33-SERRES-GB

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

1/17

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

2/17

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

3/17

The EnlightenmentWithout heCritique:A Word on MichelSerres'PhilosophyBRUNOLATOUR

Il n'est de pur mythe que I'ide d'une science ure de tout mytheLa Traduction,p.259The French, it is well known, loverevolutions,political,scientificorphilosophical. here is nothing they l ike more than a radicalupheavalof the past,an upheaval o complete hat a new abula rasa s evelled,on which a new historycanbe built. Noneof our Prime Nlinisters tartshis mandatewithout promising to write on a new blank pageor tofurnish a completechange n valuesand even, or some, n l ife. Eachresearcher ould think of him or herselfasa failure, f he or shedid notmakesuch a completechange n the discipline hat nothing will here-afterbe the same.As to the philosophershey feed, rom Descartes pto Foucault 's ays,on radical uts,on'coupurepistmologique',ncomplete ubversion f everythingwhich hasbeen hought n the pastbv everybody.No French thinker, indeed no student of philosophy,would seriously ontemplate oinganythingshortof a complete evolu-tion in theories.To hesitate, o respect he past, would be to com-promise, to be a funk, or worse, to be eclectic ike a vulgar Anglo-SaxonThe revolutions ul'ereo be so deep and so complete hat they leftnothing ntact of r.vhathev had subverted. n the new order of things,and only there, herewas everythingneeded o think-unti l, that is, anew upheaval elinquished his order to the sameobscurity.Needlessto say, his stateof affairsmade ife in Paris ather difficult. Everyonecouldoutwil everyother. No matter how radicalyou were, no matterhow absolutelycritical you might havebeen, someone ould be sti l lmore critical, sti l l more radical,sti l l more revolutionary han yourselfsomeone ho rn'ould ave orcedyou to confesshis capital in: naivet,gullibility.

NlichelSerress naiveandgulliblebeyonddescription.Every ime arevolutionor a coupureepistmologique' r an ntellectual ronuncia-miento,has definitely reversed he order of things, he sti l l believesnwhat has been reversed: vorse. he does not know how to choosebetween he pastand the present, he losers nd he winners.Not only

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

4/17

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

5/17

A Word on Michel Serres' PhilosoPhY

sure if it is part of the disciplineof thermodynlm,r_cs,f_historyofreligion,o. oi l i t.ruty criticism.Seehownaivehe s?Worse.Facedwitha Tintin comicstrip, he cannot ell for sure f this s not the best heoryof modernco--r.ti.ution that haseverbeenwritten. Who is a betteranalyst,Hergor Flabermas? ou know. FIe doesnot'l. Critique-an Acritical PhilosophyHis ignorancentroducesus to what I seeasone of the first importantfeat.,i. of N,IichelSerres'philosophy.He is not part of the 'Critique'philosophicalmovement.He doesnot seephilosophyas he disciplineir, "h"rg" of

founding knowledge,debunkingbeliefs,ad-jucatingerri-tories, uling opinios.Philosophy s not a crepuscular ird similar toNlineiva's i 't.l f anything t isa ight andbright morningbird. Not sadand wise,but naiveand brisk.A'critique' philosopher ees is taskas hat of establishing distinc-tion betwen eliefsn the one hand and knowledgeon the other, orbetweendeologies ndscience, r between emocracy nd error-justto take hreeavatars f the'Cri t ique'.To be taken n, that s the mainworry of a'critique' philosopher.Since-Descartes,e are ooking orthe minimum tht co,rldb" said o be safeandcertain.We, the knightsof the Critique, do not askmuch. We areascetic nd thrifty. Providedwe canholdio one hing, even ninuscule,o thecogito, o the transcen-dental, o the class tru[gle, to language nalysis,o discourse' ne inything that allows . to s hrough he-rest,we feelh"ppy andsafe.TheCritiquework is that of a reductionof the rvorld nto two packs,a l ittleone at s strreand certain, he immense estwhich is simply believedand n direneedof beingcriticized, ounded, e-educated,traightenedup . . . out on rough water, the critique always ooks or a l ifeboat.

