nity to contend, rather roughly and as equals, with the great reservoir
of speech impedimenta—that is, of democracy—constituted by hu-
mans.
We cannot allow ourselves to merge controversy with discussion,
and then simply add nonhumans to the debate. With the notion of
spokesperson, we are going much further: we areextending doubt
about the fidelity of the representation to nonhumans. Speech is not a
self-evident phenomenon that properly belongs to humans and that
could be offered only metaphorically to nonhumans. The speech of
allspokespersons, those of the old science and those of the old poli-
tics, becomes anenigma,a gamut of positions running from the most
complete doubt—which is called artifact or treason, subjectivity or
betrayal—to the most total confidence—which is called accuracy or
faithfulness, objectivity or unity. Thus, I have not “politicized” nature.
The representation of human spokespersons remains as profound an
enigma as that of laboratories. That a human should speak in the
name of several others is as great a mystery as the one in which a hu-
man speaks in such a way that he is no longer speaking at all; instead,
the facts are speaking for themselves through him. Someone who says,
“I am the State,” or “France has decided...,”isnoeasier to decipher
than someone who knows what the earth’s mass is, or can quote Avo-
gadro’s number in an article.
At this stage in our learning process, I do not claim to have the solu-
tion to the problem of the spokesperson; I seek simply to emphasize
once again that there are nottwoproblems, one on the side of scien-
tific representation and the other on the side of political representa-
tion, but a single problem: How can we go aboutgetting those in whose
name we speak to speak for themselves?By refusing to collaborate, politi-
cal philosophy and the philosophy of the sciences had deprived us of
any opportunity to understand this question. Political ecology is de-
termining clearly for the first time the problem that we are going to
have to solve. It belongs neither to politics nor to epistemology nor to
a blend of the two: it is situated elsewhere, at three removes.
Second Division: Associations of Humans and Nonhumans
It is easy to object that, despite all the contortions to which we have
just subjected ourselves, the scientist is still the one doing the talking.
POLITICS OF NATURE
70