r c L ' n i v c r s i n 'o f C a m b r i d g e
c t t . C a m b r i d g cC. B Z 1 R P
Contents
k, \\- 10022,
L's.\
l b o u r n e3 1 6 6 ,. \ u s t r a l i a
P h i l o s o p h 1r 9 8 7
rrd nunrber:88-20254
Preface
ContinentalInsularitv: Contemporarl.French Analvtical philosophy
PASCAL ENGEL
irt Ptrblicutiottl)ata
rr': su1-rplenrcnt
I n s t i t u t eo f
n Phillips),
ies 19-l
The Nlisprisionof Pragmatics:Conceptionsof Languagein
ContemporarvFrench Philosophy
2l
J. J. LECERCLE
Ants and Women, or Philosophvwithout Borders
nrrcHÈlr'r,ED(EUFF
+1
N{otifs tovi'ardsa Poetics
55
MICHEL DEGUY
The Relevanceof Cartesianism
cguittgin Publication Data
69
VINCENT CARRAUD
osophy/edited b,v A. Phillips
Institute of Philosophy lecture
P h i l o s o p h y1 9 8 7. "
The Enlightenmentwithout the Critique: A Word on Nlichel
Serres'Philosophv
)
20th centurv. I. Griffiths, A.
(l,ondon, England)III. Series:
hl lecturcs:21.
88-20254
CIP
The Teleologicaland Deontologicalsrructures of Action: Aristotle
and/or Kant?
83
BRUNO LATOUR
99
PALIL RICOEUR
The Crisis of the Post-modernImase
RICHARD
tta
I IJ
KEARNEY
Merleau-Pontyand the Phenomenologvof perceptron
t23
CYRIL BARRETT
EpistemologicalHistorv: The Legacyof Bachelardand Cansuilhem
141
MARY TILES
History as Genealogv:An Exploration of Foucault'sApproach
to History
157
E L I E G E O R G E SN O U J A I N
Bevond Deconstruction?
DAVID
l/5
WOOD
Further Ad'entures of the Dialectic: Nlerleau-pontv,sartre. Althusser
l9s
GREGORY ELLIOTT
lll
Contents
Paradoxes of the Pineal : From Descartes t o G e o r g e s B a t a i l l e
DAVID
FARRELL
zt5
Preface
KRELL
Notes on Contributors
zz9
Index
231
These lecturesdelivered at tt
c v e n i n t h e c a s eo f t h e f i r s t s e
a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v eo f F r e n c h 1
so, sincenothing can be repre
sophv except contemporary
hos'ever,reflect one of the ch
r - r n d e r l i etsh i s : i t s g r e a t d i v e r s
Le Doeuff, and Bruno Latou
\\'e are verv deeplv indebt
Channel for advice on oossib
froni the beginning r*'i r*.r.
P r o f e s s o r\ l a r c e l R e g n i e r , S J ,
t o h a v e o p e n e d t h e s e r i e s ,b u t
h i s f a i l i n g h e a l t h . \ \ ' e a r e a l s o<
Balliol College,for his advice
T h e s e p h i l o s o p h e r sa r e n o t
position of the volume. Nlanr
a n d o f t h c s e ,a f e u h a d t o c a n
\\.asnot an unallaved misfortur
g a v eu s t h e i r s p l e n d i d p a p e r s i
thenr.
The EnlightenmentWithout the
Critique:A Word on MichelSerres'
Philosophy
B R U N OL A T O U R
Il n'est de pur mythe que I'idée d'une sciencepure de tout mythe
La Traduction, p.259
The French, it is well known, love revolutions,political, scientificor
philosophical.There is nothing they like more than a radicalupheaval
of the past, an upheavalso completethat a new tabula rasa is levelled,
on which a new history canbe built. None of our Prime Nlinistersstarts
his mandatewithout promising to write on a new blank page or to
furnish a completechangein valuesand even, for some, in life. Each
would think of him or herselfasa failure, if he or shedid not
researcher
make such a completechangein the disciplinethat nothing will hereafter be the same.As to the philosophersthey feed, from Descartesup
on
to Foucault'sdays,on radicalcuts, on'coupure épistémologique',
has
in
of
everything
which
been
thought
the
past
completesubversion
bv everybody.No French thinker, indeed no student of philosophy,
would seriouslycontemplatedoing anythingshort of a completerevolution in theories.To hesitate,to respectthe past, would be to compromise, to be a funk, or worse, to be eclecticlike a vulgar AngloSaxon!
to be so deep and so completethat they left
The revolutions.ul'ere
r.vhat
nothing intact of
thev had subverted.In the new order of things,
and only there, there was everythingneededto think-until, that is, a
new upheavalrelinquishedthis order to the sameobscurity. Needless
to say, this stateof affairsmade life in Parisrather difficult. Everyone
couldoutwil every other. No matter how radicalyou were, no matter
how absolutelycritical you might have been, someonecould be still
more critical, still more radical,still more revolutionarythan yourself:
someonewho rn'ouldhaveforcedyou to confessthis capitalsin: naiveté,
gullibility.
NlichelSerresis naiveand gullible beyonddescription.Every time a
'coupureepistémologique'
or an intellectualpronunciarevolutionor a
miento, has definitely reversedthe order of things, he still believesin
what has been reversed: lvorse. he does not know how to choose
betweenthe past and the present,the losersand the winners. Not only
Bruno Latour
is he unableto choosecampsbut he goeson diggingin the leftovers,asif
the world was beginning,asif no revolutionhad happened,asif all the
past were still present,as if the loserswere equal to the winners.
For instance,it is beyond doubt that there has been a Copernican
revolution that startedthe Enlightenmentand establishedscienceas a
sure and definitive accessto truth, away from religionand mythologv.
Sciencehas outgrown its past, and irreversiblypassedover the Dark
Agesof belief, opinion and storv-telling.How canyou doubt that?How
can a French person hesitateon this evidence,after Descartes,after
Comte, after Bachelard?
Well, Serres is not too sure. He wavers. He fiddles. He seesthe
irreversibility as reversible.It mav be that Lucrecius is not so prescientific.It may be that a novelistllkeZola is not soascientific.It may
be that a fabulist like La Fontainehasthings to sayabout logic aswell.
It may be that the Holy Scripture'sstory of the Last Supper is not so
an tiscientific.