Well, Serress b1:traininga sailorandno doubt this trait willappealto Englishmen.Like St John Perse,oneof our greatest oets'Serressorr" oi the very few French for whom the oceansare the only irmaterra.']hus, out on rough water he is not looking for a lifeboat ikeseasick assengers,ut siaysat the stern ike a weathered elmsman'Do *e real[' needa Critique to survive? s the Critique the onlyvocation f phiiosophy' His answers no. Thereexistmanyotherways,many lesssterilevocations or philosophers.T understandn u,hatsenseSerressnot a Critiquephilosopher,wehave o take the word critique in the mundanesense f literary criti-cism. I have wo reasonsor starting rom this point. First, for a largepartof his careerSerres ublishedbookswhich appearo pertain o thatgrr,r., and t is inside anguage epartmentshat he is sti l l bestknownTbroud.But also, t is m-vconvicti 'onhat everyscience,ncludingthe

85

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

6/17

Bruno Latour

hard ones, s definedb,va certain vayof practisinga peculiarkind ofexegesis.el l me how vou commenton a scripture r an inscript ion,and I wil l tell you what sort of epistemologv ou hold on to. Under-standingSerres's onceptionof the commentarv s thus alsoa u'aYofunderstanding is conception f the sciences.The l i terary r i t iccomments pona ext (see igure1).He or shehasa vocabulary; ohas he extor theworkunderscrut iny.First, here saquestion r direct ion. \:hichone s doing he nterpretat ion?he cri t icof course.He or she s the one who provides he rnetalanguagehatmakessense f the infra-language f the text. Second, here s a ques-tion of size. The critic's vocabular.vs enormouslvshorter than thetext's epertoire.This is rvhv the metalanguage av be said o explainsomething. With one u'ord in the critic's repertoire, for instance'Oedipus' complex', vou can explain four dozen novels and fivehundredplays.Third, there s a question f precedencer of masterv.Who dominatesheother?nsrver: hecommentator. r i t icsaremuchstronger han he text thevdominateand explain,establish ndanalyse.The masterv s so complete,Serresargues, hat the texts, he novels,the plavs, he mvths, slorvlvdisappear, uried beneath tronger ndmorepowerfulcommentaries.

Vocabulary2Figure I

Serres s f i rst of ai i a reader,a marvei louseader.As much asanyothercommentator, e usesall the tricks and nstruments hat exegesismay have nventedover the centuries.But he does t with a difference.It is not that he appeals o the pure beautv of the untouched extsbeyond heboringscholarship f thecri t ique,al thoughhere ssome fthat ploy in his writings-he hates or instance he lovelvAnglo-Saxonart of footnoting. Vhat hedoes s o reshuffle he cardson thecommen-tator's able (seeFigure 2). First, there s no metalangtage.Second, tis impossibleo dist inguishwho is providing he explanation;s t thecommented ext or the commentar-v?hird, andconsequently,here sno precedence nd no masterveither.86

Cor lmentary

Text to be commented

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

7/17

A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy

Vocabulary I Vocabulary 2Figure2

For instance,akeLucrecius'De -atura Rerumand place n the twosystems f interpretat ion just sketched.I t is a poem in verse.So, the cri t icssav, vou cannot ake t tooseriously, anvou? t rsan amusingand outmodedu'a,v f exposinghenaive physicsof those ages.Lucreciusu,'aswrong on every point ofphysics. ust think of his cl inamen.Poor thing Let us explainwhyLucreciuswrote it, and do not forget he footnotes n the wav. Betterread he contmentarvhan the texi . I t wi l l be much faster.In comesNl ichelSerres.Remember hat there s no metalanguage.So our definitionof physicsmav not be he best udgeof what the poemsavs.Remember lso hat here sno orderof precedence.owhv couldthepoemnot each ssomething n our physics?What?This non-senseof the cl inamencould be the judge of our own commentary? ure,Serresargues,providedyou read the text. What is it about?Clouds,flows, luxes,meteors, luctuations, urbulences, haos. he u'orld andits emergence.f bv phvsicsvou mean he tinv repertoireof solidandfalling bodiesstarted bv Galilean physics,ves indeed, Lucrecius isratherout of the rvav. f bv physicsvou mean luid statephysics,howold is Lucrecius'passionate escript ion f i t? I t is st i l l tomorroza'sphysics.People, remember, aughed vhen Serres ffered his answera fewyearsago. Toda.v,even he Scientificrneican carriesarticleson thephysicsof chaos.This turbulent object s slowl1' eing eintroducednthe mainstream, o to speak,of phvsics.Serres rgues hat Lucrecius,all alonghispoem,offersa onger, icherand moreaccurate ocabularyto understand luctuations han the confined repertoireof conceptsused o commenton the Epicurianpoem. \\re thoughtof this philoso-phy asof an outdated em nantof the pre-scienti f icra;but here t is,anew, esurrected, elpingus to grasp n'hathe best aboratoriesrv tomeasure p to: non-laminar lowsand turbulences.I know I havenot convinced ou. Horru'canmerepoemcarrvweight87

