When is shit a good thing?
People tend to talk about shit as if it is universally
acknowledged to be disgusting and repulsive. We don't like talking about it and
assume that nobody else does either. For western cultures, shit is waste, disease-causing
and filthy.
But can we look at it another way?
In the ethnography Bewitching Development: Witchcraft and the Reinvention of
Development in Neoliberal Kenya (which I also discussed here) James Howard Smith writes:
"But when
properly controlled, shit was positive: abundant feces indicated
health and prosperity--a regular flow of value into and out of the body.
Appropriately contained feces symbolized productive social order…When senior
men drank together, they sprayed beer out of their mouths, intoning what they
understood to be an ironic and amusing blessing: 'May your house overflow with shit!'….Furthermore,
when Taita males declared the virtues of hard work and deference, they said
that ‘he who is loyal to an elder shits a big stool’” (emphases mine; 2008: 97)
In other words, shit that is abundant and controlled (that
is bounded and contained) is, in fact, positive.
It makes sense; you only shit when you can eat, and in
places where getting adequate food is not taken for granted, such a correlation
is more readily understood. Controlled shit is controlling the body and being a
part of society. Having enough food to produce lots of shit is a sign of
prosperity and health. In 17th
century Germany you can see this as well, as houses would pile manure in
their front yards in order to demonstrate their personal wealth.
Shit also equals flow.
What goes in must also come out, indicating a connectedness and a natural cycle.
(In times and places where shit is used as fertilizer, this becomes a closed
cycle, as waste from food is used to produce more food.) Positive flows have
long been a part of many different medical understandings of the body.
Note also the equating of loyalty with a large output of
shit. A valued personal attribute (loyalty) leads to greater prosperity, as
symbolized by shit.
Compare this with the US ’s attitudes. Shit that is
controlled is a neutral value; it is what it is supposed to be, and thus is
ignored. It is only when it is no longer controlled that it acquires a value,
but a negative one. Is it any wonder that politicians very rarely campaign on
things like fixing sanitation structures? They would far rather correlate their
campaigns with positive values. This attitude carries over into NGO work, where
donors and workers will often only view the management of human waste as a
neutral value; but neutral values bring little glory or donor dollars.
But as the above passage might indicate, if NGO workers
adapt the attitude that shit can be a positive thing, then this might go a long
way in helping reorient sanitation work values in a more productive way.
No comments:
Post a Comment