In Political Ecology, Latour launches the argument that “nature” does not exist. Because nature can only be defined in contradistinction to the human, and particularly the political, it does not really exist. The problem with political ecology, or pulling ecology into the political conversation, is that because nature is defined as outside the political, it cannot be effectively given a voice in the political realm, except through scientists whom we have nominated as having special discourse with that which is outside the human. All of this is faulty however. Latour claims that scientists are simply interpreters, not unmediated conduits, and that if we view them as such and begin to think about the way that what we define as “nature” is always already political (for nothing is outside the realm of the human if we are discussing/affecting it).

In this way, Latour and Cavendish are similar in that they recognize the imbricated relationship of nature and the human and reject the scientific discourse that seeks to delineate separate realms for each.

Comment on this page