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

8/17

Bruno Latour

in physics?We all know too well that poetryhasno objectivemeaning,it has survived o thesedays only by keepingsafelyaway rom objec-tivity and science.To be sure a poem may haveother qualities, ikebeautyand depth, but it cannotcompetewith Plzl 'sics erieu or withthe Proceedingsof the Royal Society. This objection is strong if youbelieve hat the l iterary genre of sciencehas definitely overcomeandoutdatedevery other genre-at leastas far as accesso the objectiveworld is concerned.But again,Serres oesnot believen this overcom-ing and outdating.To call theDe Natura Rerum a poem, for Serres,doesnot mean hat, on his desk, his morning, it is not as reshas heweekly issueof l\iature-not that it is a nice way of relaxing afterreadingscience, ut becauset might be technicalh'accurate.

Sti l l , I feel havenot convinced ou. You believe evenon the othersideof the Channel) hat therehavebeen evolut ionsn science. hepasthasbeenabolished y thepresent tateof knorvledge. o besure tmay survive as an object for antiquarians,or as a footnote in thetextbooks,but it is fundamentallydisacti '"^ated hen handedout tohistorians.The pastof science, oi Serres, s sti l l active.No revolutionin physicshas coveredup the Epicurian approachof fluctuations,nomore than the invention of the genre of scientificwriting has disacti-vatedmythology,cosmogony,oundationstories r fables.He doesnotonly say hatyou shouldbe fair to the osers f the historyof science; eclaims hat they arenot losers t all, that they aresti l l tackling he sameproblemsat hand as he modern sciences o. 'There is onlv onem,vth:that of a science urified from all myths.'You might now guess he main sourceof pleasure nd strengthofMichel Serres'swritings. He visits our past ike the CharmingPrincevisitsSleepingBeauty's alace. ucreciushadbeenput safely sleeparaway n the pre-scientific ra; a kiss;and here t is,vawning,stretching,breathingagain,asyoung aswhen it was written. Livius's foundationmyths had been mothballed for centuries. Thev are standingalivetoday, and t is today hat the Vestals restonedbv the turba, themob,revealing n front of our very eyes he foundation of Rome and thecreationof the ob-jects, b-j icere, hat is, what ies,stonedby the mob,buried under a tumulus of stones.So many commentators ivevener-able exts he kissof death, hat, to all thosewho haveheardSerres alk,this resurrectionechoswhat was said o Lazarus:'Take off the graveclothes nd et him go' (Jn. I l : 43).

After this brief encounterwith Serres's xegetic rinciples,we cannow seehow l i t t le he s a'Cri t ique'phi losopher. inceKant we definethe Critique hasa Copernican evolution hat makes,at last, he thingsturn around he mind (or aroundwhateverhassinceKant beendefinedas he focusandmaster hat occupieshe Centre: he Unconscious,he88

