are going to be able to substitute theexperimental metaphysics*weare
talking about for the arbitrariness—or the arbitrage—of nature, we
shall have to begin by defining a sort of vital minimum, a kind of
metaphysical “minimum wage” that will allow us to make possible the
convocation of the collective. Why would my readers want to abandon
their own metaphysics to accept mine or those of ecological thinkers,
whether deep or superficial? Why should they deprive themselves of
the solid anchor they have in the “metaphysics of physics”?
Fortunately, I do not need to erect one metaphysics to challenge an-
other and thereby prolong the interminable quarrel over the founda-
tions of the universe! To reopen public discussion about the distribu-
tion of the primary and secondary qualities, we have simply to move
from a warlike version of public lifeto a civil version.Political ecol-
ogy does not bear “at once” on things and people. Indeed, what does
“bear” mean? What does “at once” mean” And “things”? And “peo-
ple”? All these little words reach us on the move, trained, equipped,
ready to go up to the front in past battles that are no longer our own.
In order to have them work for us, we have to “convert” them, as it is
said in the weapons industry when an entire sector of military produc-
tion is to be shifted to civilian purposes.
We are going to show how humans and nonhumans, provided that
they are no longer in a situation of civil war, canexchange properties,
in order to compose in common the raw material of the collective.
Whereas the subject-object opposition had the goal ofprohibitingany
exchange of properties, the human-nonhuman pairing makes such an
exchange not only desirable but necessary. This pairing is what will
make it possible to fill up the collective with beings endowed with
will, freedom, speech, and real existence. The common destiny of such
beings will explain why political ecology cannot be developed through
a simple juxtaposition of ecology and politics. Instead of a science of
objects and a politics of subjects, by the end of the chapter we should
have at our disposal a political ecology of collectives consisting of hu-
mans and nonhumans.
Less difficult than the previous chapter and much less so than the
following one, this chapter requires only that readers not let them-
selves be shocked too quickly by the curious exchanges of properties
in which we are going to indulge. If our peaceful restructuring still
appears surprising, it has to be compared to the contradictory roles
HOW TO BRING THE COLLECTIVE TOGETHER
61