away of all cultural differences, in the hope that they will gradually be
replaced by a single nature known to universal Science? If you are not
that bold, then be honest: Will you have the nerve to admit, con-
versely, that you are resigned to the idea that cultures, although ines-
sential, should become as many incommensurable worlds, added mys-
teriously to a nature that is at once essential and devoid of meaning?
And if you do not pursue that goal either, if mononaturalism com-
bined with multiculturalism strikes you as an imposture, if you really
no longer dare to be modern, if the old form of the future really has no
future, then must we not put back on the table the venerable terminol-
ogy of democracy? Why not try to put an end to the state of nature, to
the state of war of the sciences? What risk do we run in trying out a
politics without nature? The world is young, the sciences are recent,
history has barely begun, and as for ecology, it is barely in its infancy:
Why should we have finished exploring the institutions of public life?
POLITICS OF NATURE
228