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

9/17

A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

Society, he Economy, the Language, he Epistmand so on). Howcould Serres ccept hat a Copernican evolutionhasever akenplace?Consideragain his principle: the text under scrutiny is alwaysmorerigorous,more ively, more modern, han he commentator nd alwaysprovidesa richer repertoire.Who turns around hem?The commenta-tor. Who overmasters im? The humble and outdated exts.Sti l l , one could say, his is a philosophvof texts, a typicailv Frenchoveremphasisn discourse.Not so.What Serres oeson the relationofcommentary o texts, he also does t on the relation of language othings. The things? How can one talk about the things? How can aFrenchman alk about them after hundred yearsof idealism?Serresdoes,and unabashedly t that. Again, things are not reduced o ourknowledge f it; they, too, are icher, moreaccurate,moreprecise hanour conrmentaryon them. In his latest book, Les Cinq Sens ('TheBody's Five Senses'),Serresprovidesa pre-Copernican ersionofthings, things seen before the commentarvof the sciences. o myknowledge,his is a rare attempt, n philosophy, o see hings rom thepoint of view of the hnown,not of the knowing.A French personwhowould also be an empiricist-even though a queer sort-who couldimagine hat?That is the difficulty of Serres, o French n his anguageand culture, and so totallv un-French, hat is to savun-German, n hisphilosophical radition.What Serres oeson the relationof the commentary o the texts,andof the texts o the things,he alsodoes t on the relations f the sciencesto the world. I said hat therealways xistsa ink between he practice fexegesis nd the definitionof what is a science. n Serres, his l ink isstill clearer.Scientificknowledge oesnot reduceor abolish he u'orld,nor does t reveal ts essence. othing is more oreign o Serres han heproblematicof hiding and revealing hings, the problematicof Lightand Darkness, f the Enlightenment.Scientificknorvledgesadded tothe world; it is inside t; is part of i ts beauty,mvsteryand monsters,part, in brief of its myths, of its culture. Serres s one of the verv fewFrench philosophers inceBergsonwho readsscience,who has beenwell educatedn it, andwho doesnot despise r worship t. It is part ofhisnaivet, s said, o take he scienceso beas nteresting sLivius orJulesVerne, as mythical as Homer. I insist on this essential oint:Serresdoesnot sav hat there s beyond,or above,or below, or besidethe sciences, ther ways of thinking and believing han science,whowould deny that?He says hat there s one hugereservoirof attemptsnoneof them having beenovercome,outn-roded,utwitted,affieben,by the present tateof science. hey arereadyat hand, rreducible,allofferingthe measure f eachother.Insteadof the imageof the Copernican evolution, hat picturesadefinitiveand rreversible eversal f the force elations etween entre

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

10/17

Bruno Latour

and periphery he offers anothergeographicalmetaphor,a much /essradicalone, that of the North-WestPassage,his chaosof islandsandlands and ice and packs disseminated n North Canada.No direc-tion; no obviousmastery;no clear-cut ivide between hefirm landsofscienceand the soft resourcesof the humanities. If one wantedan image or the Two Culture debate hat so much obsesseshe human-ists,here t is: the two culturesdo not exist,exceptas he infinitely farhorizonsof Canadaon the one hand and the North Poleon the other.What exists s this chaosof passagesnd deadends.Where s'the surepathof the science'so ear o Kant'sheart n thisDaedal ianabl 'r inth?Lost. No It is here,but local ,onlv ocaland ransi torywhen hewindis good and the fog hascleared

Beforeclosing his first part, we canseeagain he relations etweentwo conceptions f science, wo ways of practisingcommentaries ndalso vn'o aysof discipliningdisciples nd defining he seriousnessf astudy. Critique' philosophersirmlv install heir metalanguagen thecentreand slowly substitute heir arguments o everv singleobject ofthe periphery; organizing he Critique is a tantamount o a careful,obstinateand deliberateempire-building.A por,r'erful ritique beingone hat ties, ike a bicvclewheel,evervpoint of a periphery o one ermof the centre hrough the intermediaryof a prox\,.At the end,holdingthe centre s tantamount to holdins the u'orld. A scholarlvwork isrecognizableo the continui t \ ' , hoirogeneitvand coherenieof themetalanguage sedall along o subsume he periphery.Serres'pre-criticalphilosophv ives under rather differentassump-tions.There is no centreand no substitutionof onemetalanguagehatwould overmaster he others.The result of his commentarv s a crnss-ov-er, n the genetic sense,whereby characters f one languageare

