessof alwaystakes as the only religion; a certitudethat objectivitycould replacethe endlessstruggles fiom its complement. il of subjectivity;and a firm beliefthat a democraticprocess could replace would be a rationalist; the power of one by that of many. Two centurieslater we are in a would be calledan irr, completely different situation. The same atomic holocaust fuses choosesthe extractiono togethertotal illumination and total darkness;it is through a growth of rationalist?I call him pr objectivitythat political strugglesgrow; finally, the one leadercan kill in the habit of thinkinl us all, reversingthe old relation betweenthe peopleand their single whatever non-scientific 'Enlightenment', victim. If we may dare use again the word a com- cultures there are left. pletely new understandingof violence,of the collective,of the object classBritons lil'e, that 'positive' and of the sciences,is necessary.Such is the crisis this Carnot, or Prigogine r philosophyis living up to. anthropology.Studf inl How can objectivity and terror be relatedto one another?A first what is to pertain /o son possiblesolution is offered by the French philosopherand theologian of science,the new task René Girard exiled in the United Statesand a verv intimate friend of been closed. Serres.The mob in a stateof crisiscannot agree on anythrngbut on a The mixing up of obj victim, a scapegoat,a sacrifice. Beneathany boundary is buried a in which scientific prol sacrificiaivictim. Nlarkingthe boundaryof Romeis the sameas killing tradition, we love conce one of the two mvthical twins. The object of agreementis stonedto and take as our main sor

9Z A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

re. It is not that, like in death. Of course, René Girard deals only with people, with social , after endlesscrisis, the relationsinside the collective. Objects are verv much absentin his rvascienta. No. Serresis religiousanthropology. Literally, they do not count, since thev are rn savof him what Péguy neverworth a fight, sincestruggles are'rvithout object', without reason ld as fresh as it rvaswhen or justification.The only rolefor objectsin Girard'saccount is to give the illusion that somethingis really at stake. Serres,on the other hand, takesobjects much more seriouslythan Girard. They are not illusionsunfairly accused, by Girard, of being worthless.Thev aresubstitutiores of onetype of non-humanvictim for a human one. Objectiveknowledge is not different in kind from subjec- :sis? A certainbelief in the tive politics, it is a latecomerin a long seriesof substitutionsof one ties to reconcilehumans victim for another. The objectiveknorvledge of atomic phvsicsis not z, the reconciliatorpar different in kind from the stoningof a primitive hero; it is differentin resciences were not a wav scale; it allowsa biggercollective thus to be defined.Instead of taking earand to feelthis terrible apart the collectiveand the objects,Serres tries to measurehorv they shima, the only date in both grow. Violence is not mopped up by sciencebut fantastically he earthhas been shaking lncreaseo. r. with Bachelard,with Insteadof believingin divides,divisions, and classifications,Serres s from this realization:all studieshow any divide is drawn, including the one betr.r'eenpast and rise made by the atomic present, between culture and science,between conceptsand data, ness as usual; as if the between subject and object, between religion and science,between -he black triad made b-v order and disorderand alsoof course,divides and partitionsbetween notreshuffled for everthe scholarll'disciplines. Instead of choosingcamps and reinforcingone sideof the divide, of the crisis,of the critique-all theservords are one ntury r.vasdefined by a and the s2ms-$g11essits on the fence.Instead of dealingwith a set,he )ateawav the darknessof alwaystakes as the onlv objectworth the effort the extractionof the set lacethe endlessstruggles from its complement.If Serresu'ere choosing the insideof the set, he aticprocess could replace would be a rationalist;were it to take the side of the complement,he nturieslater we are in a would be called an irrationalist. How would vou call someonewho atomic holocaust f uses choosesthe extractionof the setfrom its complement?Hyper- or infra- ; it is through a growth of rationalist? I call him provisionallyan anthropologistof science. We are ly, the one leadercan kill in the habit of thinking that anthropologv'sgoal is to make senseof r peopleand their single whatevernon-scientific, pre-scientific, or anti-scientificbeliefs and 'Enlightenment', â com- cultures there are left. How do Trobrianders or Jamaicansor lower : collective,of the object classBritons live, that is part of anthropology.But how Thales, or 'positive' the crisis this Carnot, or Prigogine thinks, this, we gather, does not pertain to anthropology.Studying how all of them divide and order, studying to one another?A first what is to peftain /o something,this is the purview of an anthropology ilosopherand theologian of science,the new taskbefore us now that the Critique parenthesishas a verv intimate friend of beenclosed. 'ree on anything but on a The mixing up of objectivityand violenceis bestvisible in the ways rv boundary is buried a in which scientific professionsorganize their trade. In the Critique ome is the sameas killing tradition, we love conceptsand disciplines.We sit firmly insidethe set ,f agreementis stonedto and takeas our main sourceof pride the extensionof conceptsand the

