more, as it were, than propose theircandidacyfor common existence
and subject themselves to trials whose outcome is still uncertain.^11 Let
us say that, under the name of fact, new entities appear in the form of
that which leaves those who are discussing themperplexed.
When we insist on the stubbornness of facts, we want to be sure
that their number cannot be reduced arbitrarily, to make things easier
for us and to simplify our agreement by short-circuiting discussion.
When we say: “The facts are there, whether we like it or not,” it is
not a matter of pounding on the table to avoid social constructivism,
but of pointing out something much more ordinary, less warlike, less
definitive: we are trying to make sure that our interlocutors, by limit-
ing in advance the list of states of the world, do not hide the risks that
put our well-regulated existences in danger. Let us formulate this first
requirement in the form of a categorical imperative:Thou shalt not sim-
plify the number of propositions to be taken into account in the discussion.
What are we going to do now with the other feature that was mixed
up by mistake in the same box of “facts”? It obviously does not resem-
ble the first one in any respect, since it emphasizes on the contrary the
indubitable aspect of the objective fact that closes off discussion or at
least shifts the debate elsewhere, onto other topics—for example, val-
ues. Perplexity is not a stable state, nor is controversy. Once the candi-
dacy of the new entities has been recognized, accepted, legitimized,
admitted among the older propositions, these entities become states
of nature, self-evidences, black boxes, habits, paradigms. No one dis-
cusses their rank and their importance any longer. They have beenreg -
isteredas full-fledged members of collective life. They are part of the
nature of things, of common sense, of the common world. They are no
longer discussed. They serve as indisputable premises to countless
reasonings and arguments that are prolonged elsewhere. If we still
pound our fists on the table, we are no longer doing so as an invitation
to perplexity, but as a reminder that the “facts are there, and they are
stubborn!” How can we define a matter of concern that has become
such an indisputable matter of fact? Let us say that the propositions in
question have beeninstituted.^12
When we insist on the solidity of the facts, we require our interlocu-
tors to stop challenging the states of things that now have clear
boundaries, precise definitions, thresholds, fixed habits, in short, es-
sences. Let us formulate this second requirement in the form of an-
POLITICS OF NATURE
104