Well, one could say, then Serresis one of theseconservatives
who
alwaysscreamagainsiscience,one of thesespiritualistswho claim that
there exist other waysthan scienceto gain accessto ultimate truth, one
of theseirrational cranks, or may be one of theseNietzscheanphilosopherswho appealto the unboundedforcesof life againstthe cold and
narrow certaintiesof science?
Not so. I saidhe is naive,so naivethat he doesnot evenbelievewhat
revolutionariessay of themselves;he doesnot seescienceas cold, and
narrow. His hesitationto choosebetweenscientificand pre-scientific
discourseis perfectlysvmmetrical.NIaybeCarnot, the thermodynamician,is aslively and interestingasJulesVernes,the novelist,or Turner,
the painter. Maybe set theorists,the mathematicians,are as exact as
Livius, the recollector of Rome's foundation myths. Mavbe that
Brillouin, the informationphvsicist,is more of a philosopherthan JeanPaul Sartre. Maybe that a chemist like Prigogine is as interestinga
cosmologistas Hesiode.
Hold on ! Hold on ! Onehas /o choosebetweentheseadjectives.This
is a seriousmatter. You cannotput the wrong labelson the packages
of
documentsthat are securelysafeguardedin religion,science,literature
and mythology. One might be allowedto savthat Livius is'touching'or
'charming',
but not that he is 'rigorous';or one may saythat Carnotis a
revolutionaryin phvsicsbut not that he is so in literature; or that La
Fontaineis'amusing'butnot that he is a'structuralist';
that Prigogineis
a goodchemist,but not that he is a philosopher.See?Y ou are sure.You
d i s t r i b u t ea d j e c t i v e lsi k e ' o u t m o d e d ' , ' c h a r m i n g ' , ' p o e t i c ' , ' r i g o r o u s ' ,
'scientific','fictional','mythical'
with greatmastery.
But Serres is devoid of this mastery. He has never acquired this
know-how. Facedwith a novel bv BaIzache reallv doesnot know for
84
sure if it is part of
religion,or of literary
a Tintin comic strip,
of moderncommuni
analyst,Hergé or Ha
l. Critique-an
Ac:
His ignoranceintrod
featureof NlichelSe
philosophicalmovem
in chargeof foundin;
tories, ruling opinion
Minerva'sowl. If an1
and wise, but naive a
A 'critique'philoso
tion betweenbeliefs
betweenideologiesan
to take three avatarsr
worry of a '-critique1
the minimum that co
o f t h e C r i t i q u e ,d o n r
we canhold to onethr
dental,to the classstr
thing that allowsus tc
Critique work is that
one that is sureand c
and in dire needof be
up...Outonrougl"
Well. Serresis bv t
to Englishmen.Like
one of the very few
tena. Thus, out on
seasickpassengers,
br
Do we really need
vocationof philosoph
many lesssterile voce
To understandin'n
haveto take the wor.
cism. I havetwo reas
part of his careerSerr
genre,and it is inside
abroad.But also,it is
A Word on Michel Serres' PhilosoPhY
g in the leftovers,asif
rappened,asif all the
I to the winners.
rs been a Copernican
tablishedscienceas a
igion and mythology.
rassedover the Dark
vou doubt that?Hou
ifter Descartes,after
fiddles, He seesthe
:reciusis not so Pre'
soascientific.It ma.v
rv about logic aswell.
Last Supperis not so
se conservativeswho
lalistswho claimthat
to ultimatetruth, one
philo,e Nietzschean
e againstthe cold and
not evenbelievewhat
: scienceas cold, and
fic and pre-scientific
, the thermodl'namie novelist,or Turner,
;ians, are as exact as
myths. NIaybe that
thanJeannilosopher
re is as interestinga
This
heseadjectives.
:ls on the packagesof
rn, science,literature
-ivius is'touching'or
v savthat Carnot is a
iterature;or that La
list';that Prigogineis
e?You are sure.You
,'poetic','rigorous',
f\!
never acquired this
lv doesnot know for
of_history of
sure if it is part of the discipline of thermodynlm,r_cs,
Facedwith
Worse.
is?
naive
he
how
See
criticism.
religion,o. oi lit.ruty
theory
best
is
not
the
if
this
for
sure
tell
he
cannot
a Tintin comic strip,
is
a
better
Who
written.
been
ever
has
that
of modern co--r.ti.ution
not'
FIe
does
know.
You
analyst,Hergé or Flabermas?
l. Critique-an
Acritical Philosophy
His ignoranceintroducesus to what I seeas one of the first important
'Critique'
feat.,i. of N,IichelSerres'philosophy. He is not part of the
philosophicalmovement. He doesnot seephilosophyasthe discipline
terriof founding knowledge,debunkingbeliefs,ad-jucating
ir,
"h"rg"
to
similar
bird
crepuscular
not
a
is
Philosophy
tories, iuling opinioÀs.
Not
sad
bird.
morning
bright
and
a
light
it
is
Nlineiva'soi't.lf anything
and wise, but naive and brisk.
A'critique' philosopherseeshis taskasthat of establishinga distinction betwËenbeliefsôn the one hand and knowledgeon the other, or
betweenideologiesand science,or betweendemocracyand terror-just
to takethreeavatarsof the'Critique'. To be takenin, that is the main
we are looking for
worry of a'critique' philosopher.Since-Descartes,
We, the knights
certain.
and
safe
be
the minimum thât co,rldb" saidto
Provided
thrifty.
and
ascetic
We
are
much.
of the Critique, do not ask
the
transcento
the
cogito,
to
rninuscule,
we can holdio one thing, even
dental,to the classstru[gle, to languageanalysis,to discourse'one tiny
thing that allowsr. to sèéthrough the-rest,we feelh"ppy andsafe.The
Critique work is that of a reductionof the rvorld into two packs,a little
one tËat is strreand certain,the immenserest which is simply believed
and in dire needof beingcriticized,founded,re-educated,straightened
up . . . out on rough water, the critique alwayslooks for a lifeboat.
Well, Serresis b1:traininga sailorand no doubt this trait willappeal
to Englishmen.Like St John Perse,one of our greatestpoets' Serresis
orr" oi the very few French for whom the oceansare the only firma
terra.']hus, out on rough water he is not looking for a lifeboat like
but siaysat the stern like a weatheredhelmsman'
seasickpassengers,
Do *e real[' need a Critique to survive? Is the Critique the only
vocationof phiiosophy'? His answeris no. There existmany other ways,
many lesssterilevocationsfor philosophers.
