FROM TOP-DOWN TO BOTTLE-UP exploring trash transformations in Lazdynai

Philip BoosInga Freimane

Andrei KarpekaAnu Kägu

Migle Pauzaite

INTRODUCTION

The question of rubbish has an unparalleled importance within the present day agenda of environmentalism and sustainable development. The liberalized markets opt for the increased consumption of goods, resulting in more rubbish. This dynamic has lead some researchers to claim that today we live in a “throwaway society” (Gregson et al 2007). Examining how these processes of production, consumption and discarding of goods are unequally distributed across the globe (Yates and Gutberlet 2011), has led to the proliferation of discussions concerning the relations between “the global” and “the local”. Moreover, on the onset of the global ecological horizon came the awareness that there is no global “outside” to where waste can be dumped, and that consequently the problem has to be addressed both globally and locally. The spatial connotations to which these two terms refer are of relevance to this article too, as our main aim is to map how rubbish is managed in the post-socialist “sleeping district” of Vilnius – Lazdynai.

Particularly, we are interested in the concept of sustainable development defined here following the Brundtland Commission as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Smyth 2011: 77). How is rubbish managed within this framework in the context of Lazdynai? Set and financed by the European Union, how is this concept locally operationalized through the recycling practices within the district?

According to a recent European Environmental Agency report, only a slight increase of recycling municipal solid waste has been evident in Lithuania – from 2 % in 2004 to 5 % in 2010. Such a trend is problematic, given that Lithuania has to meet a 50 % recycling target set by the European Union’s Waste Framework Directive by 2020. Reaching this goal, according to the report, is problematic because of the low landfilling tax, and would “require an exceptional effort” (EEA 2013: 6-7). However, we would like to suggest that the problem might have historical and spatial, rather than only economical roots.

THE MAIN AIM is to map rubbish

management in a panel housing districts

of Vilnius – Lazdynai

The concept of sustainable development coupled with the regulatory role of municipalities and freedoms of liberalized markets produces a complex system of relationships related to rubbish almost beyond comprehension. How can these relationships be mapped? What influence does the socialist past have on the practices related to rubbish in present day Lazdynai? What does mapping as a process of social research, relating information to spaces and the process of representing this relation in a visual form, reveal about this particular locality? In attempting to answer these questions, we propose using the term “trash transformations” which refers to the fact that rubbish is a singular category but not a singular thing and that it’s facets are fluid or solid, material or immaterial, measurable or not. Also, the term is used here to underline that there are many different “cycles” or “routes” within which rubbish circulates, and within which it may be defined in different ways.

In this article, the terms “rubbish” and “trash” are used interchangeably as umbrella terms for the narrower definitions of “dirt” and “waste”. The distinction between the latter is drawn, on the one hand, from Mary Douglas’ (1966) seminal work Purity And Danger and her elaboration on “dirt” as a category setting boundaries within the social world. On the other hand, we conceptualize “waste” as a resource, in line with the definition in urban political ecology (hereafter, UPE; see Keil 2003 for an overview). In this sense, the “trash transformations” to which the name of this article alludes refer to the constant classification and re-classification of some objects as either being “waste” or “dirt” depending on the context in which they occur. Thus, rubbish is conceptualized as a situational entity within the locality of Lazdynai as well as between the global and local scales.

Bearing such conceptual distinctions in mind, we would go back to the discussion of mapping, i.e. the examination and visualization of social processes that occur simultaneously in space. Given that our task is not only “to capture” the dynamic processes related to rubbish in Lazdynai, but also to develop an understanding of how these processes have changed since the times of socialism, using conventional cartography brings with it substantial difficulties.

• Firstly, while shared standards and agreements about objective cartography exist and must hold validity, any map created represents but an individual and simplified interpretation of its creator’s reality.

• Secondly, the question of scale and the resulting spatial coverage is problematic, especially in light of globalization when geographically distant places “grow together” and affect each other increasingly.

• Thirdly, and more important for the mapping of transformations, a map produces a fixed image and thus creates a certain reality about a space at a specific point in time.

In order to overcome these difficulties, we employ the theoretical framework of UPE that advocates the relational and synthetic understanding of urban environments while highlighting that urban landscapes are a product of specific geographically-historical processes (Swyngedouw and Heinen 2003: 897, 908). Within this approach, places are understood not as bounded “containers” (Relph 1976) of human activity functioning according to their inner logic, but as parts of a system of networks or flows that are interconnected and relational. To translate this approach onto the map, it was decided to sacrifice some standards of conventional cartography and subscribe to the notion of critical cartography that maps are a playful “proposition” (Krygier and Wood 2009: 198-9) rather than some certain way of knowing the world.

