two synonyms for the common world? And yet, despite their ambi-
tions, neither thescientificpolitics of totalitarianism nor thepolitical
economics of globalization allows us to discover the right institutions,
because they have only reduced the number of concerned parties.
Nothing is less scientific than totalitarianism; nothing is less univer-
salizable than globalization and its world-class futilities. It seems as
though we always want to move from one prematurely unified world
to another, while short-circuiting the practical means for achieving
this unity in every case. If we have not yet left the state of nature, if the
war of “all the everythings” against “all the everythings” is raging, we
at least have hope of being able finally to enter into a State of law of
which the traditional forms of politics give no idea whatsoever. The
collective is still to come.
Fortunately, by losing mononaturalism, the collective frees itself at
the same time from multiculturalism. Up to now, pluralism had never
been anything but a rather facile tolerance, since it never poured out
its generosities except by drawing on an unchallenged common fund.
By losing nature, we also lose the fragmented, dispersed, irremediable
form that it gave, by contrast, to all the multiplicities. The moderns,
delivered from this formidable ethnocentrism of inanimate nature,
can again enter into contact with the Others and benefit from their
contribution to the elaboration of the common worlds, since the Oth-
ers (and these are no longer cultures) have never used nature to carry
out their politics.^45 The universal is neither behind nor above nor be-
low, but ahead. We do not know what thediverselooks like, if it no
longer sets itself apart against the prematurely unified background of
nature. Relativism would disappear with absolutism. There would re-
main relationism, the common world to be built. To enter into its per-
ilous peace talks, thelogoscan find no help except in turning to frail
parliamentarians.
POLITICS OF NATURE
220