**5. Ecological critique of modernity**

It now looks as if all the conditions are set for a proper redefinition of the modern paradigm. Modernity deconstructs itself both internally and externally, but the ecological critique also attacks dualism. Nevertheless, although it seems that all is in favor of this change, it seems analytically impossible from an environmental perspective. The ecological critique of modernity will allow us to measure the implications and contradictions involved in the attempts to step out of the modern framework. In relation it is important to consider that Latour situates his work in the horizon of political ecology to be built.

Why the ecological theory is incapable of rejecting the modern paradigm is quite simple. The ecological crisis consists in the degradation of the natural world. Now, as we see, the

<sup>8</sup> Philippe Descola, "Constructing nature. Symbolic ecology and social practices", in *Nature and Society* : *Anthropological perspectives*, P. Descola and G. Palsson (ed), London : Routledge, 1996; p.94 9 Domestic animals seem to be the exception on this case. Generally, the owners develop a close relation

to their pets and thus develop a certain morality in regards to them, limiting their behaviour in regards to them (although many counter examples are available).

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,

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

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

It now looks as if all the conditions are set for a proper redefinition of the modern paradigm. Modernity deconstructs itself both internally and externally, but the ecological critique also attacks dualism. Nevertheless, although it seems that all is in favor of this change, it seems analytically impossible from an environmental perspective. The ecological critique of modernity will allow us to measure the implications and contradictions involved in the attempts to step out of the modern framework. In relation it is important to consider that

Why the ecological theory is incapable of rejecting the modern paradigm is quite simple. The ecological crisis consists in the degradation of the natural world. Now, as we see, the

8 Philippe Descola, "Constructing nature. Symbolic ecology and social practices", in *Nature and Society* : *Anthropological perspectives*, P. Descola and G. Palsson (ed), London : Routledge, 1996; p.94 9 Domestic animals seem to be the exception on this case. Generally, the owners develop a close relation to their pets and thus develop a certain morality in regards to them, limiting their behaviour in regards

Latour situates his work in the horizon of political ecology to be built.

which makes any notion of communication between them impossible to accept.

humans, but it is necessary to take care of them9.

the western conceptual framework.

**5. Ecological critique of modernity** 

to them (although many counter examples are available).

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 of the degradation that was going on.

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 categories of nature in opposition to society?

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

<sup>10</sup> André Gorz, *Écologie et politique*, Galilée, 1975.

The Nature-Society Controversy in France: Epistemological and Political Implications 49

does not promote any real "direct" experience of nature (the opening schedules of many installations restrict this in a formal way), nor does it allow any beneficial co-evolutive human practices (like transhumance in the Alps). The dichotomy still remains, the conditions of normativity have simply been reversed and we are in the presence of a natural

But also, if the environmental ethics' goal is to ultimately enact new policies capable of changing our relation to the environment, their efforts are concentrated on justifying moral interdictions and obligations in order to transform our ideological universe. Nevertheless, focusing on a moral dimension remains a vague enterprise. It does not imply to question the political and economic aspects of the situation that it questions. For this reason, we can fear that this project will remain inefficient because it fails to grasp the environmental crisis in its totality. Furthermore, it does not identify the social forces interested in considering nature as a pool of unlimited resources. Ignoring these considerations, environmental ethics must then rely on the only theoretical view left: an authoritarian imposition of new moral rules, only justified by philosophy, to modify our behaviour in regard to nature. An acceptation of

The perspective of political ecology is somewhat different, it is not concerned with a submission to the natural order. It can be seen as an extension of the Enlightenment as it promotes the construction of a society based on the moral rule of reason. It simply adds to the original political project of the Enlightenment new aspects of human activities. In this perspective, the logic of political ecology presents itself as pragmatic. It asserts the dominant economic paradigm, as noted by Catherine Larrère13, by confusing interests and values. In other words, it shares the same presuppositions concerning the economic paradigm. We can therefore doubt the capacity of political ecology to modify our society's inscription in

It is obviously clear that this project is in opposition with environmental ethics: nature is left aside to promote the cultural framework; we are in the presence of a subsumption of the natural order under the cultural order. As Descola remarks, a rational management of nature is at the end not profitable to its enactors as it leads, potentially, to the transformation of the world into a gigantic zoo; in this perspective, the survival of the blue whale or the preservation of Antarctica is carried out but only tributary to human conventions14. But is there not an essential difference, although difficult to grasp, between knowing oneself to be living in a managed, constructed environment and living in a world not conditioned by human activity? Does ecological concern lead to living in a zoo? What is at stake is the confrontation, more or less direct and more or less intense, with a human intention; and the possibility to avoid it. For the western world, this difference is essential because it relates to the concept of the Other, the Alterity, a concept which is described by Descola as a human constant. But unfortunately, political ecology has left aside the theoretical means to

13 Catherine Larrère, « L'Éthique environnementale : axiologie ou pragmatisme? », chapter 2, *Leçons de philosophie économique*, Tome II : Économie normative et philosophie morale, Paris : Alain Leroux et

14 Philippe Descola, "Constructing natures. Symbolic ecology and social practice", *art. cit*.,p.97

their point of view by the concerned citizens is not considered.

understand, or simply grasp, this Alterity.

subsumption.

nature.

Pierre Livet, 2005.

to the shaping of human societies. To summarize, we must admit that the understanding of the environmental crisis has challenged the theoretical apparatus of modernity because it involves new categories incompatible with the nature-society dichotomy.