As a result, the visual map with the supplementary discussion of twelve empirical spots organized into two lines was produced. The first line addresses the trash transformations in the top-down or institutionalized perspective; while the second line is concerned with local understandings and practices related to trash and constitutes the bottom-up, or what we have called the “bottle-up”, approach. For this name, we are thankful to the residents of one house in Lazdynai who used bottom-up placed plastic bottles to create a garden beneath their windows, giving us the inspiration to view rubbish beyond it’s conventional perspectives.

By mapping trash transformations in Lazdynai we try to visualize how different dimensions of trash (social, natural, political and economical) are spatially manifested and how some of these manifestations have shifted with the change from the socialist to the post-socialist era. Hence, the various facets that rubbish acquires serve as a prism to project the kaleidoscopic images of the relationships between humans and their environment. Moreover, given that the concern about nature is at the core of the sustainable development paradigm and is also one of the defining features of Lazdynai, we would like to start by looking at how nature was discursively constructed in the Soviet Union and bring these questions together in the concluding section of the article. This will also be done by discussing what impact the particular way of conceptualizing nature in socialism might have on how rubbish is managed nowadays.

TRASH TRANSFORMATIONS

are addressed in the top-down (institutionalized) perspective and bottle-up

(local practice) perspective

TRASH TRANSFORMATIONS refers to the constant classification and re-

classification of objects as either being “waste” or “dirt” depending on

the context in which they occur

VISUAL MAP with twelve empirical spots organized into

two perspectives was produced

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH

The present article has been written as part of the Winter School Mapping Post-socialist Spaces in Vilnius organized by the European Humanities University, Vilnius. The fieldwork was conducted and data collected over a period of two weeks from 21 February to 7 March, 2014. At the beginning of the Winter School participants were split into two groups according to the district of Vilnius they were interested in studying, Lazdynai or Šnipiškes. Inside the district, participants were further divided into theme groups according to their personal and academic training.

The focus on rubbish as our object of study was partially dictated by the research field. While seeking contacts with local inhabitants, we conducted an interview with one of the street cleaners, or kiemsargis, of Lazdynai. The insights she shared about the district and her personal experience as a cleaner were so interesting that we decided that focusing on rubbish could provide a thought provoking research on the changes from socialism to post-socialism.

Our research group consisted of five participants: Philip, Inga, Anu, Andrei and Migle. Two of the participants have an academic background in architecture – Anu is a landscape architect and Migle is an architect; we had one urban geographer in our team – Philip; and two social scientists – Andrei has a background in media studies and Inga is trained in social anthropology. Two of the participants were local and one has lived in Vilnius for a long period of time. The language skills we possessed allowed an easy access to the field. During the fieldwork, various methods were employed in data collection and analysis. At the end of the project the map of trash transformations in Lazdynai was produced, of which an improved version of which can be found in this article. The main aim of our group was mapping practices related to rubbish in Lazdynai.

By and large, this was a practical and methodological exercise, out of which the map of trash transformations resulted. However, prior to explaining our methodological choices, the overview of theories which guided our research are presented. Starting with the examination of how nature was perceived during socialist times, we question whether Lazdynai can be considered as a typical embodiment of these perceptions. We then move towards theories

THE RESEARCH was a practical and

methodological exercise which

involved interviews, fieldwork, discussions

of rubbish or trash – used here as interchangeable umbrella terms for the distinctly defined categories of “dirt” and “waste”. Thereafter, we examine the concept of sustainable development which allows for the reflection upon how human – environment relations are conceptualized nowadays, thus making the comparison with socialist times possible. The last theoretical section of the article brings these issues together.

The middle part of the article is concerned with methodology, and particularly how the task of critical mapping set by the Winter School was applied on the ground in defining research objects and the practical conducting of the fieldwork. While using short-term dérives in the district to observe the trash practices and thus produce a list of potential case studies, the depth of each case study was revealed by the qualitative methods of interviews with a number of informants – residents of the district, representatives of official institutions, and those directly involved with activities linked to rubbish.

The findings are presented in the last part of the article, providing an overview of the map and both – top-down and “bottle-up” – section lines. The largest chunk of this part is dedicated to the description and analysis of individual case studies which are represented on the map as empirical spots. Overall, there are twelve empirical spots, and each is discussed in relation to the theoretical concepts outlined below, thus bringing the kaleidoscopic configurations of trash transformations to light. Finally, the last section called “Conclusion: Recycling Socialism” brings our findings and theories together.

SOCIALISM AND THE DISCURSIVE PRODUCTION OF NATURE

In the contemporary world, the management of nature has often been viewed as a purely scientific endeavour. However, as numerous works produced on the urban political ecology (hereafter, UPE) demonstrate, the understanding of what nature is and how it should be treated is tightly connected with prevalent urban and social forms. The foundation upon which the theory of UPE is built is rooted is the examination of the urban environments that “constitute the pivotal embodiment of capitalist or ‘modern’ social relations, and, by implication, of the wider (and often global) socioeconomic relations through which modern life is produced, in both a material and a cultural sense” (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003: 897-908). The critical stance of the discipline is directed towards uncovering these socioeconomic relations which often produce unjust effects on the ground (Yates and Gutberlet 2011), as part of the “glocalization” process (Keil 2003: 729). Within this approach, nature is considered not as a given and inactive background to human activity, but as discursively produced by society.