Tô understandin u,hatsenseSerresis not a Critique philosopher,we
have to take the word critique in the mundane senseof literary criticism. I havetwo reasonsfor starting from this point. First, for a large
part of his careerSerrespublishedbookswhich appearto pertainto that
grr,r., and it is insidelanguagedepartmentsthat he is still best known
Tbroud.But also, it is m-vconvicti'onthat every science,including the
85
Bruno Latour
hard ones, is defined b,va certainrvay of practisinga peculiarkind of
Tell me how vou commenton a scriptureor an inscription,
exegesis.
and I will tell you what sort of epistemologvvou hold on to. Understanding Serres'sconceptionof the commentarvis thus alsoa u'aYof
understanding
his conceptionof the sciences.
The literarycritic commentsupon a text (seeFigure1). He or shehas
a vocabulary;sohasthe text or the work underscrutiny.First, thereis a
The critic
questionor direction.\\:hich oneis doingthe interpretation?
rnetalanguage
rhat
who
provides
the
He
she
is
the
one
of course.
or
makessenseof the infra-languageof the text. Second,there is a question of size. The critic's vocabular.vis enormouslvshorter than the
mav be saidto explain
text's repertoire.This is rvhv the metalanguage
for instance
u'ord
in
critic's
repertoire,
something. With one
the
'Oedipus'
four
novels
and five
dozen
complex', vou can explain
or
of
masterv.
is
hundredplays.Third, there a questionof precedence
are
much
Who dominatesthe other?Ànsrver:the commentator.Critics
establish
and
analyse.
strongerthan the text thev dominateand explain,
The mastervis so complete,Serresargues,that the texts, the novels,
the plavs,the mvths, slorvlvdisappear,buried beneathstrongerand
more powerfulcommentaries.
Corlmentary
V o c a b u l a r y2
Text to be commented
Figure I
Serresis first of aii a reader,a marveilousreader.As much as any
other commentator,he usesall the tricks and instrumentsthat exegesis
may haveinventedover the centuries.But he doesit with a difference.
It is not that he appealsto the pure beautv of the untouched texts
of the critique,althoughthereis someof
beyondthe boringscholarship
hates
ploy
in
his
writings-he
for instancethe lovelv Anglo-Saxon
that
art of footnoting.\Vhat he doesis to reshufflethe cardson the commentator'stable (seeFigure 2). First, thereis no metalangtage.Second,it
is impossibleto distinguishwho is providingthe explanation;is it the
Third, and consequently,thereis
commentedtext or the commentar-v?
no
no precedenceand
masterveither.
86
For instance,take.
svstemsof interpreta
It is a poem in vt
seriouslv,canvou? It
naive ph1'sicsof tho:
phvsics.Just think c
Lucreciusrl'rote it, a
read the commentar
In comesNlichelS
So our definition of p
savs.Rememberalso
the poemnot teachus
of the clinamencou
Serresargues,provic
flou's, fluxes, meteor
its emergence.If bv 1
falling bodies starte
rather out of the r'va
old is Lucrecius'pa
Phvsics'
People,I renembe
vearsago. Today, ev
physicsof chaos.Thi
the mainstreanl,so t(
all alonghis poem,of
to understand fluctu
used to comment on
phv as of an outdate
anew,resurrected,he
measureup to: nonI know I havenot c
A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy
ing a peculiarkind of
ure or an inscription,
u holdon to. Under, is thus also a way of
igureI ). He or shehas
' u t i n \ . F i r s t ,t h e r ei s a
rpretation?The critic
rc ntetalanguage that
c o n d ,t h e r ei s a q u e s lslr shorter than the
rtar be saidto explain
rertoire,for instance
zen novels and five
edenceor of masterv.
ltor. Criticsaremuch
establish
and analvse.
the texts,the novels,
reneathstrongerand
rlary I
-
V o c a b u l a r y2
ler. As much as anv
'umentsthat exegesii
s it with a difference.
the untouched texts
ough thereis someof
: lor.elvAnglo-Saxon
ardson the commenlanguage.Second,it
explanation;is it the
onsequently,
thereis
Vocabulary I
Vocabulary 2
Figure 2
For instance,take Lucrecius'De \-atura Rerum and placein the two
systemsof interpretationI just sketched.
It is a poem in verse. So, the critics sav, vou cannot take it too
seriously,can vou? It rs an amusingand outmodedu'a,vof exposingthe
naive physics of those ages.Lucrecius u,'aswrong on every point of
physics.Just think of his clinamen.Poor thing! Let us explainwhy
Lucreciuswrote it, and do not forget the footnoteson the wav. Better
readthe contmentarvthan the texi. It will be much faster.
In comesNlichelSerres.Rememberthat thereis no metalanguage.
So our definition of physicsmav not be the bestjudge of what the poem
savs.Rememberalsothat thereis no orderof precedence.
Sowhv could
the poemnot teachus somethingon our physics?
What?This non-sense
of the clinamencould be the judge of our own commentary?Sure,
Serresargues,provided you read the text. What is it about? Clouds,
flows, fluxes, meteors,fluctuations,turbulences,chaos.the u'orld and
its emergence.If bv phvsicsvou mean the tinv repertoireof solid and
falling bodies started bv Galilean physics, ves indeed, Lucrecius is
rather out of the rvav. If bv physicsvou mean fluid statephysics,how
old is Lucrecius'passionate
descriptionof it? It is still tomorroza's
physics.
People,I remember,laughedlvhen Serresofferedthis answera few
yearsago. Toda.v,even the ScientificÂrneican carriesarticleson the
physicsof chaos.This turbulent objectis slowl1'being reintroducedin
the mainstream,so to speak,of phvsics.Serresarguesthat Lucrecius,
all alonghis poem, offersa longer,richer and more accuratevocabulary
to understandfluctuations than the confined repertoire of concepts
usedto comment on the Epicurian poem. \\re thought of this philosophy as of an outdatedremnantof the pre-scientific
era;but here it is,
anew,resurrected,helping us to grasprn'hatthe best laboratoriestrv to
measureup to: non-laminarflows and turbulences.
I know I havenot convincedvou. Horru'can
a merepoemcarrv weight
87
Bruno Latour
in physics?We all know too well that poetry hasno objectivemeaning,
it has survived to thesedays only by keepingsafelyaway from objectivity and science.To be sure a poem may have other qualities,like
beauty and depth, but it cannot competewith Plzl'sicsRerieu or with
the Proceedingsof the Royal Society. This objection is strong if you
believethat the literary genre of sciencehas definitely overcomeand
outdated every other genre-at least as far as accessto the objective
world is concerned.But again,Serresdoesnot believein this overcoming and outdating. To call the De Natura Rerum a poem, for Serres,
doesnot mean that, on his desk, this morning, it is not as fresh as the
weekly issue of l\iature-not that it is a nice way of relaxing after
readingscience,but becauseit might be technicalh'accurate.
