**1. Introduction**

40 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

Sing C. Chew, Sing and J. David Knottnerus (eds.) (2002) *Structure, culture, and history: recent issues in social theory* Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Skocpol, T. (ed). (1984). *Vision and Method in Historical Sociology*. Cambridge: Cambridge

Weber, M. (1947). *The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation*. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Tilly, C. (1981). *As Sociology Meets History*. New York: Academic Press. Tilly, C (2008) *Explaining social processes* Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Wilson, J. (1983). *Social Theory*. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

University Press.

Since the 19th century, a modern movement promoting the protection of nature has been developing - first in the USA and then worldwide - as the negative consequences of human activity on nature were revealed. Institutions have come up with a wide range of possible solutions: the conservation of forests, the creation of national parks, the development of green zones in cities etc. The increasing promotion of nature as a central value for human establishments since the seventies has been an opportunity to question the relation between nature and society in the western world. This chapter aims at giving a portrait of the major anthropological, sociological and philosophical contributions that fuelled the ongoing debate concerning the distinction between nature and society - and the many social repercussions of this debate, in France and elsewhere. The different positions have important pragmatic implications for the management of natural areas for example. We will first introduce the works of Bruno Latour who, we believe, launched the debate we are interested in. We will then present the works of Philippe Descola, whose work aims at proving that our concept of nature is a construction of the Moderns, a construction that is contextualized as any other cultural construction might be. But apart from these scholarly concerns, and even without any normative arguments against the properly modern dualism that is at stake here, one might say the ecological critique of modernity finds its roots in the nature-society distinction. What principle, other than this dichotomy, could be the basis for a proper ecological criticism of modernity? What could be the criterion for a denunciation of the human-non human arrangements? In light of these issues, how can we build a new commonplace, a new ethics? Must we build a new cosmology, a new epistemology, or can we simply modify our present ones? It is through these questions that we see Latour's attempt to reintroduce political sciences.

### **2. The controversy around Latour's essay on symmetrical anthropology**

In the early 1990s, the French academics are structured around the study of advanced modernity. It is in this context that Latour publishes his controversial essay on symmetrical anthropology (Latour 1991). The controversy will organize itself around the modern nature-

The Nature-Society Controversy in France: Epistemological and Political Implications 43

arrangements with new ones, which are the product of the practice of purification proper to

To give an example of such practices, one can take the case of the policy of renaturation in France. Natural reserves follow a different path from national and regional parks. While the regional parks are managed according to a cultural, patrimonial approach of nature and while the national parks are managed according to an aesthetic concern for the landscape, natural reserves are meant to preserve nature and be devoted to scientific research. The specialization of the natural reserves' territory raises many issues and results in different conflicts. The delimitation of space can be controversial, because locals and scientists will usually not agree on where to set the boundaries of the reserve. How to use this territory also turns out to be problematic, because every alternative (non-scientific) way of using it becomes forbidden. The need of specialists (ornithologists, environmentalists etc.) thus prevails, to the detriment of the representations and usual practices of the locals, therefore

Latour's main argument can be summarized in the following way: the generalization of the practices of purification is an obstacle to the emancipation project of modern society. This is largely due to the social distribution of practices of purification, for they are only accessible to specific parts of the population, which special interests become the dominant and trusted reference for all social practices. The project of modernity- that society can achieve a capacity to govern itself by itself- is threatened by modern western sciences as they exclude practices of purification and the definition of nature from the public and political space. As nature is defined as a separated, distinct world, it is excluded from the political space- and the knowledge of it, as well as its stewardship, is reserved to an elite of specialists. Thus, according to Latour, modern society deprives itself from a formidable potential of selfdetermination. The constitution of modernity opposes the project of modernity: society's capacity to govern itself is taken away and the distinction between nature and society is at

