what distinguish it from all the other scientifico-political movements
of the past. It is the only movement that can benefit from a different
politics of science.
- Neither cybernetics nor hierarchies make it possible to under-
stand the unbalanced, chaotic, Darwinian, sometimes local and some-
times global, sometimes rapid and sometimes slow agents that it
brings to light through a multitude of original experimental arrange-
ments, all of which taken together fortunately do not constitute a se-
cure Science. - Political ecology is incapable of integrating the entire set of its lo-
calized and particular actions into an overall hierarchical program,
and it has never sought to do so. This ignorance of the totality is pre-
cisely what saves it, because it can never array little humans and great
ozone layers, or little elephants and medium-sized ostriches, in a sin-
gle hierarchy. The smallest can become the largest. “It was the stone
rejected by the builders that became the keystone” (Matt. 21:42). - Political ecology has fortunately remainedmarginalup to now, for
it has not yet grasped either its own politics or its own ecology. It
thinks it is speaking of Nature, System, a hierarchical Totality, a world
without man, an assured Science, and it is precisely these overly or-
dered pronouncements that marginalize it, whereas the isolated pro-
nouncements of its practice would perhaps allow it finally to attain
political maturity, if we managed to grasp their meaning.
Thus we cannot characterize political ecology by way of a crisis of
nature, but by way of a crisis of objectivity. The risk-free objects, the
smooth objects to which we had been accustomed up to now, are giv-
ing way torisky attachments,tangled objects.^19 Let us try to character-
ize the difference between the old objects and the new ones, between
matters of fact and what could be calledmatters of concern,now that
we have gotten ourselves unaccustomed to the notion of nature.
Matters of fact, that is, risk-free objects, had four essential charac-
teristics that made it possible to recognize them at a glance. First of
all, the object produced hadclear boundaries,a well-defined essence*,
well-recognized properties. It belonged without any possible question
to the world of things, a world made up of persistent, stubborn, non-
mental entities defined by strict laws of causality, efficacity, profitabil-
ity, and truth. Next, the researchers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and
technicians who conceived and produced these objects and brought
POLITICS OF NATURE
22