93 Bruno Latour

defenceof the proprietv of the u'ordswe useagainst anr' metaphoricâl crenellates,confines . contamination.In a positionakin to that of Nlarv Hesse,Serres is not a from the seaof disord 'literalist'believing that thereis a strongdistinction to be madebetween third of Serres'sixteer literaland metaphoricmeaning. Like Hesse,he is not for a'policeof all the metaphors,mv metaphors'thatwould forbidcertain uses and turn othersinto precise, seato the bifurcations literal ones. Insteadhe describesin manl' pagesthe rvorks,deeds and thosefringes, rvhat he rites of purification.How clerics,ancient'pr-iests and scientistsalike rvashout the world, forbid double meaningsand ertenuateanalogies. How thev establishproperties and proprieties, allocateclasses and camps.How they polish and policemetaphors so asto disciplinethem into proper names.The work of classifvingand conceptualizing,the work of clarifying and measuring, is not rvhat make our sciences different in the end from religion, from beliefs,from our bloody and conftrsingpast; it is v'hat plunges us deeperinto it. Serres,in this respect,marks the antipodesof Bachelard,and it is no doubt the Frenchtradition of epistemologvthat provideshim with his bestspeci- mens (in no countrv is the love of purity and the hatredof colleagues pushedto suchextremities). His passionfor the extractionof a set from its complementhas led Serresto a very different ontologvthat, in manv wavs,anticipates the most advancedideas of physicsand cosmologv.This is a betterknown This Gestal/swirch r aspectof his work, a reversalof foregroundand background,a Gestalt rationalismand irratir srvitch.In many previousphilosophies disorder is what should be againstthe totalitarian ignored,kept at bay, repressed,eliminated, mopped up; orderis rvhat thinking againstthe rr.r counts; in betrveenthere existstrong dividesthat haveto be enforced. main sourceof inspirât Orderis the rule; disorderthe exception. the mathematicsthat h and rigour, all for the r The sciencesare not to local achievementsextr andcannot be substitut It is true that Serres ambivalentabout the sr the world, sometimes, Passage,thev appeartr ambir.alentabout the sr new nrixture of lurne anthropological puzzle remenrberthat there Figure 4a is the global. No u'ayof m Serresreverses this image:disorder, fluctuations, noise, random- extensionof a science ness,chaos is what counts;thev are the rules,order is the exception,it language,has to be pa has the shapeof pockets,of islandsof stability, of fragile and tiny questionis to understar archipelegos.Thus what becomesmost interestingare the transitions violence,but add to it. and bifurcations,the long fringes,edges, \'erges, rims, brims, auras, Oneaspect of Serres's