Precisely, what is at stake is to show how the misguided constitution of modernity finds its roots in the myth of emancipation common to the Moderns. One of the perverted effects of modernity, according to Latour, is the conceptual confusion between self-determination and avulsion. Social emancipation should not be condemned to be associated with an avulsion from nature, and in a general fashion, from the multiplicity of affiliations which make us members of a society at a given time. The error of the modern constitution lies in the way it describes the world as two distinct entities separated from each other. More precisely, its main flaw is to promote the opposition between "natural" entities and "cultural" entities, thus contributing to the denial of the obviously hybrid structure of our historical establishments. To reverse this effect, Latour proposes to replace the "natural" and "cultural" categories by "human" and "non human" categories. Latour claims this new distinction allows to think beyond the nature-culture dichotomy, two concepts logically opposed until now. Moreover, it offers a larger theoretical horizon from the point of view of

Latour proposed a new vocabulary in replacement of the term society, which implicitly involves the distinction between nature and society. First adopting the term "middle empire" (Latour 1991), then "collective" (Latour 2006), Latour searched for a terminology

the modern western sciences.

deprived of a territory.

the roots of the conflict.

"human" and "non human" establishments.

culture dichotomy and the taxonomies it justifies; other modern dichotomies are also questioned, subject-object on the one hand, and the fact-value dichotomy on the other. Nevertheless, it is clear that Latour's provocative style did play a role in the development of this controversy, as did the sociological community's disposition to welcome such a thesis.

The controversy created by Latour's thesis quickly escalated into an intellectual conflict. The different fundamentals at the basis of the controversy still exist, and this difference is interesting because of its practical consequences. Latour's thesis triggered serious reactions on the part of the academics structured around an epistemology of rupture, inspired by naturalistic and positivist positions- a structure that was already perceived by some as a weakening facade. The intervention of progressive scholars who accepted to enter the discussion with Latour solved the crisis. Claude Gilbert1 addressed the issue in his multidisciplinary seminar on collective crisis. Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoume and Yannick Barthes2 collectively published on the subject. Finally, Philippe Descola's3 work contributed to give Latour's thesis the acknowledgement it deserved. As support builds up, Latour manages to create a network of scholars interested in his work despite the adversity4. But his thesis will first gain real support from outside the sociological institution. His papers will circulate through prestigious institutions such as l'École des Mines, l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and more recently the Collège de France. His thesis definitely penetrated sociology through disciplines such as the sociology of sciences and techniques, political science and the sociology of organizations. From that point on, the interest in Latour's thesis will grow and make it to a larger public. From this point of view, Philippe Descola's publication, *Par-delà nature et culture*, confirmed the relevance of the controversy structured around the theoretical distinction of nature and society in France.

### **3. Purifying of the world and its consequences**

Proposing to disqualify the dichotomy between nature and society, Latour criticises the substancialistic approach proper to the modern sciences in the method used to define and describe the phenomena as "objects". According to Latour, this modern structuration of the world is related to certain practices which he qualifies as "purificating" (pratiques de purification), in reference to the many conceptual cloistering it creates. But Latour also insists, in conformity with the main tradition of sociology which situates the birth of modernity in synchronization with a certain alienation of the world, on the importance of these practices of purification as a major constituent of modernity itself. His position is nevertheless singular as he establishes the link between these practices and modernity's perpetual revolution: the perpetual destructive and creative dynamics of modernity depends on its capacity to continuously transform or replace the previous social

<sup>1</sup> Séminaire du programme Risques Collectifs et Situations de Crise du CNRS, directed by Claude Gilbert, MSH-Alpes : Grenoble, 1994-2001.

<sup>2</sup> Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, Yannick Barthes, *Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie* 

*technique*, paris : Seuil, 2001. 3 Philippe Descola, *Par-delà nature et culture*, Paris : Gallimard, 2005. 4 The controversy correctly confirms Latour's thesis. According to him, the construction of scientific facts relies on the formation of alliances and on the creation of actors' networks. The shock created by the publication of Latour's essay on symmetrical anthropology actually faded away as a network of scholars organized itself around the controversy concerning the question of nature.