Still, I feel I havenot convincedvou. You believe(evenon the other
sideof the Channel)that there havebeenrevolutionsin science.The
pasthasbeenabolishedby the presentstateof knorvledge.To be sureit
may survive as an object for antiquarians,or as a footnote in the
when handed out to
textbooks,but it is fundamentallydisacti'"^ated
historians.The past of science,foi Serres,is still active.No revolution
in physicshas coveredup the Epicurian approachof fluctuations,no
more than the invention of the genre of scientificwriting has disactivatedmythology, cosmogony,foundationstoriesor fables.He doesnot
only saythat you shouldbe fair to the losersof the history of science;he
claimsthat they are not losersat all, that they arestill tacklingthe same
problemsat hand as the modern sciencesdo. 'There is onlv one m,vth:
that of a sciencepurified from all myths.'
You might now guessthe main sourceof pleasureand strength of
Michel Serres'swritings. He visits our past like the Charming Prince
visitsSleepingBeauty'spalace.Lucreciushad beenput safelyasleepfar
awayin the pre-scientificera; a kiss; and hereit is, vawning,stretching,
breathing again,as young as when it was written. Livius's foundation
myths had been mothballed for centuries. Thev are standing alive
today, and it is today that the Vestalsare stonedbv the turba, the mob,
revealingin front of our very eyesthe foundation of Rome and the
creationof the ob-jects,ob-jicere,that is, what lies,stonedby the mob,
buried under a tumulus of stones.So many commentatorsgive venerabletextsthe kissof death,that, to all thosewho haveheardSerrestalk,
this resurrectionechoswhat was said to Lazarus:'Take off the grave
clothesand let him go' (Jn. I l: 43).
After this brief encounterwith Serres'sexegeticprinciples,we can
now seehow little he is a'Critique'philosopher.SinceKant we define
the Critique hasa Copernicanrevolutionthat makes,at last,the things
turn aroundthe mind (or aroundwhateverhassinceKant beendefined
asthe focusand masterthat occupiesthe Centre: the Unconscious,the
88
Society,the Econom
could Serresaccepttt
Consider again his pr
rigorous,more livell',
providesa richer repe
tor. Who overmaster
Still, one could say
overemphasis
on disc
commentary to texts
things. The things?I
Frenchman talk abou
does, and unabashed
knowledgeof it; they,
our commentary on 1
Body's Five Senses
things, things seen b
knowledge,this is a ra
point of view of the Ar
would also be an em
imaginethat?That is r
and culture, and so to
philosophicaltraditio
What Serresdoesor
of the texts to the thin
to the world. I saidtha
exegesisand the defin
still clearer.Scientific
nor doesit revealits es
problematicof hiding
and Darkness,of the I
the world; it is inside
part, in brief of its mr
French philosophersr
well educatedin it, an
his naiveté.as I said.tr
Jules Verne, as myth
Serresdoesnot say th
the sciences,other w:
would deny that? He
none of them having t
by the presentstateof
offering the measure<
Instead of the imap
definitiveand irrevers
A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy
no objectii'emeaning,
fell'awav from objece other qualities, like
li1'sicsRet:iewor with
:ction is strong if you
[initelv overcomeand
ccessto the objective
:lievein this overcom?r â poem, for Serres,
t is not as fresh as the
uav of relaxingafter
allv accurate.
eve(evenon the other
rtionsin science.The
rs ledge.To be sureit
as a footnote in the
rvhen handed out tr,r
active.No revolutiorr
ch of fluctuations,no
ic r,r'ritinghas disactior fables.He doesnot
, historyof science;he
still tacklingthe same
rereis only one mvth:
lsure and strength of
the CharmingPrince
'n put safely'asleep
far
, varvning,stretching,
.. Livius'sfoundatiorr
lv are standing alive
*, lhe turba, themob,
.on of Rome and the
s, slonedby the mob,
nentatorsgive veneraveheardSerrestalk,
;: 'Take off the grave
ic principles,we can
SinceKant we define
(es,at last, the things
ce Kant beendefined
the Llnconscious,
the
Society,the Economy, the Language,the Epistémèand so on). How
could Serresacceptthat a Copernicanrevolutionhasevertakenplace?
Consider again his principle: the text under scrutiny is alwaysmore
rigorous,more lively, more modern, than the commentatorand always
providesa richer repertoire.Who turns around them? The commentator. Who overmastershim? The humble and outdatedtexts.
Still, one could say, this is a philosophvof texts, a typicailv French
on discourse.Not so. What Serresdoeson the relationof
overemphasis
commentary to texts, he also does it on the relation of languageto
things. The things? How can one talk about the things? How can a
Frenchman talk about them after hundred yearsof idealism?Serres
does, and unabashedlyat that. Again, things are not reducedto our
knowledgeof it; they, too, are richer, more accurate,more precisethan
our conrmentaryon them. In his latest book, Les Cinq Sens ('The
Body's Five Senses'),Serres providesa pre-Copernicanversion of
things, things seen before the commentarv of the sciences.To my
knowledge,this is a rare attempt, in philosophy,to seethings from the
point of view of the hnown, not of the knowing. A French personwho
would also be an empiricist-even though a queer sort-who could
imaginethat? That is the difficulty of Serres,so French in his language
and culture, and so totallv un-French, that is to savun-German,in his
philosophicaltradition.
What Serresdoeson the relationof the commentaryto the texts, and
of the texts to the things, he alsodoesit on the relationsof the sciences
to the world. I saidthat therealwaysexistsa link betweenthe practiceof
exegesisand the definition of what is a science.In Serres,this link is
still clearer.Scientificknowledgedoesnot reduceor abolishthe u'orld,
nor doesit revealits essence.Nothing is more foreignto Serresthan the
problematicof hiding and revealingthings, the problematicof Light
and Darkness,of the Enlightenment.Scientificknorvledgeis added to
the world; it is insideit; is part of its beauty,mvsteryand monsters,
part, in brief of its myths, of its culture. Serresis one of the verv few
French philosopherssince Bergsonwho readsscience,who has been
well educatedin it, and who doesnot despiseor worship it. It is part of
to be asinterestingasLivius or
his naiveté,asI said,to takethe sciences
Verne,
mythical
as
Homer.