94 A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

againstanv metaphorical crenellates,confines . . . all the shoresthat leadsfrom one to another, larv Hesse,Serres is not a from the seaof disorderto the coral reefsof order. I would saythat a rctionto be madebetr.veen third of Serres'sixteen books is devotedto a svstematicexploration of 'police , he is not for a of all the metaphors,myths and data, from the birth of Venusout of the J trrrnothers into precise, seato the bifurcationsin Besnard'scells, that allow him to understand rgesthe rvorks,deeds and thosefringes, rvhat he callsa miracle, that is order from noise. ,riestsand scientistsalike ; and extenuateanalogies. 'ties, allocateclasses and rs so asto disciplinethem and conceptualizing,the r.vhatmake our sciences efs,from our bloodyand ;r into il. Serres,in this , and it is no doubt the rs him with his bestspeci- J the hatredof colleagues n its complem.enthas led Figure 4b rany\\:avs, anticipates the 'lhis ;1'.This is a better known Gestaltswitch reshufflesentirely the packof argumentsaround nd background,a Gestalt rationalismand irrationahsm.Serres does not defend the margins order is r.vhatshould be againstthe totalitarianempire of the sciences,or the rights of obscure noppedup; orderis rvhat thinking againstthe tvrannv of claritv and rigour. On the contrary,his that haveto be enforced. main sourceof inspiration,especiallv in his earlierbooks, is no doubt the mathematicsthat he practisedfor manv years.He is all for clarity and rigour, all for the sciences,provided they are to be seenas local. The sciencesare not to be worshipped,and not to be despised,they are local achievementsextracted from the world. They do not replaceit, and cannotbe substitutedfor it, no morethan anv other metaianguage. It is true that Serresmight be seen, after a cursory readiig,-as ambivalentabout the sciences.Sometimes they seemto addlunrcn to the world, sometimes, especiallysince his book, The lrtorth-Il'est Passage,they appearto add more nutter. But it is not that Serresis ambivalentabout the sciences,it is the sciencesthemselves that are a new mixture of htmen and nutnen, of light and terror, a new anthropologicalpuzzle. To understand this mirture, one should 'naturally' rememberthat there is no path that leads from the local to the global.No wav of mopping up the varietiesof the world. Thus, the tuations.noise. random- extensionof a science,the substitution of one metalanguageto a orderis the exception,it language,has to be paved and paved by violence.Again, his marn ilitv, of fragileand tinr questionis to understandhorv come that the sciencesdo not end the esting the.transitions violence,but add to it. .are rges,rlms, Drlms,auras, One aspectof Serres'soriginality is neverto offer us a discoursefor or

v5 Bruno Latour

againstthe sciencestaken as a whole-and of coursenot a discourse feuds defined bv the beyond or aboveor below them. He offers us a principle to sorl and understandaornaon" r selectthem in their finestdetails. When the sciencesadd varietyto the Serreswrites as he thi world, they are to be used.When thevsubstracl varietv thev are to be He does not use one rejected.He often comparesthe relationof the sciencesto the restof the stitute his commenta world with the relationof plant geneticiststo a primitive forest. Plant mobilizing the referen breedersextract a verv few l'arietiesand breed them into an endless notes,descriptions, p numberof purelines, infinitely more productive, but, oneshould add, Serresinserts his textr infinitely more fragile.The philosopher,on the contrary,thrives on the difficulty. When you r varietiesof the forest; to be surehe nevercultivates highly productive alwayswonder uhere t breeds,or even reproducibleresults, but he preparesthe ground and hisdescription of Auvr the selectionof new more robust possibilities.This is whv Serresdoes you are never presen not definephilosophy as arriving after the sciences,like Nlinerva'sowl, Carnot'sthermodvnar or asbeing subservient to them, or assurviving in the few clearingsleft neitherof them is first by the universalextension of rationality.On the contrary,philosophy is are neitherabsent nor beyondthe researchfront, gamblingfar in the primitive forest,into the front of your eyes, pr world, cultivating unexpectedhybrids. Philosophydoes contribute to provided you havebet the scienceseither becauseit anticipatestheir results, or becauseit West Passage,providr plungesthem in their anthropologicainratrix thel' too quicklv forget- Serres'stexts are morr and alsobecause maybe philosophy frees the sciencesfrom part of their know directly and by c violence. to read than most, ber know in order to read'l believethey are a usef Conclusion everything else they I allusive,impressionis' I would be pleasedif I had convincedsomeone to readMichel Serres appearstechnical, pre< carefullv.However, before ending this presentation,it would be unfair with the world it is poi not to warn the English readerthat his u'ritingsmake at first a difficult this movie: the u'orld reading.It is not that they areobscure, or convoluted,or technical,or Enlightenment,withor written in one of thesemanv stilted tonguesof our modern Babel.It is simply that his style is part and parcelof his ver,vphilosophical argu- ment. This is a difficulty in general with the French. They never believe,like somany Englishphilosophers do, that languageis simply a meansof communication.For writers asdifferent as Diderot, Bergson, Péguy,or f,acan,language is the very materialon rvhichto experiment for any argumentto gain somemeaning. The deepestcontent of what they haveto sayis first of all a stvle,a form, a particularwav of savingit. Hencethe accusation,often levelledat them by English-speakingwri- 'Why ters,of beingsuperficial: can'tthey all sayin plain languagewhat they have to say?'Because,what they have to say is that the plain languageis to be transformedfor somethingto be said. But the difficultv of readingSerres comes from a transformationof 'plain' the languageof scholars;paradoxically, it is too plain;it is clarity rI thank BernadetteI without a scholarlydomain. We areso used to thinking insideone of the commentson this paper.