culture dichotomy and the taxonomies it justifies; other modern dichotomies are also questioned, subject-object on the one hand, and the fact-value dichotomy on the other. Nevertheless, it is clear that Latour's provocative style did play a role in the development of this controversy, as did the sociological community's disposition to welcome such a thesis. The controversy created by Latour's thesis quickly escalated into an intellectual conflict. The different fundamentals at the basis of the controversy still exist, and this difference is interesting because of its practical consequences. Latour's thesis triggered serious reactions on the part of the academics structured around an epistemology of rupture, inspired by naturalistic and positivist positions- a structure that was already perceived by some as a weakening facade. The intervention of progressive scholars who accepted to enter the discussion with Latour solved the crisis. Claude Gilbert1 addressed the issue in his multidisciplinary seminar on collective crisis. Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoume and Yannick Barthes2 collectively published on the subject. Finally, Philippe Descola's3 work contributed to give Latour's thesis the acknowledgement it deserved. As support builds up, Latour manages to create a network of scholars interested in his work despite the adversity4. But his thesis will first gain real support from outside the sociological institution. His papers will circulate through prestigious institutions such as l'École des Mines, l'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and more recently the Collège de France. His thesis definitely penetrated sociology through disciplines such as the sociology of sciences and techniques, political science and the sociology of organizations. From that point on, the interest in Latour's thesis will grow and make it to a larger public. From this point of view, Philippe Descola's publication, *Par-delà nature et culture*, confirmed the relevance of the controversy structured around the theoretical distinction of nature and society in France.

Proposing to disqualify the dichotomy between nature and society, Latour criticises the substancialistic approach proper to the modern sciences in the method used to define and describe the phenomena as "objects". According to Latour, this modern structuration of the world is related to certain practices which he qualifies as "purificating" (pratiques de purification), in reference to the many conceptual cloistering it creates. But Latour also insists, in conformity with the main tradition of sociology which situates the birth of modernity in synchronization with a certain alienation of the world, on the importance of these practices of purification as a major constituent of modernity itself. His position is nevertheless singular as he establishes the link between these practices and modernity's perpetual revolution: the perpetual destructive and creative dynamics of modernity depends on its capacity to continuously transform or replace the previous social

1 Séminaire du programme Risques Collectifs et Situations de Crise du CNRS, directed by Claude

2 Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, Yannick Barthes, *Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie* 

*technique*, paris : Seuil, 2001. 3 Philippe Descola, *Par-delà nature et culture*, Paris : Gallimard, 2005. 4 The controversy correctly confirms Latour's thesis. According to him, the construction of scientific

facts relies on the formation of alliances and on the creation of actors' networks. The shock created by the publication of Latour's essay on symmetrical anthropology actually faded away as a network of

scholars organized itself around the controversy concerning the question of nature.

**3. Purifying of the world and its consequences** 

Gilbert, MSH-Alpes : Grenoble, 1994-2001.

arrangements with new ones, which are the product of the practice of purification proper to the modern western sciences.

To give an example of such practices, one can take the case of the policy of renaturation in France. Natural reserves follow a different path from national and regional parks. While the regional parks are managed according to a cultural, patrimonial approach of nature and while the national parks are managed according to an aesthetic concern for the landscape, natural reserves are meant to preserve nature and be devoted to scientific research. The specialization of the natural reserves' territory raises many issues and results in different conflicts. The delimitation of space can be controversial, because locals and scientists will usually not agree on where to set the boundaries of the reserve. How to use this territory also turns out to be problematic, because every alternative (non-scientific) way of using it becomes forbidden. The need of specialists (ornithologists, environmentalists etc.) thus prevails, to the detriment of the representations and usual practices of the locals, therefore deprived of a territory.

Latour's main argument can be summarized in the following way: the generalization of the practices of purification is an obstacle to the emancipation project of modern society. This is largely due to the social distribution of practices of purification, for they are only accessible to specific parts of the population, which special interests become the dominant and trusted reference for all social practices. The project of modernity- that society can achieve a capacity to govern itself by itself- is threatened by modern western sciences as they exclude practices of purification and the definition of nature from the public and political space. As nature is defined as a separated, distinct world, it is excluded from the political space- and the knowledge of it, as well as its stewardship, is reserved to an elite of specialists. Thus, according to Latour, modern society deprives itself from a formidable potential of selfdetermination. The constitution of modernity opposes the project of modernity: society's capacity to govern itself is taken away and the distinction between nature and society is at the roots of the conflict.

