Summary of the Argument
(for Readers in a Hurry...)
Italics refer to the titles of the table of contents; asterisks refer to terms
defined in the glossary.introduction:This book is a work ofpolitical philosophy of na-
ture,or political epistemology. It askswhat we can do with political ecol-
ogy(p. 1). To answer this question, it is not enough to talk about na-
ture and politics; we also have to talk about science. But here is where
the shoe pinches: ecologism cannot be simply the introduction of na-
ture into politics, since not only the idea of nature but also the idea of
politics, by contrast, depends on a certain conception of science. Thus,
we have to reconsider three concepts at once:polis, logos,andphusis.
chapter 1:Why must political ecology let go of nature?(p. 9). Because
nature is not a particular sphere of reality but the result of a political
division, of a Constitution that separates what is objective and indis-
putable from what is subjective and disputable. To engage in political
ecology, then, we must first of allcome out of the Cave (p. 16), by dis-
tinguishing Science from the practical work of the sciences. This
distinction allows us to draw another one, between the official philos-
ophy of ecologism on the one hand and its burgeoning practice on the
other. Whereas ecology is assimilated to questions concerning nature,
in practice it focuses on imbroglios involving sciences, moralities, law,
and politics. As a result, ecologism bears not oncrises of nature but on
crises of objectivity(p. 18). If nature* is a particular way of totalizing the
members who share the same common world instead of and in place
of politics, we understand easily why ecologism marksthe end of nature
231