I
insist on this essentialpoint:
as
Jules
Serresdoesnot sav that there is beyond, or above,or below, or beside
the sciences,other ways of thinking and believingthan science,who
would deny that? He saysthat there is one huge reservoirof attempts
outwitted, affieben,
none of them having beenovercome,outn-roded,
by the presentstateof science.They are readyat hand, irreducible,all
offering the measureof eachother.
Instead of the image of the Copernicanrevolution, that pictures a
definitiveand irreversiblereversalof the force relationsbetweencentre
Bruno Latour
and periphery he offers another geographicalmetaphor, a much /ess
radical one, that of the North-West Passage,this chaosof islandsand
lands and ice and packs disseminatedin North Canada. No direction; no obviousmastery;no clear-cutdivide betweenthe firm landsof
science and the soft resourcesof the humanities. If one wanted
the humanan imagefor the Two Culture debatethat so much obsesses
ists, here it is: the two culturesdo not exist, exceptasthe infinitely far
horizonsof Canadaon the one hand and the North Pole on the other.
and deadends.Where is'the sure
What existsis this chaosof passages
path of the science'sodearto Kant's heartin this Daedalianlabl'rinth?
Lost. No ! It is there,but local,onlv localand transitorywhenthe wind
is good and the fog has cleared.
Beforeclosingthis first part, we can seeagainthe relationsbetween
two conceptionsof science,two ways of practisingcommentariesand
of a
alsotvn'owaysof discipliningdisciplesand defining the seriousness
'Critique' philosophersfirmlv install their metalanguage
in the
study.
centre and slowly substitutetheir argumentsto everv singleobject of
the periphery; organizing the Critique is a tantamount to a careful,
obstinateand deliberateempire-building. A por,r'erfulcritique being
onethat ties, like a bicvclewheel,evervpoint of a peripheryto oneterm
of the centrethrough the intermediaryof a prox\,. At the end, holding
the centre is tantamount to holdins the u'orld. A scholarlvwork is
recognizableto the continuit\', hoirogeneitvand coherenieof the
metalanguageused all along to subsumethe periphery.
Serres'pre-criticalphilosophvlives under rather different assumpthat
tions. There is no centreand no substitutionof one metalanguage
would overmasterthe others. The result of his commentarvis a crnssov-er,in the genetic sense,whereby charactersof one languageare
Cross-overfrom one
repertoire to another
S u b s t i t u t i o no f t h e m e t a l a n g u a g e
to the infralanguages
of the periphery
Figure 3
90
crossed rvith attribut
metaphor,his aim is to
to the sameargument
Needlessto say, su(
deputies, of thésards
anotherdomain. Who <
to train a retinue of
inventiveas I am when
overpowerpositionsar
decidewhether a studv
end of my presentati;
To sum up, I wouk
been a long parenthe
dutiesof the 'Critique
reversethe forcerelati
wants to bring religio
philosophy,enter'ontl
of this reversalof powr
and the mind from the t
the world.
What doesthe taskol
metalanguage,do not
revolutions,when you
definitively overmaste
you get when you put t
in store, if anl'? Serrt
questionswithout bein
during the Critique pa
century.
I am struggling for a
philosophy.'Positiver,
word a dubious posteri
his Comte very well.
ove rcoming, out w itting
Nothing overshadowsr
comes anything. Serre
believethat negationan
the midwivesof our so
quickly, without strug
Serres' philosophv is I
violencemay or may no
in politics, in econom
innocentaswell as posi
A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy
I metaphor, a much /ess
this chaosof islandsand
orth Canada.No direc)etu'eenthe firm landsof
tanities. If one wanted
tuch obsesses
the humanxceptasthe infinitelv far
\oith Pole on the other.
ends.\Vhereis'the sure
his Daedalianlabvrinth?
:ransitorywhen tËe wind
rin the relationsbetu.een
:isingcommentaries
and
ning the seriousness
of a
reir metalanguage
in the
to everysingleobjectof
antamount to a careful,
por.r'erful
critique being
f a peripheryto one term
rxr'.At the end, holdinq
ld. A scholarlvr,r'orkis
' and coherenôeof the
eripherv.
'atherdifferent assumpf one metalanguage
that
I commentarvis a ao.çs:rs oI one languageare
ross-overfrom one
)pertoi-reto another
crossedwith attributes of another origin. To take a less humble
metaphor,his aim is to producea local Pentecost,eachreaderlistening
to the sameargument in his own mother tongue.
Needlessto say, such an aim preventsthi creationof students,of
deputies, of thésards extending the conceptsof the centre to still
anotherdomain.Who doesnot want to takeover a centre,doesnot need
to train a retinue of followers. 'Be as inventive as the text, be as
inventiveas I am when inventing the text anew',is not a mot d'ordre to
overpo\rrerpositionsand chairs. (As to the tell-talesthat allow one to
decidewhethera study is seriousor not I u'ill tacklethis questionat the
end of my presentation.)
To sum up, I would sav that, for N,lichelSerres,the Critique has
been a long parenthesisthat is now put to a close.The task and the
dutiesof the 'Critique' philosopheris to reversethe peckingorder, to
reversethe force relationsbetweenmasters.The'Critique' philosopher
wants to bring religion to an end and make all disciplines,including
philosophy,enter'onthe surepath of a science'.
The politicalovertone
of this reversalof power relationswas to at last emancipatethe people
and the mind from the tyrannv of the senses,of beliefs,of the things, of
the world.
what doesthe taskof philosophylook like u'henyou do not believein
metalanguage,do not consider that history has been divided up by
revolutions,when you do not take the new focus of masteryas having
definitivell'o'ermasteredthe world? What sort of Enliehtenmentd;
you get when you put the Critique to rest?\4'hatemancipationis there
in store, if any? Serres'philosophyis an attempt to explore these
questionswithout being too influencedby u'hat philosophyhas done
during the Critique parenthesis,let us sav since the mid-eighteenth
century.
I am struggLngfor a word that would best describeMichel Serres'
philosophy.'Positive'r"'ould
cometo mind if Comtehad not giventhis
word a dubious posterity-let us not forget howeverthat series knows
his Comte very well. All the words like dépassement,auJhebung,
oaercoming, outwitting, oL^ermastering,are foreign to his vocabulary.