Precisely, what is at stake is to show how the misguided constitution of modernity finds its roots in the myth of emancipation common to the Moderns. One of the perverted effects of modernity, according to Latour, is the conceptual confusion between self-determination and avulsion. Social emancipation should not be condemned to be associated with an avulsion from nature, and in a general fashion, from the multiplicity of affiliations which make us members of a society at a given time. The error of the modern constitution lies in the way it describes the world as two distinct entities separated from each other. More precisely, its main flaw is to promote the opposition between "natural" entities and "cultural" entities, thus contributing to the denial of the obviously hybrid structure of our historical establishments. To reverse this effect, Latour proposes to replace the "natural" and "cultural" categories by "human" and "non human" categories. Latour claims this new distinction allows to think beyond the nature-culture dichotomy, two concepts logically opposed until now. Moreover, it offers a larger theoretical horizon from the point of view of "human" and "non human" establishments.

Latour proposed a new vocabulary in replacement of the term society, which implicitly involves the distinction between nature and society. First adopting the term "middle empire" (Latour 1991), then "collective" (Latour 2006), Latour searched for a terminology

The Nature-Society Controversy in France: Epistemological and Political Implications 45

ontology that would be of the second order, an ontology based on acquisitions7. This distinction demands that we look at our social obligations in a different way -that is- that we question the effects of the context in which our social obligations are formulated. In other words, each situation will determine what relevant feature in each entity will be resorted to. This may be extremely variable and does not have to do with nature or culture. One may consider development projects such as the construction of a hydroelectric dam: the river will be involved as the power which flux, tides and environment are a key to the success of the project. But the traffic of ships, the influence of men, the wildlife and lands surrounding the river and a lot of other preoccupations are also important. The nature-culture dichotomy

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,

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

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

cannot take all the meanings of an ecological question into account.

*Par-delà nature et culture,* summarizes his theory.

of ecological anthropology.

point.

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

that would illustrate the world as being a construction of different entities. This new terminology seemed to thwart the distinction between nature and society and therefore open the possibility to define the world as a series of associations between "human" and "non human" entities. The term "middle empire"5 correctly described the world as a hybrid reality, in continuous transformation. Latour claims that hybridization is the result of imbroglios of science, politics, economy, law, religion, technique and fiction (Latour, 1991: 9). This position is also compatible with the theory of socio-technical networks. To summarize, it is through a proper deconstruction of the nature-culture dichotomy that Latour was able to come up with a new description of the given world. But more, this method also questioned other oppositions such as subject-object and fact-value.

Bruno Latour's thesis involves an epistemological rupture that also supports the concept of intertwined facts and values. This new rupture brings to light a similarity between the present debate on epistemology and the 19th century debate over methods (*Methodenstreit*). What methods should we use to encounter the world and define it? As Latour made it clear, the essential hybridity of the world demands that we find new methods of investigation to encounter the world and qualify it. The new methods, characterized as "practices of mediation" (pratiques de médiation) are at the heart of Latour's ethnographic work (Latour 2006). To give an example, one can observe how a same object endows - or does not -a human being with new skills, depending on the context or network in which this association between a human being and a technological artefact is working. The term of agency is required to talk about the power of transformation or the potential of action of these kinds of associations.

Following this methodology, Latour launches a true crusade to rehabilitate the status of "non human" entities, which he believes are currently ignored by social sciences (Latour 2006). Social sciences, claims Latour, are guilty for not considering many "objects" as constitutive of society. They must therefore be rehabilitated through a process of qualification. To solve this problem, Latour goes further in his exploration of new vocabularies. From "hybrid" entities to "faitiches" (a conjunction of *fait* (fact) and *fétiche*  (fetish)), Latour will finally adopt the terms "human" and "non human". This new duality presents two main advantages. First, it prevents a return to the correlation between the subject-object dichotomy that undermines the modern constitution. Secondly, it guarantees the qualification, case by case, of the "non human" entities' behaviour until now ignored6. This distinction also rejects any essentialist theory to support a constructivist view of the world. The qualities given are the result of identities acquired in a network of relations. Thus, the behaviour of a "human" or a "non human" entity is considered as the expression of a configuration.