Subst i tut ionof the metalanguageto the infralanguagesof the peripheryCross-over rom onerepertoire to another

Figure 390

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

11/17

A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

crossedwith attributes of another origin. To take a less humblemetaphor,his aim is to producea ocalPentecost, ach eader isteningto the sameargument n his own mother tongue.Needlesso say, suchan aim prevents hi creation f students, fdeputies,of thsardsextending the conceptsof the centre to sti l lanotherdomain.Who doesnot want to takeovera centre,doesnot needto train a retinue of followers. 'Be as inventive as the text, be asinventiveas am when nventing he text anew', s not a motd'ordre ooverpo\rrer ositionsand chairs.(As to the tell-tales hat allow one todecidewhethera study s serious r not I u'i l l tackle his questionat theend of m y presentat ion.)To sum up, I would savthat, for N,lichelSerres, he Critique hasbeen a long parenthesishat is now put to a close.The task and thedutiesof the Cri t ique'phi losophers to reversehe pecking rder, oreversehe force elations etweenmasters. he'Critique' philosopherwants to bring religion to an end and makeall disciplines, ncludingphi losophy, nter 'on he surepathof a science'. he pol i t ical vertoneof this reversal f power relationswas o at lastemancipatehe peopleand he mind from the tyrannvof the senses, f beliefs,of the things,ofthe wor ld .what does he taskof philosophy ook ike u'henyou do not believe nmetalanguage, o not consider hat history has been divided up byrevolutions,when you do not take he new focusof masteryas havingdefini t ivel l ' 'ermastered he world?What sort of Enl iehtenment ;you get whenyou put the Critique to rest? 4'hatemancipations therein store, f any? Serres'phi losophy s an attempt to explore hesequestionswithout being too influencedby u'hat philosophyhasdoneduring the Critique parenthesis,et us sav since he mid-eighteenthcentury.I am struggLng or a word that would bestdescribeMichel Serres'phi losophy.Posi t ive'r" 'ouldcome o mind i f Comtehadnot given hisword a dubiousposterity-let us not forgethowever hat series knowshis Comte very well. All the words like dpassement, uJhebung,oaercoming,outwitting, oL^ermastering, re foreign to his vocabulary.Nothingovershadows, othingburiesanvthingelse.Serres .u.r ou"i-comes anvthing. Serres' philosophf is free from negation.We allbelieve hatnegation nd hus dialectics re hegr.at muJters f history,the midwivesof our societ ies. othing is achieved, e al l admit toquickly, u' i thout struggle,and dispu, and wars, and destrucrion.Serres'philosophy is first of all a reflection on violence,on whatviolencemay or may not achieve, nd this he does n all spheres f l ife,in politics, in economies, n scholarship, n physics.The world isinnocentaswell aspositiveand new. There is no divide,no camps,no