Nothing overshadows,nothing buriesanvthingelse.Serresn.u.r ou"icomes anvthing. Serres' philosophf is free from negation. We all
believethat negationand thus dialecticsarethe gr.at muJtersof history,
the midwivesof our societies.Nothing is achieved,we all admit tôo
quickly, u'ithout struggle,and dispuù, and wars, and destrucrion.
Serres' philosophy is first of all a reflection on violence, on what
violencemay or may not achieve,and this he doesin all spheresof life,
in politics, in economies,in scholarship,in physics. The world is
innocentas well as positiveand new. There is no divide, no camps,no
9l
Bruno Latour
limes, no boundariesthat are worth a crime. It is not that, like in
Nietzsche,the man of resentmentbecomes,after endlesscrisis, the
man of affirmation, the later-da-v
adeptof agaya scienza.No, Serresis
born endowedwith this gaya scienza.We can sav of him what Péguy
said of Victor Hugo: he u'asborn into a world as fresh as it was when
leavingthe Creator'shands,
2. Crisis-an
Anthropology of Science
What hasbeenlost u'ith the Critique parenthesis?
A certainbeliefin the
sciences,a certain confidencein their abilities to reconcilehumans
together. Serres did his thesis on Leibniz, the reconcrliatorpar
excellence.But then he slou'ly realtzedthat the scienceswere not a way
to limit violencebut to fuel it. He decidedto hearand to feelthis terrible
earth shaking tremor travelling from Hiroshima, the only date in
historv that he takesasa real turning-point; the earthhasbeenshaking
ever since. His rupture with epistemology,with Bachelard, with
Canguilhem,with the Critique project, comesfrom this realization:all
these eminent gentlemen are deaf to the noise made by the atomic
bomb; they go on as if physics was businessas usual; as if the
emergenceof thanatocratl,-his u'ord for the black triad made bv
scieniists,pohticiansand industrialists-had not reshuffledfor everthê
relationsbet'*'eensocietyand the sciences.
The Enlightenment of the eighteenth centurv was defined by a
confidencein the abilitiesof scienceto dissipateawav the darknessof
religion; a certitudethat objectivitycould replacethe endlessstruggles
of subjectivity;and a firm beliefthat a democraticprocesscould replace
the power of one by that of many. Two centurieslater we are in a
completely different situation. The same atomic holocaust fuses
togethertotal illumination and total darkness;it is through a growth of
objectivitythat political strugglesgrow; finally, the one leadercan kill
us all, reversingthe old relation betweenthe peopleand their single
victim. If we may dare use again the word 'Enlightenment',a completely new understandingof violence,of the collective,of the object
and of the sciences,is necessary.Such is the crisis this 'positive'
philosophyis living up to.
How can objectivity and terror be related to one another?A first
possiblesolution is offered by the French philosopherand theologian
René Girard exiled in the United Statesand a verv intimate friend of
Serres.The mob in a stateof crisiscannotagreeon anythrngbut on a
victim, a scapegoat,a sacrifice. Beneath any boundary is buried a
sacrificiaivictim. Nlarkingthe boundaryof Rome is the sameaskilling
one of the two mvthical twins. The object of agreementis stoned to
9Z
death. Of course, Re
relations inside the c
religious anthropolog
neverworth a fight, si
or justification.The o
the illusion that some
Serres,on the othe
Girard. They are not
worthless.Thev aresz
h u m a no n e .O b j e c t i v
tive politics, it is a lat
victim for another. Tl
different in kind from
scale; it allowsa bigge
apart the collectivean
both grow. \-iolencei
increased.
Insteadof believine
studieshou' az_r,diviàt
present,betweencult
between subject and c
order and disorderand
scholarlydisciplines.I
sideof the divide,of th
and the ssms-gs11sss
alwaystakesasthe only
fiom its complement. il
would be a rationalist
would be called an irr
choosesthe extractiono
rationalist?I call him pr
in the habit of thinkin
whatever non-scientifi
cultures there are left.
classBritons lil'e, that
Carnot, or Prigogine r
anthropology.Studf inl
what is to pertain /o son
of science,the new task
been closed.
The mixing up of obj
in which scientific prol
tradition, we love conce
and take as our main sor
A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy
re. It is not that, like in
, after endlesscrisis, the
rvascienta. No. Serresis
rn sav of him what Péguy
ld as fresh as it rvaswhen
:sis?A certainbeliefin the
ties to reconcilehumans
z, the reconciliatorpar
re scienceswere not a wav
earand to feelthis terrible
shima, the only date in
he earth hasbeenshaking
r. with Bachelard,with
s from this realization:all
rise made by the atomic
ness as usual; as if the
-he black triad made b-v
notreshuffledfor everthe
ntury r.vasdefined by a
)ateawav the darknessof
lacethe endlessstruggles
atic processcould replace
nturies later we are in a
atomic holocaust f uses
; it is through a growth of
ly, the one leadercan kill
r peopleand their single
'Enlightenment',â com: collective,of the object
'positive'
the crisis this
to one another?A first
ilosopherand theologian
a verv intimate friend of
'ree on anything but on a
rv boundary is buried a
ome is the sameaskilling
,f agreementis stoned to
death. Of course, René Girard deals only with people, with social
relations inside the collective. Objects are verv much absent in his
religious anthropology. Literally, they do not count, since thev are
neverworth a fight, sincestrugglesare'rvithoutobject',without reason
or justification.The only role for objectsin Girard'saccountis to give
the illusion that somethingis really at stake.
Serres,on the other hand, takesobjectsmuch more seriouslythan
Girard. They are not illusionsunfairly accused,by Girard, of being
worthless.Thev aresubstitutiores
of one type of non-humanvictim for a
human one. Objectiveknowledgeis not different in kind from subjective politics, it is a latecomerin a long seriesof substitutionsof one
victim for another. The objectiveknorvledgeof atomic phvsicsis not
different in kind from the stoning of a primitive hero; it is different in
scale; it allowsa bigger collectivethus to be defined. Insteadof taking
apart the collectiveand the objects, Serrestries to measurehorv they
both grow. Violence is not mopped up by sciencebut fantastically
lncreaseo.
