Pierre Leroux and the Circulus
113
so much useless waste. In his view that which we perceive as mere
waste has real value within the greater chain of solidarity. If only his
ideas had been adopted by the Provisional Government of 1848 then,
mused Leroux, the violence and bloodshed of the June days might
have been avoided (p. 220).
What needs to be stressed, however, is the extent that, for
Leroux, the potential practical benefits arising from recycling human
waste were part of a world vision founded upon the ideas of interdependence, reciprocity and solidarity. God did not intend that dead or
waste matter should simply be discarded. In reality, “les cadavres et
les détritus des différents êtres peuvent être assimilés à des produits
préparés pour la subsistance d’autres êtres” (p. 10). Human manure
should be returned to the earth in order to enrich the soil and aid the
production of food. “Dans une infinité de cas,” continued Leroux, “la
vie entretient la vie par des produits qui, pour être utilisés,
n’entraînent pas la cessation d’existence de ceux qui les donnent” (p.
10). Death was not absolutely necessary in order for life to continue.
The products of excretion, far from being without worth, were intended to fulfil a positive role within the cycle of life. It was an error
to understand the act of eating purely in terms of the satisfaction of
appetite: “l’animal ne digère pas pour lui seul, mais, si je puis employer cette expression, digère pour préparer l’alimentation de la
plante” (p. 94). Leroux challenged received opinion regarding the
status of urine and excrement. He argued that it was incorrect to draw
too sharp a distinction between excretion and secretion, compared
urine with milk and regretted that he had not been able to write a study
on the consumption of urine as he had once intended (p. 140). In a
similar spirit he took on Bichat and the anatomists whom he accused
of failing to grasp that the complex digestive system of animals was a
consequence of nature’s refusal to allow for consumption without
production (p. 102). Leroux explained that when food passed through
the alimentary canal something more complex than straightforward
assimilation took place. Something new was actually added during the
process (p. 162). Bichat had not grasped the relationship between the
large intestine and the caecum (p. 192). Berzelius, on the other hand,
received praise on the grounds that he had noted that something new
was added during the passage of ingested matter through the intestines
(p. 102).
113
so much useless waste. In his view that which we perceive as mere
waste has real value within the greater chain of solidarity. If only his
ideas had been adopted by the Provisional Government of 1848 then,
mused Leroux, the violence and bloodshed of the June days might
have been avoided (p. 220).
What needs to be stressed, however, is the extent that, for
Leroux, the potential practical benefits arising from recycling human
waste were part of a world vision founded upon the ideas of interdependence, reciprocity and solidarity. God did not intend that dead or
waste matter should simply be discarded. In reality, “les cadavres et
les détritus des différents êtres peuvent être assimilés à des produits
préparés pour la subsistance d’autres êtres” (p. 10). Human manure
should be returned to the earth in order to enrich the soil and aid the
production of food. “Dans une infinité de cas,” continued Leroux, “la
vie entretient la vie par des produits qui, pour être utilisés,
n’entraînent pas la cessation d’existence de ceux qui les donnent” (p.
10). Death was not absolutely necessary in order for life to continue.
The products of excretion, far from being without worth, were intended to fulfil a positive role within the cycle of life. It was an error
to understand the act of eating purely in terms of the satisfaction of
appetite: “l’animal ne digère pas pour lui seul, mais, si je puis employer cette expression, digère pour préparer l’alimentation de la
plante” (p. 94). Leroux challenged received opinion regarding the
status of urine and excrement. He argued that it was incorrect to draw
too sharp a distinction between excretion and secretion, compared
urine with milk and regretted that he had not been able to write a study
on the consumption of urine as he had once intended (p. 140). In a
similar spirit he took on Bichat and the anatomists whom he accused
of failing to grasp that the complex digestive system of animals was a
consequence of nature’s refusal to allow for consumption without
production (p. 102). Leroux explained that when food passed through
the alimentary canal something more complex than straightforward
assimilation took place. Something new was actually added during the
process (p. 162). Bichat had not grasped the relationship between the
large intestine and the caecum (p. 192). Berzelius, on the other hand,
received praise on the grounds that he had noted that something new
was added during the passage of ingested matter through the intestines
(p. 102).