9 l

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

12/17

Bruno Latour

limes, no boundaries hat are worth a crime. It is not that, l ike inNietzsche, he man of resentmentbecomes,after endless risis, theman of affirmation, he later-da-vdeptof agaya scienza.No, Serres sborn endowedwith thisgaya scienza.We cansav of him what Pguysaid of Victor Hugo: he u'asborn into a world as reshas t waswhenleaving he Creator'shands,2. Crisis-an Anthropology of ScienceWhat hasbeen ostu'ith the Critique parenthesis? certainbelief n thesciences, certain confidence n their abil i ties o reconcilehumanstogether. Serres did his thesis on Leibniz, the reconcrliatorparexcellence. ut thenhe slou'ly ealtzedhat the sciences erenot a wayto l imit violence ut to fuel t. He decided o hearand o feel his erribleearth shaking tremor travell ing from Hiroshima, the only date inhistorv hat he takesasa real urning-point; the earthhasbeenshakingever since. His rupture with epistemology,with Bachelard,withCanguilhem,with the Critique project,comes rom this realization: l lthese eminent gentlemenare deaf to the noisemade by the atomicbomb; they go on as if physics was businessas usual; as if theemergenceof thanatocratl,-his u'ord for the black triad made bvscieniists, ohticians nd ndustrialists-had not reshuffled or ever hrelationsbet'*'een ocietyand the sciences.The Enlightenment of the eighteenthcenturv was defined by aconfidence n the abilitiesof science o dissipate wav he darkness freligion;a certitude hat objectivitycould replace he endless trugglesof subjectivity;anda firm belief hat a democratic rocess ould eplacethe power of one by that of many. Two centuries ater we are in acompletely different situation. The same atomic holocaust fusestogether otal l luminationand otal darkness;t is through a growth ofobjectivity hat politicalstruggles row; finally, the one eader an kil lus all, reversing he old relationbetween he peopleand their singlevictim. If we may dare use again he word 'Enlightenment',a com-pletelynew understanding f violence,of the collective,of the objectand of the sciences, s necessary.Such is the crisis this 'positive'philosophy s living up to.How can objectivity and terror be related o one another?A firstpossible olution s offered by the French philosopherand theologianRen Girard exiled n the United Statesand a verv intimate riend ofSerres.The mob in a stateof crisiscannotagreeon anythrngbut on avictim, a scapegoat, sacrifice.Beneathany boundary is buried asacrificiai ictim. Nlarking he boundaryof Rome s the sameaskillingone of the two mvthical twins. The objectof agreements stoned o9Z

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

13/17

A Word on Michel Serres' Philosophy

death. Of course,Ren Girard deals only with people, with socialrelations nside the collective.Objects are verv much absent n hisreligiousanthropology.Literally, they do not count, since hev areneverworth a fight, sincestruggles re'rvithoutobject',without reasonor just i f icat ion. he only role or objectsn Girard'saccount s to givethe i l lusion hat something s reallyat stake.Serres,on the other hand, takesobjectsmuch more seriously hanGirard. They are not i l lusionsunfair lyaccused, y Girard, of beingworthless.Thev aresubstitutioresf one ypeof non-human ictim for ahumanone. Objectiveknowledge s not different n kind from subjec-tive politics, t is a latecomer n a long seriesof substitutionsof onevictim for another.The objectiveknorvledge f atomicphvsics s notdifferent n kind from the stoningof a primitive hero; it is different nscale; t allowsa biggercollective hus to be defined. nsteadof takingapart the collectiveand the objects,Serres ries to measure orv heyboth grow. Violence s not mopped up by sciencebut fantasticallylncreaseo.Instead f bel ieving n divides,divisions, nd classi f icat ions,erresstudieshow any divide is drawn, including the one betr.r'eenast andpresent, between culture and science,betweenconceptsand data,between subject and object, between religion and science,betweenorder and disorderand alsoof course,dividesand partitionsbetweenscholarl l 'disciplines. nsteadof choosingcampsand reinforcingonesideof the divide, of the crisis,of the critique-all these vordsareoneand he s2ms-$g11es itson the fence. nsteadof dealingwith a set,healways akesas he onlv objectworth the effort the extractionof the setfrom its complement. f Serresu'erechoosing he insideof the set, hewould be a rationalist;were t to take he side of the complement,hewould be called an irrationalist. How would vou call someonewhochooseshe extractionof the set rom itscomplement?Hyper- or infra-rationalist I call him provisionallyananthropologistf science We arein the habit of thinking that anthropologv's oal is to make senseofwhatevernon-scienti f ic, re-scienti f ic, r anti -scienti f ic el iefsandculturesthere are left. How do Trobriandersor Jamaicans r lowerclassBritons live, that is part of anthropology.But how Thales, orCarnot, or Prigogine thinks, this, we gather, does not pertain toanthropology.Studying how all of them divide and order, studyingwhat is to peftain /o something, his is the purviewof an anthropologyof science,he new taskbeforeus now that the Critiqueparenthesis asbeenclosed.The mixing up of objectivityand violence s bestvisible n the waysin which scientific professionsorganize heir trade. In the Critiquetradition,we love concepts nd disciplines.We sit firmly inside he setand takeasour main sourceof pride the extension f concepts nd the

