We generally refer to things that do not (or no longer) fulfill an immediate purpose as waste. This is a subjective view, the view of the person making the assessment. This subjective view makes waste a fascinating topic. It is also a topic that should not actually exist, as in an ideal world with a perfect circular economy, materials/substances with no further use would not even exist.
A look at the scientific literature can resolve this apparent contradiction. In her study Purity and Danger (1), ethnologist Mary Douglas writes that dirt and waste do not exist in themselves, but are created in the course of cultural attribution. So garbage is in fact something that the person making the judgment cannot or does not want to deal with. Something thus becomes waste when it is in the wrong place, waste is "matter out of place". The fact that this something surrounds us in everyday life may not always be pleasant for us, we normally draw a clear dividing line between ourselves and the garbage; last but not least, garbage cans and, in a particular cultural form, garbage can buildings are an expression of this need for demarcation. The presence of garbage in our everyday lives may make us feel that we are in the wrong place.
The aversion to garbage and dirt (being in the wrong place) is then not far from being directed not only at objects but also at groups, as Corbin writes in his 1982 book (2). Even if today we certainly no longer regard people who deal with dirty things as generally suspicious or dangerous, the appreciation of professions that deal with the removal of garbage and waste is often low, which is also reflected in the remuneration of their work.
In the hotel industry, for example, we find a pronounced low-wage sector in room service. If we imagine that the garbage collected from the rooms had the value of gold, how much would these "chambermaids" in Lisbon be valued?
If we go one step further, we see people in our societies today for whom there is obviously no "immediate purpose". Depending on the society's need for demarcation, these people can only be found in certain areas of public life during the day or only at night. Sociologists speak of a need for order, for clear divisions and categorizations that make it possible to make sure of one's own identity.
The picture shown here, which was taken at night in Singapore, may belong in a similar context.
As a modern, enlightened society committed to the United Nations' Sustainability Development Goals, we strive for a clean environment and an inclusive society in which there is a contribution for everything and everyone.
"Clean" and "inclusive", we can already guess that this won't be easy.
Clean is only possible if waste has a value. Avoiding areas of worthlessness almost completely by ensuring that things without an immediate use no longer exist through smart economic cycles is probably a huge task.
Inclusion in society goes one step further, it goes to our self-image. We have seen that one of the ways we assure ourselves of our identity and meaningfulness is through demarcation and the drawing of dividing lines. Where there is demarcation, exclusion is often not far away. This calls for a different kind of self-awareness.
We therefore face a huge challenge in moving towards a truly inclusive world in which the phrase "without direct intended use" is obsolete.
(1) Mary Douglas, Purity and danger; an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, Routledge & Paul, London, 1966
(2) Alain Corbin, Le miasme et la jonquille, Aubier / Montaigne, Paris 1982
.svg)