This new perspective proposed by Latour would involve, according to many scholars, a more vigilant regime (Roux, Rudolf, 2006). Latour's constructivisms can only accept an

<sup>5</sup> The term middle is to be understood here in its French meaning: environment.

<sup>6</sup> This distinction must be understood in phenomenological terms: it is built from practical informations gathered from the lived world. The difference between humans and non humans is the result of a basic structuring made possible through a process of typification, although not as culturally invested as the distinction between subject and object. As explored by Habermas and Luhmann, we can identify this distinction with the notion of structuration of the world developed by Piaget, although Latour does not venture in this direction. According to this approach, ego identifies alter-ego as different but nevertheless similar. This process would justify a distinction between humans and non humans.

that would illustrate the world as being a construction of different entities. This new terminology seemed to thwart the distinction between nature and society and therefore open the possibility to define the world as a series of associations between "human" and "non human" entities. The term "middle empire"5 correctly described the world as a hybrid reality, in continuous transformation. Latour claims that hybridization is the result of imbroglios of science, politics, economy, law, religion, technique and fiction (Latour, 1991: 9). This position is also compatible with the theory of socio-technical networks. To summarize, it is through a proper deconstruction of the nature-culture dichotomy that Latour was able to come up with a new description of the given world. But more, this

Bruno Latour's thesis involves an epistemological rupture that also supports the concept of intertwined facts and values. This new rupture brings to light a similarity between the present debate on epistemology and the 19th century debate over methods (*Methodenstreit*). What methods should we use to encounter the world and define it? As Latour made it clear, the essential hybridity of the world demands that we find new methods of investigation to encounter the world and qualify it. The new methods, characterized as "practices of mediation" (pratiques de médiation) are at the heart of Latour's ethnographic work (Latour 2006). To give an example, one can observe how a same object endows - or does not -a human being with new skills, depending on the context or network in which this association between a human being and a technological artefact is working. The term of agency is required to talk about the power of transformation or the potential of action of these kinds of associations.

Following this methodology, Latour launches a true crusade to rehabilitate the status of "non human" entities, which he believes are currently ignored by social sciences (Latour 2006). Social sciences, claims Latour, are guilty for not considering many "objects" as constitutive of society. They must therefore be rehabilitated through a process of qualification. To solve this problem, Latour goes further in his exploration of new vocabularies. From "hybrid" entities to "faitiches" (a conjunction of *fait* (fact) and *fétiche*  (fetish)), Latour will finally adopt the terms "human" and "non human". This new duality presents two main advantages. First, it prevents a return to the correlation between the subject-object dichotomy that undermines the modern constitution. Secondly, it guarantees the qualification, case by case, of the "non human" entities' behaviour until now ignored6. This distinction also rejects any essentialist theory to support a constructivist view of the world. The qualities given are the result of identities acquired in a network of relations. Thus, the behaviour of a "human" or a "non human" entity is considered as the expression

This new perspective proposed by Latour would involve, according to many scholars, a more vigilant regime (Roux, Rudolf, 2006). Latour's constructivisms can only accept an

6 This distinction must be understood in phenomenological terms: it is built from practical informations gathered from the lived world. The difference between humans and non humans is the result of a basic structuring made possible through a process of typification, although not as culturally invested as the distinction between subject and object. As explored by Habermas and Luhmann, we can identify this distinction with the notion of structuration of the world developed by Piaget, although Latour does not venture in this direction. According to this approach, ego identifies alter-ego as different but nevertheless similar. This process would justify a distinction between humans and non humans.

5 The term middle is to be understood here in its French meaning: environment.

of a configuration.

method also questioned other oppositions such as subject-object and fact-value.

ontology that would be of the second order, an ontology based on acquisitions7. This distinction demands that we look at our social obligations in a different way -that is- that we question the effects of the context in which our social obligations are formulated. In other words, each situation will determine what relevant feature in each entity will be resorted to. This may be extremely variable and does not have to do with nature or culture. One may consider development projects such as the construction of a hydroelectric dam: the river will be involved as the power which flux, tides and environment are a key to the success of the project. But the traffic of ships, the influence of men, the wildlife and lands surrounding the river and a lot of other preoccupations are also important. The nature-culture dichotomy cannot take all the meanings of an ecological question into account.
