**4. Philippe Descola: Perspective from an anthropology of nature**

Descola's work represents another strategy of dissociation from modern taxonomies. Formulated as an external critique based on a comparative method of ethnography, Descola's work is a continuation of Latour's criticism of modern dualism. His major book, *Par-delà nature et culture,* summarizes his theory.

As a starting point, Descola claims the comparative method of ethnography invalidated the pretensions of a universal modern ontology. This conceptual rupture between nature and culture, according to Descola, is not necessary in any way to human thinking. Its origin can be found in a particular western idea concerning the structure of the world. This western classification of "existings" can be named naturalism. In consequence, anthropology must not make the mistake of projecting this typically western dichotomy on its inquiry subjects. The method of investigation cannot simply rely on relativism anymore for this relativism still bears the traces of a dichotomy, which universality has proven false. In fact, the relativist method presupposes a universal nature only interpreted differently by different cultures. Descola's aim is to search for basic principles of world organization in different cultures. His position relies on the thesis according to which it is possible to find basic resemblances in the different human organizations of experience, called schemes of practice. Observing these schemes should allow us to build a less ethnocentric view on the indigenous perception of non human beings, always remembering that their cultures might not share the same rigid conception of nature and culture. This method is the basic approach of ecological anthropology.

According to Descola, there are, up to this day, three major schemes on which cosmologies can be built, or what we can call maps of "existings". These are: categorization, relation and identification. To demonstrate the efficiency of this method, we can associate the last two schemes with four different ways of relating to the world: totemism, analogism, animism and naturalism. Identification, the process of identifying borders between the self and the other, and relation, the interactions between those beings, condition each other, which forbids certain combinations. Totemism, which postulates a resemblance on the spiritual and physical levels between the totem (object, natural species or geographical element) and its counterparts, defines particular essences to the totemic groups, from which are derived proscriptions on food consumption and killing. Conversely, analogism is based on a

 7 It would be interesting to compare Bruno Latour's and Nicklas Luhmann's epistemologies on this very point.

The Nature-Society Controversy in France: Epistemological and Political Implications 47

definition of the crisis in itself is dependent on the dichotomy that is named as responsible for the crisis. Also to change the ontological paradigm would mean to cease the interpretation of environmental problems as dysfunctions affecting the natural world. Many problems are involved in this issue. As mentioned earlier, nature is the central theme to the environmental philosophies, their goal being to give nature moral value on account of an intrinsic value. Theoretically, it would be naive to give up the scheme that defines the object of their main research. Furthermore, the dichotomy is at the source of the creation of modern sciences, which reject any explanation of the phenomena in relation to final causes and defines space through geometry. Thus, to abandon the western cosmology is to abandon modern epistemology. But if the mechanist conception of nature has evolved, modern sciences not only possess extraordinary powers to explain phenomena, powers that are necessarily useful, but they are also the main if not the only tools we possess to come in contact with Nature, that is the biosphere. This is why it is so easy to build social controversies over global warming and the collapse of biodiversity for example. For non scientifically educated people, it is quite impossible to evaluate the extent of the damage of human activities on the ecosystems and the biosphere. It is then clear that the role of science must remain somewhat important unless we adopt, as certain branches of ecology do, a very different definition of the natural environment which is at stake. For André Gorz10, the naturalness of an environment refers to an organisation of the common world which functioning and structures can be intuitively and easily understood, without any kind of prerequisite learning. One can orient oneself and act relatively spontaneously in it. In this perspective, the ecological concern is a political one : it is about the colonization of the lifeworld by systems (technical-industrial-capitalist systems). But if the main issue is to care about biodiversity, and not only to resist to the expropriation of a common world that the systems destroy, we need to enter into scientific reasoning because we have to measure the impacts of our way of life on ecosystems. Common knowledge, intuitions and political concepts are not sufficient to build a representation of the anthropogenic damage caused on the ecosphere. In fact, scientists were the first ones to ring the bell after overseeing the extent

We are consequently facing a paradox. On one side, we are in front of a metaphysical paradigm that implies an unacceptable action in regard to our natural environment, but on the other, this paradigm is the only way leading to an understanding of this aberration. The paradigm is both problematic and helpful. Are we mistaken? Must we after all keep the modern metaphysic ? Or must we really abandon all references to modern nature? Is a practical knowledge of nature better suited to understand the problem? In brief, is it necessary to break down, in a radical way, modern naturalism and reject once and for all the

To understand this problem, we must understand the link between politics and ecology, for the problematic character of the nature-culture dichotomy is at the source of this environmental debate. To care about the *depletion of natural resources* involves being dependent on nature, not being outside of nature. Furthermore, the concept of a *responsibility* towards the planet supposes a relation of dependency of the planet in regard to human activity. Its state is modified by human activity and technical interventions necessary

of the degradation that was going on.

categories of nature in opposition to society?

10 André Gorz, *Écologie et politique*, Galilée, 1975.

fundamental difference, both physical and spiritual, between a person and its counterpart, to establish analogical relations about the events affecting the two. Their mutual influence is only conceivable from the point of view of their difference. According to this, the way animals are treated always carries the risk to affect human condition and destiny. Animism functions in a totally different way. It involves a similarity on the spiritual level, but a difference on the physical level. This relation can emerge as a reciprocal relation, actualized as an exchange of services, souls, food or life energy. For example, in certain animist systems8, not only can humans feel indebted to non humans because of the taking of lives through hunting, but the hunters will admit that non humans take back from them by stealing body parts, food or vital energy. On the other hand, naturalism identifies nature as a completely separated world, heterogeneous to humanity. It does not identify any relations of reciprocity between the two worlds. In fact, although naturalism accepts a certain physical continuity between humans and non humans, it postulates a rupture on the spiritual level, which makes any notion of communication between them impossible to accept.

A first remark must be made: in these conditions, can an ecological project be suggested in regard to naturalism (as defined by Descola)? If any notion of communication between humans and non humans is absurd and if human interest is the only limit to a subjugation of nature, is a preservation or only a conservation of nature conceivable and practicable ? Environmental ethics are concerned by this possibility. They generally answer negatively. They affirm that the metaphysical dualism developed by modernity limits morality to cultural beings, namely humans. This prevents any kind of moral recognition to non humans, but it is necessary to take care of them9.

Looking at these different cosmologies enables us to see how naturalism is no more than a certain way of interpreting the world. It is a singular ontological formula, like the other ones (totemism, analogism, animism), that is organized from the practice schemes common to all cultures. Descola's work proves that no theoretical argument can justify the dominance of the western conceptual framework.
