the name of those they represent. The violence of scientific controver-
sies covers as wide a gamut of positions as the violence of political as-
semblies: it goes from the charge of treason (“it is not the objective
fact that is speaking, but you and your own subjectivity”) to recogni-
tion of the utmost fidelity: “What you are saying about the facts is
what they would say themselves if only they could speak, and more-
over they do speak, and if they speak, it is precisely thanks to you, who
are speaking not in your own name but in theirs.. .” Thanks to the no-
tion of spokesperson, a process of assembling can now begin, one that
no longer divides up the types of representatives in advance according
to whether they demonstrate what things are or declare what humans
want. In the single Kyoto forum, each of the interested parties can, at a
minimum, agree to consider the other as a spokesperson, without
finding it relevant to decide whether the other represents humans,
landscapes, chemical-industry lobbies, South Sea plankton, Indone-
sian forests, the United States economy, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, or elected governments.
“Discussion,” a key term of political philosophy that has been mis-
takenly understood as a well-formed notion, available off the shelf,
as it were, has now been quite profoundly modified: speech is no
longer a specifically human property, or at least humans are no longer
its sole masters.^16 One of the simplest ways to describe ecological cri-
ses is to acknowledge that they most often arise from a process of
inscription by the sciences, a process in which the only disciplines
capable of alerting us to the problems put them into words, sentences,
and graphs—but to acknowledge as well that these same sciences no
longer suffice to reassure us about the solutions. No one can continue
to find respite from the violence of assemblies by entering the austere
precincts of laboratories. Readers who may still be doubtful need only
glance at newspapers and magazines, where there are traces of this
profound change everywhere: far from suspending discussion over
matters of fact, every piece of scientific news, on the contrary, throws
oil on the fire of public passions.^17 Some people still expect to see the
day come soon when we have become so knowledgeable that we shall
return to the gentle past of mute nature and experts speaking of indis-
putable facts and putting an end, through their knowledge, to all polit-
ical discussion. Human beings live on hope. For me, this regime of
speech corresponds to the modernist nightmare into which people
HOW TO BRING THE COLLECTIVE TOGETHER
65