96 A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy

I of coursenot a disct-rurse feuds defined by the Conflicts of the Facultiesthat rve can barely ; us a principle to sort and understandsomeone who writeswithout pertainingto anyone of them. sciencesadd variety to the Serreswrites ashe thinks, unboundedby the delineationof territories. tract variety they are to be He doesnot use one metalanguage,but many, and he doesnot sub- hesciences to the restof the stitute his commentary for what he is commenting on. Instead of to a primitive forest. Plant mobilizing the referentinside the text asscholarlv works do-by foot- ,reedthem into an endless notes, descriptions,pictures, diagrams,instrumentation, allusions- ctive,but, oneshould add, Serresinserts his texts as a legendfor us to readour world. Hencethe the contrary,thrives on the difficulty. When you readhis commentaryof La Fontaine'sFables , you ultivateshighly producrive alwayswonder where are the fableshe is talking about.When you rêad e preparesthe ground and his descriptionof Auvergne'slandscapes or of the North-WestPassage, :s. This is why Serresdoes you are never presentedwith a textual substitute for them. When :iences,like N'Iinerva'sowl, Carnot'sthermodynamics is put to use in order to understandZola, ing in the few clearingsleft neitherof them is first explainedto you. The referentsin Serres'stexts the contrary,philosophy is areneither absent nor madepresent in the text. Thev remainthere, in reprimitive forest,into the front of your eyes, provided you know your La Fontaine by heart, Losophydoes contribute to provided you havebeen to Auvergneand yourselfcrossed the North- heir results, or becausert West Passage,provided you are well versedin Carnot and in Zola. x thev too quickly forget- Serres'stexts are more difficult than most becausethey require us to sciencesfrom part of their know directly and by ourselveswhat they areabout, but they areeasier to read than most, becausewe do not need to abandonthe world we know in order to readthem. Serresdoes not worship the text, doesnot believethev are a useful-or dangerous-substitutefor the world. As everything else they have to be added to the world. What appears allusive, impressionisticand poetic '*'hen his text alone is taken, one to read Nlichel Serres appearstechnical, precise and accurate,when the text is readtogether ntation,it would be unfair with the world it is pointing at. Serresjust providesthe soundtrackof rgs makeat first a difficult this movie: the world. It is in that modestsense that he offers'the lnvoluted,or technical,or Enlightenment,without the Critique'.1 of our modernBabel. It is s very philosophicalargu- the French. They never l, that languageis simply a lrent asDiderot, Bergson, al on which to experiment Ledeepest content of what particularway of sayingit. bv English-speakingwri- sai'in plain languagewhat e to say is that the plain to be said. from a transformationof ', it is/oo plain; it is clarity rI thank BernadetteBensaude-Vincent and IsabelleStengers for helpful rthinking insideone of the commentson this pâper.