Ceri Crossley
116
These lines indicate the extent to which Leroux’s project involved the
moral rehabilitation of human waste (in addition to an assessment of
its practical and commercial value as a fertilizer). From Leroux’s
socialist perspective the way in which excrement reconstituted the
health of the soil was the supreme demonstration of the interdependence of all living entities:
Si on vous disait que le rôle que vous faites jouer à la Nature est un rôle ignoble et
indigne d’elle; que c’est l’égoïsme le plus grossier que vous imaginez être sa loi,
tandis que sa loi est l’harmonie absolue entre l’égoïsme et le dévouement; qu’elle n’a
pas créé un seul être pour lui-même, mais qu’elle les a créés tous les uns pour les
autres, et a mis entre eux tous une solidarité réciproque! (p. 154)
When it came to transforming and using nature Leroux implied that humankind should act wisely and take account of the bonds
that linked the microcosm and the macrocosm (p. 87). The error of the
Malthusians had been to ignore the true message of nature; genuine
social progress involved respecting natural law, uniting with the general movement of the cosmos. However, while this indicated that the
future for France lay in agriculture rather than industry, Leroux was
not by any means a Luddite. After all, his plans for the distribution of
manure required the construction of complex systems of piping designed to run alongside railway lines. The whole was greater than the
sum of the parts but the parts needed to combine with each other in
order for the whole to thrive and prosper. Leroux offered an
excremental parable: “presque partout les excréments des oiseaux et
des autres animaux ont servi à faire de la terre et à nourrir les plantes,
et, par les plantes, les animaux et l’homme” (p. 206). The removal of
humans from the natural cycle led to dislocation and ultimately to sterility hence the moral imperative to reintegrate human waste into the
circulus. Healthy soil, as we have seen, was a composite that arose
from a collaborative process. Were this not to be the case then the
landscape would run the risk of being suffocated beneath an increasingly thick layer of human guano.
Leroux’s argument offered an alternative to the Malthusian
vision of nature. It also answered the Maistrian vision of life on earth
as generalized violence, death and consumption. Leroux proposed
something different: “l’alimentation des êtres par la vie des autres
êtres” (p. 10). Here was a chain of consumption and production that
involved giving and receiving. Leroux was convinced that his vision
116
These lines indicate the extent to which Leroux’s project involved the
moral rehabilitation of human waste (in addition to an assessment of
its practical and commercial value as a fertilizer). From Leroux’s
socialist perspective the way in which excrement reconstituted the
health of the soil was the supreme demonstration of the interdependence of all living entities:
Si on vous disait que le rôle que vous faites jouer à la Nature est un rôle ignoble et
indigne d’elle; que c’est l’égoïsme le plus grossier que vous imaginez être sa loi,
tandis que sa loi est l’harmonie absolue entre l’égoïsme et le dévouement; qu’elle n’a
pas créé un seul être pour lui-même, mais qu’elle les a créés tous les uns pour les
autres, et a mis entre eux tous une solidarité réciproque! (p. 154)
When it came to transforming and using nature Leroux implied that humankind should act wisely and take account of the bonds
that linked the microcosm and the macrocosm (p. 87). The error of the
Malthusians had been to ignore the true message of nature; genuine
social progress involved respecting natural law, uniting with the general movement of the cosmos. However, while this indicated that the
future for France lay in agriculture rather than industry, Leroux was
not by any means a Luddite. After all, his plans for the distribution of
manure required the construction of complex systems of piping designed to run alongside railway lines. The whole was greater than the
sum of the parts but the parts needed to combine with each other in
order for the whole to thrive and prosper. Leroux offered an
excremental parable: “presque partout les excréments des oiseaux et
des autres animaux ont servi à faire de la terre et à nourrir les plantes,
et, par les plantes, les animaux et l’homme” (p. 206). The removal of
humans from the natural cycle led to dislocation and ultimately to sterility hence the moral imperative to reintegrate human waste into the
circulus. Healthy soil, as we have seen, was a composite that arose
from a collaborative process. Were this not to be the case then the
landscape would run the risk of being suffocated beneath an increasingly thick layer of human guano.
Leroux’s argument offered an alternative to the Malthusian
vision of nature. It also answered the Maistrian vision of life on earth
as generalized violence, death and consumption. Leroux proposed
something different: “l’alimentation des êtres par la vie des autres
êtres” (p. 10). Here was a chain of consumption and production that
involved giving and receiving. Leroux was convinced that his vision