17
political forum of more-than-humans, acknowledging how natures and cultures are mutually
imbricated ‘all the way down.’ In Latour’s most concise version, in this parliament of things:
Natures are present, but with their representatives, scientists who speak in their name.
Societies are present, but with the objects that have been serving as their ballast from
time immemorial. Let one of the representatives talk, for instance, about the ozone hole,
another represent the Monsanto chemical industry, a third the workers of the same
chemical industry, another the voters of New Hampshire, a fifth the meteorology of the
polar regions; let still another speak in the name of the State; what does it matter, so long
as they are all talking about the same thing, about a quasi-object they have all created, the
object-discourse-nature-society whose new properties astound us all and whose network
extends from my refrigerator to the Antarctic by way of chemistry, law, the State, the
economy, and satellites.
31
This depiction of the Parliament brings in assemblages of all sorts, allowing their participation in
the collective creation of a polity. Bringing together as many actors as possible, the Parliament’s
goal is to achieve resolution among competing and contradicting practices through negotiations
among the participants and their representatives. The end result is a new composition of
collective existence, with modified relations among all those who participate in it. It is a
temporary, contingent resolution that will inevitably be taken up again in yet another
parliamentary action, with a new convoking of a different and broader set of participants and
representatives.
This initial description is a problematic and relatively conventional take on parliamentary
politics, that closely resembles certain formulations of interest group politics with every
participant having her say, or of inclusive, deliberation-based models of liberal democracy.
Latour is, not surprisingly, vague on the details and does not provide much to defend against
such accusations. Unfortunately, Latour gives only a scant three pages to a discussion of this
constructive portion of his project in We Have Never Been Modern. Perhaps most frustratingly
for many readers, Latour sidesteps all practical efforts at describing the Parliament of Things at
this point, declaring that “I have done my job as philosopher and constituent by gathering
31
Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, 144.
Convention