93

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

14/17

Bruno Latour

defence f the proprietv of the u'ordswe useagainstanr'metaphoriclcontamination. n a positionakin to that of Nlarv Hesse,Serres s not a'l i teralist'believingthat there sastrongdistinction o bemadebetweenl i teraland metaphoricmeaning.Like Hesse, e is not for a'pol iceofmetaphors' that ould forbidcertain ses nd urn others nto precise,l iteralones. nsteadhe describesn manl' pages he rvorks,deedsandri tesof puri f icat ion.How clerics,ancient 'pr- iestsnd scientists l ikervashout the world, forbid double meanings nd ertenuateanalogies.How thev establishpropertiesand proprieties,allocateclasses ndcamps.How they polishand policemetaphors oas o discipline heminto propernames.The work of classi fving nd conceptual iz ing,hework of clarifying and measuring, s not rvhat make our sciencesdifferent in the end from religion, from beliefs, rom our bloody andconftrsingpast; it is v'hat plungesus deeper nto it. Serres, n thisrespect,marks the antipodes f Bachelard, nd i t is no doubt theFrench raditionof epistemologvhat provideshim with his bestspeci-mens(in no countrv is the loveof purity and the hatredof colleaguespushed o suchextremit ies).His passion or the extractionof a set from its complementhas edSerres o a very different ontologv hat, in manv wavs,anticipateshemostadvanceddeasof physicsandcosmologv. his is a betterknownaspect f his work, a reversal f foregroundand background, Gestaltsrvi tch. n many previousphi losophies isorder s what should beignored, eptat bay, repressed,l iminated,moppedup; order s rvhatcounts; n betrveenhereexiststrongdivides hat have o be enforced.Order s the ru le ;d i sorderhe excep t ion .

Figure 4aSerres everseshis image:disorder, luctuations, oise, andom-ness, haoss whatcounts; hevare he rules,order s he exception,thas the shapeof pockets,of islandsof stabil ity, of fragile and tinyarchipelegos. hus what becomesmost interestingare he transitionsand bifurcations,he long fr inges,edges, 'erges, ims, brims, auras,

94

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

15/17

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

16/17

8/13/2019 33-SERRES-GB

17/17

A Word on Michel Serres'Philosophy

feuds defined by the Conflicts of the Faculties hat rve can barelyunderstand omeonewho writeswithout pertaining o anyoneof them.Serreswrites ashe thinks, unboundedby the delineation f territories.He doesnot use one metalanguage, ut many, and he doesnot sub-stitute his commentary for what he is commenting on. Instead ofmobil izing he referent nside he text asscholarlvworksdo-by foot-notes, descriptions,pictures,diagrams, nstrumentation,allusions-Serres nsertshis texts asa legend or us to readour world. Hence hedifficulty.Whenyou readhiscommentary f La Fontaine's ables youalwayswonderwhereare he fableshe s talking about.When you radhis description f Auvergne's andscapesr of the North-WestPassage,you are never presentedwith a textual substitute for them. WhenCarnot's hermodynamics s put to use n order to understandZola,neitherof them is first explainedo you. The referentsn Serres'sextsareneitherabsentnor madepresent n the text. Thev remain here, nfront of your eyes,provided you know your La Fontaineby heart,providedyou havebeen o Auvergneand yourselfcrossed he North-West Passage, rovided you are well versed n Carnot and in Zola.Serres'sexts are more difficult than most becausehey requireus toknow directlyand by ourselves hat they areabout, but theyareeasierto read than most, becausewe do not need o abandon he world weknow in order o read hem. Serres oesnot worship he text, doesnotbelieve hev are a useful-or dangerous-substitute or the world. Aseverything else hey have to be added to the world. What appearsallusive, impressionisticand poetic '*'hen his text alone is taken,appearsechnical,preciseand accurate,when the text is read ogetherwith the world it is pointing at. Serresust provides he soundtrack fthis movie: the world. I t is in that modestsense hat he offers' theEnl ightenment, i thout the Cri t ique'.1

rI thank BernadetteBensaude-Vincent nd IsabelleStengers or helpfulcommentson this pper.