in suspense, unresolved, arises: Under what auspices must we unite,
now that there is no more nature to do the work in our place, under
the table, apart from representative assemblies?
The diplomat is not exactly a fourth power. He is only charged with
leaving thequestion of the number of collectives open,a question that,
without him, everyone would have a tendency to simplify somewhat.
Explorer, investigator, sensor, he has the advantage over all the other
powers of not knowing with certainty what the collective that sends
him is composed of. More twisted than the moralist, less procedural
than the administrator, less willful than the politician, more bent than
the scientist, more detached than the explorer of markets, the diplo-
mat in no way minimizes how difficult it is to know the terms in
which each of the parties contemplates describing its “war aims.” His
presence alone suffices, all the same, to modify profoundly thedanger
faced by a collective in quest of the number of those with whom it is
going to have to compromise. The external enemy, for good reason,
terrifies those who imagine that what defines their essence is going to
be torn away: barbarians frighten barbarians. But the enemy that the
diplomat accompanies does not put the collective in danger in the
same way, since he is the bearer of a peace proposal that goes far be-
yond mere compromise: “Thanks to you, we are going to understand
the difference between our essential requirements and their tempo-
rary expressions.”^42 Finally, we are going to know what we want and
what this “we” is that says it is endowed with a will. The diplomat re-
calls thatno one who does not lend himself to this work of negotiation can
invoke the unity of the collective.In imitation of the third command-
ment, against blasphemy, let us add to our tables of the Law: “Thou
shalt not speak of the unity of the collective in vain.”
War and Peace for the Sciences
Have I settled the question of the number of collectives? No, of course
not, for history is not over and has no meaning other than the one that
is discovered through an experimentation of which no one can skip
the steps or foresee the results. I have done better than to settle the
question; I have left it open, while raising anew the question of the
number of collectives on which war and peace depend. This is easy to
understand: if all the excluded entities left outside then advance in
EXPLORING COMMON WORLDS
217