déchets. stigmatisations, commerces, politiques ... - Viva Rio en Haiti

ties to act differently – which can serve to legitimize
the demand for latrines and waste bins, for
example.
This is sometimes accompanied by the argument/denunciation
on the part of the local population
that most of the garbage found in the zone
was not actually produced there. This is one of the
few points of agreement between the area’s residents
and the intervention agencies: most of the
garbage (especially inorganic, since the Croix de
Bossales market, located in the southern part of
the researched area, is a big producer of organic
waste) is swept downhill and along the sewers
by the rainwater fl owing from the city’s wealthier
and higher regions.
In fact the observations carried out on site and
the conversations with residents force us to put into
perspective the shared representations that associate
dirt with anomie, making dirt an intrinsic
(or ontological) property of a specifi c population
that is generally extremely poor and, in every case,
historically stigmatized and marginalized.
In contrast to these representations, the habits
of the residents living in these regions stigmatized
by the huge presence of garbage demonstrate
considerable concern with cleanliness and
hygiene. Even when built from recovered materials
and sometimes directly on top of a thick layer
of garbage and sewage, the small spaces of the
poorer dwelling places are constantly swept and
the waste placed in plastic bags or waste bins.
Though omnipresent in the spaces immediately
surrounding the habitations, garbage does not invade
the internal areas: it is kept ‘outside.’ From
8 See the classic treatment of the association between
the idea of dirt and pollution proposed by Mary Douglas
in Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of
pollution and taboo (Routledge 1973 [1966]). On the
stigmatizing logic associating ‘dirt’ with ‘anomie,’ it
is worth recalling classical sociological descriptions
such as William Foote Whyte’s Street Corner Society.
The Social Structure of an Italian Slum (The University
of Chicago Press 1943 [1993]), in the case of the
United States, and Norbert Elias’s The Established and
the Outsiders. A Sociological Enquiry into Community
Problems (London: Frank Cass & Co. 1976), based in England.
This literature allows us to highlight the fact that,
contrary to what is presumed by many of the designers
of public policies – and in certain contexts by the residents
of the area themselves, stigmatizing dynamics
the viewpoint of local people, this proves that, contrary
to what the stigma suggests, they are not
‘dirty.’ The same applies to the care taken over personal
appearance and hygiene. Despite living in
an extremely unhealthy environment, very close
to strewn garbage and waste dumps with little
access to water because of its high price, people
look after their appearance, hygiene and clothing.
The impact of the initiatives implemented by VR
in the zone point in the same direction: the installation
of waste bins and the hiring of personnel to
clean the streets and collect garbage show that it
is possible to quickly change the habit of disposing
of garbage in public places.
The sensitivity in relation to improvements
in the sanitary conditions of public space and the
care taken over keeping the home and people’s
bodies clean show that there are clear boundaries
(even if these are always situational and relative)
between what is considered clean and dirty.
3. THE PRINCIPLES ORGANIZING THE
UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE STIGMA
ASSOCIATED WITH DIRT
The stigmatization of the territory and people
is not uniform: it does not implicate the entire
zone and all its residents in the same way. Instead
it depends on the subject’s viewpoint and position.
So, for example, for the residents of Pétion Ville,
the districts of Bel Air and Cité Soleil are dirty and
violent; for the residents of the upper regions of
such as those described in this report are far from being
a ‘privilege’ of the ‘poor’ or ‘southern’ countries. On
the associations between the stigmatization related to
the proximity to garbage and the genesis of state urban
management policies, see Alain Faué, “Classe malpropre,
classe dangereuse. Quelques remarques à propos
des chiffonniers parisiens au 19ième siècle et de leurs
cités”, Recherche 29, 1977, pp. 79-102.
9 Following on from the argument of the previous note
(and also Goffman 1986), it is essential to comprehend
that stigmatization is not an intrinsic property of the
stigmatizing (clean) subjects or groups: it is produced
in the relation between them and the stigmatized who
incorporate (or fi nd themselves forced to reject) the
moral values associated with dirt.
GARBAGE | 41