Insteadof believingin divides,divisions,and classifications,
Serres
studieshow any divide is drawn, including the one betr.r'een
past and
present, between culture and science,between conceptsand data,
between subject and object, between religion and science,between
order and disorder and alsoof course,divides and partitionsbetween
scholarll'disciplines.Instead of choosingcamps and reinforcing one
side of the divide, of the crisis,of the critique-all theservordsare one
and the s2ms-$g11essitson the fence.Insteadof dealingwith a set, he
alwaystakesasthe onlv objectworth the effort the extractionof the set
from its complement.If Serresu'ere choosingthe inside of the set, he
would be a rationalist;were it to take the side of the complement,he
would be called an irrationalist. How would vou call someonewho
choosesthe extractionof the set from its complement?Hyper- or infraof science. We are
rationalist? I call him provisionallyan anthropologist
in the habit of thinking that anthropologv'sgoal is to make senseof
whatevernon-scientific,pre-scientific,or anti-scientificbeliefs and
cultures there are left. How do Trobrianders or Jamaicansor lower
classBritons live, that is part of anthropology. But how Thales, or
Carnot, or Prigogine thinks, this, we gather, does not pertain to
anthropology.Studying how all of them divide and order, studying
what is to peftain /o something,this is the purview of an anthropology
of science,the new task beforeus now that the Critique parenthesishas
been closed.
The mixing up of objectivity and violenceis best visiblein the ways
in which scientific professionsorganizetheir trade. In the Critique
tradition, we love conceptsand disciplines.We sit firmly insidethe set
and take as our main sourceof pride the extensionof conceptsand the
93
Bruno Latour
defenceof the proprietv of the u'ords we useagainstanr' metaphoricâl
contamination.In a positionakin to that of Nlarv Hesse,Serresis not a
'literalist'believing
that there is a strongdistinctionto be madebetween
literal and metaphoricmeaning.Like Hesse,he is not for a'police of
metaphors'thatwould forbid certainusesand turn othersinto precise,
literal ones. Instead he describesin manl' pagesthe rvorks,deedsand
rites of purification.How clerics,ancient'pr-iests
and scientistsalike
rvashout the world, forbid double meaningsand ertenuateanalogies.
How thev establishproperties and proprieties, allocateclassesand
camps.How they polish and policemetaphorsso asto disciplinethem
into proper names.The work of classifvingand conceptualizing,
the
work of clarifying and measuring, is not rvhat make our sciences
different in the end from religion, from beliefs,from our bloody and
conftrsingpast; it is v'hat plunges us deeperinto it. Serres,in this
respect,marks the antipodesof Bachelard,and it is no doubt the
French tradition of epistemologvthat provideshim with his bestspecimens (in no countrv is the love of purity and the hatred of colleagues
pushedto such extremities).
His passionfor the extractionof a set from its complementhas led
Serresto a very different ontologvthat, in manv wavs, anticipatesthe
most advancedideasof physicsand cosmologv.This is a better known
aspectof his work, a reversalof foregroundand background,a Gestalt
srvitch. In many previous philosophiesdisorder is what should be
ignored,kept at bay, repressed,
eliminated,moppedup; orderis rvhat
counts; in betrveenthere exist strong dividesthat haveto be enforced.
O r d e r i s t h e r u l e ; d i s o r d e rt h e e x c e p t i o n .
Figure 4a
Serresreversesthis image: disorder,fluctuations,noise,randomness,chaosis what counts;thev arethe rules,orderis the exception,it
has the shape of pockets, of islands of stability, of fragile and tiny
archipelegos.Thus what becomesmost interestingare the transitions
and bifurcations,the long fringes,edges,\'erges,rims, brims, auras,
94
crenellates,
confines.
from the seaof disord
third of Serres'sixtee
all the metaphors,mv
seato the bifurcations
thosefringes, rvhat he
This Gestal/swirch r
rationalismand irratir
againstthe totalitarian
thinking againstthe rr.r
main sourceof inspirâ
the mathematicsthat h
and rigour, all for the r
The sciencesare not to
local achievementsextr
and cannotbe substitu
It is true that Serres
ambivalentabout the s
the world, sometime
Passage,thev appeartr
ambir.alentabout the s
new nrixture of lurne
anthropological puzzle
remenrberthat there is
the global. No u'ay of m
extension of a science
language,has to be pa
questionis to understa
v i o l e n c eb, u t a d d t o i t .
One aspectof Serres
A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy
againstanv metaphorical
larv Hesse,Serresis not a
rctionto be madebetr.veen
'police
of
, he is not for a
J trrrnothersinto precise,
rgesthe rvorks,deedsand
,riestsand scientistsalike
; and extenuateanalogies.
'ties, allocateclassesand
rs so as to disciplinethem
the
and conceptualizing,
r.vhatmake our sciences
efs, from our bloody and
;r into il. Serres,in this
, and it is no doubt the
rs him with his bestspeciJ the hatred of colleagues
n its complem.enthas led
rany\\:avs,anticipatesthe
;1'.This is a better known
nd background,a Gestalt
order is r.vhatshould be
noppedup; order is rvhat
that haveto be enforced.
tuations.noise.randomorder is the exception,it
ilitv, of fragile and tinr
esting
the.transitions
.are
rges,rlms, Drlms,auras,
crenellates,confines. . . all the shoresthat leadsfrom one to another,
from the seaof disorder to the coral reefsof order. I would say that a
third of Serres'sixteenbooks is devotedto a svstematicexplorationof
all the metaphors,myths and data, from the birth of Venusout of the
seato the bifurcationsin Besnard'scells,that allow him to understand
thosefringes, rvhat he calls a miracle, that is order from noise.
Figure 4b
'lhis
Gestaltswitch reshufflesentirelythe packof argumentsaround
rationalismand irrationahsm.Serresdoes not defend the margins
againstthe totalitarianempire of the sciences,or the rights of obscure
thinking againstthe tvrannv of claritv and rigour. On the contrary, his
main sourceof inspiration, especiallvin his earlierbooks,is no doubt
the mathematicsthat he practisedfor manv years.He is all for clarity
and rigour, all for the sciences,provided they are to be seenas local.
The sciencesare not to be worshipped,and not to be despised,they are
local achievementsextractedfrom the world. They do not replaceit,
and cannotbe substitutedfor it, no more than anv other metaianguage.
It is true that Serres might be seen, after a cursory readiig,-as
ambivalentabout the sciences.Sometimesthey seemto addlunrcnto
the world, sometimes, especiallysince his book, The lrtorth-Il'est
Passage,they appearto add more nutter. But it is not that Serresis
ambivalentabout the sciences,it is the sciencesthemselvesthat are a
new mixture of htmen and nutnen, of light and terror, a new
anthropological puzzle. To understand this mirture, one should
rememberthat there is no path that leads'naturally' from the local to
the global. No wav of mopping up the varietiesof the world. Thus, the
extension of a science, the substitution of one metalanguageto a
language,has to be paved and paved by violence. Again, his marn
questionis to understandhorv come that the sciencesdo not end the
violence,but add to it.
