as “nature in general.” When one appeals to the notion of nature,the
assemblage that it authorizes counts for infinitely more than the ontological
quality of “naturalness,” whose origin it would guarantee.With nature,
two birds are killed with one stone: a being is classified by its belong-
ing to a certain domain of reality, and it is classified in a unified hierar-
chy extending from the largest being to the smallest.^33
The test is easy to administer. Replace the singular with the plural
everywhere. Suddenly we havenatures,and it is impossible to make
natures play any political role whatsoever. “Naturalrights” in the plu-
ral? It would be difficult to dictate positive laws by relying on such a
multiplicity. How could we inflame minds for the classic debate over
the respective roles of genetics and the environment if we set out to
compare the influence of “natures” and cultures? How could we curb
the enthusiasm of an industry if we said that it must protect “na-
tures”? How could we use the force of Science for leverage if we were
talking about sciences of “natures”? If we said that “the laws of na-
tures” must curb the pride of human laws? No, the plural is decidedly
unsuited to the political notion of nature. One multiplicity plus an-
other multiplicity always make a multiplicity. Starting with the myth
of the Cave, it has been theunityof nature that produces its entire po-
litical benefit, since only this assembling, this ordering, can serve as a
direct rival tothe other formof assembling, composing, unifying, the
entirely traditional form that has always been calledpolitics,in the
singular. The debate over nature and politics is like the great debate
that opposed the pope and the emperor throughout the entire Middle
Ages, when two loyalties toward two totalities of equal legitimacy
divided Christian consciences into two camps. If the term “multicul-
turalism” can be used with reckless abandon, the term “multinatural-
ism” appears—and will continue to appear for quite some time—
shocking or devoid of meaning.^34
What is the effect of political ecology on this traditional debate?
The very expression makes the point clearly enough. Instead oftwo
distinct arenas in which one would try to totalize the hierarchy of be-
ings and would then have to try to choose among them (without ever
being able to succeed), political ecology proposes to convokea single
collective whose role is precisely to debate the said hierarchy—and to
arrive at an acceptable solution. Political ecology proposes to move
WHY POLITICAL ECOLOGY HAS TO LET GO OF NATURE
29