One aspectof Serres'soriginalityis neverto offer us a discoursefor or
v5
Bruno Latour
againstthe sciencestaken as a whole-and of coursenot a discourse
beyond or aboveor below them. He offers us a principle to sorl and
selectthem in their finest details.When the sciencesadd varietyto the
world, they are to be used.When thev substraclvarietv thev are to be
rejected.He often comparesthe relationof the sciences
to the restof the
world with the relation of plant geneticiststo a primitive forest. Plant
breedersextract a verv few l'arietiesand breed them into an endless
numberof pure lines,infinitelymoreproductive,but, oneshouldadd,
infinitely more fragile.The philosopher,on the contrary,thriveson the
varietiesof the forest; to be sure he never cultivateshighly productive
breeds,or even reproducibleresults, but he preparesthe ground and
the selectionof new more robust possibilities.This is whv Serresdoes
not definephilosophyasarriving after the sciences,like Nlinerva'sowl,
or asbeing subservientto them, or assurviving in the few clearingsleft
by the universalextensionof rationality.On the contrary,philosophyis
beyondthe researchfront, gamblingfar in the primitive forest,into the
world, cultivating unexpectedhybrids. Philosophydoescontribute to
the scienceseither becauseit anticipatestheir results, or becauseit
plungesthem in their anthropologicainratrixthel' too quicklv forgetand alsobecausemaybephilosophyfreesthe sciencesfrom part of their
violence.
Conclusion
I would be pleasedif I had convincedsomeoneto read Michel Serres
carefullv.However, beforeendingthis presentation,it would be unfair
not to warn the English readerthat his u'ritings makeat first a difficult
reading.It is not that they are obscure,or convoluted,or technical,or
written in one of thesemanv stilted tonguesof our modern Babel.It is
simply that his style is part and parcel of his ver,vphilosophicalargument. This is a difficulty in general with the French. They never
believe,like so many Englishphilosophersdo, that languageis simply a
meansof communication.For writers asdifferent asDiderot, Bergson,
Péguy,or f,acan,languageis the very materialon rvhichto experiment
for any argumentto gain somemeaning.The deepestcontentof what
they haveto sayis first of all a stvle,a form, a particularwav of savingit.
Hence the accusation,often levelledat them by English-speaking
writers, of being superficial:'Why can't they all sayin plain languagewhat
they have to say?'Because,what they have to say is that the plain
languageis to be transformedfor somethingto be said.
But the difficultv of readingSerrescomesfrom a transformationof
the 'plain' languageof scholars;paradoxically,it is too plain; it is clarity
without a scholarlydomain.We areso usedto thinking insideoneof the
96
feuds defined bv the
understandaornaon"r
Serreswritesashe thi
He does not use one
stitute his commenta
mobilizing the referen
notes,descriptions,p
Serresinsertshis text
difficulty. When you r
alwayswonder uhere t
his descriptionof Auvr
you are never presen
Carnot's thermodvna
neitherof them is first
are neither absentnor
front of your eyes, pr
provided you have bet
West Passage,provid
Serres'stexts are morr
know directly and by c
to read than most, be
know in order to read '
believethey are a usef
everything else they I
allusive, impressioni
appearstechnical,pre<
with the world it is po
this movie: the u'orld
Enlightenment,withor
r I t h a n k B e r n a d e t t eI
commentson this paper
A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy
I of coursenot a disct-rurse
; us a principle to sort and
sciencesadd variety to the
tract variety they are to be
hesciences
to the restof the
to a primitive forest. Plant
,reedthem into an endless
ctive,but, oneshouldadd,
the contrary,thriveson the
ultivateshighly producrive
e preparesthe ground and
:s. This is why Serresdoes
:iences,like N'Iinerva's
owl,
ing in the few clearingsleft
the contrary,philosophyis
re primitive forest,into the
Losophydoescontribute to
heir results, or becausert
x thev too quickly forgetsciencesfrom part of their
one to read Nlichel Serres
ntation, it would be unfair
rgs makeat first a difficult
lnvoluted,or technical,or
of our modernBabel.It is
s very philosophicalarguthe French. They never
l, that languageis simply a
lrent asDiderot, Bergson,
al on which to experiment
Ledeepestcontent of what
particularwayof sayingit.
bv English-speaking
wrisai'in plain languagewhat
e to say is that the plain
to be said.
from a transformationof
', it is /ooplain; it is clarity
rthinking insideone of the
feuds defined by the Conflicts of the Faculties that rve can barely
understandsomeonewho writes without pertainingto any oneof them.
Serreswrites as he thinks, unboundedby the delineationof territories.
He does not use one metalanguage,but many, and he does not substitute his commentary for what he is commenting on. Instead of
mobilizing the referentinside the text as scholarlvworks do-by footnotes, descriptions,pictures, diagrams,instrumentation,allusionsSerresinsertshis texts as a legendfor us to read our world. Hence the
difficulty. When you readhis commentaryof La Fontaine'sFables, you
alwayswonder where are the fableshe is talking about. When you rêad
his descriptionof Auvergne'slandscapes
or of the North-WestPassage,
you are never presentedwith a textual substitute for them. When
Carnot's thermodynamicsis put to use in order to understandZola,
neitherof them is first explainedto you. The referentsin Serres'stexts
are neither absentnor made presentin the text. Thev remainthere, in
front of your eyes, provided you know your La Fontaine by heart,
provided you have been to Auvergne and yourselfcrossedthe NorthWest Passage,provided you are well versed in Carnot and in Zola.
Serres'stexts are more difficult than most becausethey require us to
know directly and by ourselveswhat they areabout, but they are easier
to read than most, becausewe do not need to abandonthe world we
know in order to read them. Serresdoesnot worship the text, doesnot
believethev are a useful-or dangerous-substitutefor the world. As
everything else they have to be added to the world. What appears
allusive, impressionisticand poetic '*'hen his text alone is taken,
appearstechnical,preciseand accurate,when the text is read together
with the world it is pointing at. Serresjust providesthe soundtrackof
this movie: the world. It is in that modestsensethat he offers'the
Enlightenment,without the Critique'.1
rI thank BernadetteBensaude-Vincentand IsabelleStengersfor helpful
commentson this pâper.