However, while the application of the UPE’s multi-scalar approach to Lazdynai constitutes one of the central aims of our research, there is one conceptual problem. The main achievement of UPE is the deconstruction of the processes

resulting from liberalized market within globalization. But how well can such an approach be applied to a place with a history of socialist rule? Given that “the social appropriation and transformation of nature produces historically specific social and physical natures” (Swyngedouw 1996), we argue that it is necessary to consider the history of environmentalism in the Soviet Union as an indispensable part of our project. Being culturally and politically embedded, can “socialist nature” be different from “capitalist nature”, and if so, in what respect is this the case? How do these differences affect the transition of Lazdynai and the transition of practices related to rubbish from socialist to post-socialist times?

The environmental history of the Soviet Union is in many senses distinct from its Western counterparts (Pryde 1972: 2). The Marxist philosophical position on nature is expressed through the concept of dialectic materialism that albeit views nature as a distinct external reality, recognizes the interdependence of humans and nature (Burns 2010 [1939]: 70). However, on the ground a more radical approach of exploitation of nature and the position of man as its master was often assumed, a trend which was due to the fact that Soviet conservation movement was heavily influenced by the government ownership of all the national resources and the centrally planned national economy (Weiner 1988). Although recent trends in academia tend to revisit the Soviet engagement with the environment, the widely held view of Soviet ecocide of nature is deeply entrenched in lay society and fuelled by such cataclysms as the Chernobyl disaster (Oldfield et al 2002).

The revisionists, on the other hand, argue that environmental and conservation policy in the Soviet Union cannot be viewed as monolithic and static throughout socialist times. For example, the fact that prior to Bolsheviks taking power, the environmental science in the Russian Empire was at the forefront of innovation is highlighted: questions of the protection of forests were addressed in periodicals such as Russkii Vestnik (Costlow 2003: 96-7), Timiriazev’s lectures on plant physiology were organized at the Moscow Polytechnic Museum and soil scientists such as Dokuchaev were trying to establish the causes of droughts in the steppe environment (Brian 2010: 675). However, what happened to this vibrant community of natural scientists during consequent years?

Early revolutionary initiatives on nature conservation were characterized by the institutional contradictions between Narkomzem and Narkompros embedded in the discussions of whether it was necessary to establish a network of zapovedniki natural protection areas as a baseline or etalon of nature, according to which other natural areas could be compared (Weiner 1988: 10-12). However, the later search for opportunities to enlarge agronomic output during the Stalin era set an end to the earlier ambiguities by promoting a narrow utilitarian approach to nature, epitomizing in the Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature initiated in 1948.

However, here too paradoxes remained as Stalin’s plan for nature was characterized by a tension between a romantic and promethean desire to restore landscapes on the one hand, and a technocratic belief in science by means of which this restoration should be completed on the other hand (Brain 2010: 693). As other researchers agree, the mistake of putting scientists at the service of economic and resource use in policy making was repeated during Khruschev’s Virgin Lands Campaign and the age of new Lysenkoiets, thus trapping the whole Soviet period in the heresy of technocratism (Weiner 1988: 230). Ideologically, perhaps, the iconic image of the man’s mastery of nature is best represented by the Gagarin’s flight to Outer Space that demonstrated the astonishing technological achievements of Soviet men and was skilfully employed by the CPSU to prove the supremacy of Soviets in the context of the Cold War (Maurer et al 2011).

However, on the verge of the Soviet Union’s collapse a new configuration of the environment, specifically characteristic to the Baltics (Agarin 2009, Auers 2012, Rinkevicius 2000, Sikk et al 2009), arose. Timed closely to the Chernobyl accident, the 1980’s anti-regime environmental movements were fuelled by the freedoms of perestroika and glasnost, and were directed towards disclosing the ruthless exploitation of nature and threats that such exploitation posed for human health, by compiling the first publicly available environmental impact assessments (Ostergen and Jacques 2002: 109). As argued by Leonardas Rinkevicius, in Lithuania the green movements also undertook several other tasks, such as publicly communicating important messages concerning the ideas of decentralization and the independent management of the Republic.

This also helped to consolidate the national liberation movement (Rinkevicius 2000: 189). In a peculiar fashion, the images of apparently pristine pre-socialist nature having been spoilt by the years of Soviet rule were evoked, and the protection of nature was portrayed as the national goal. It is difficult to say whether environmental concerns or political sentiments were the main source of the popularity of these movements. The reason for such unclearness is explored, for example, by Timofey Agarin’s (2009) article Where Have All the Environmentalists Gone? questioning the reasons for a striking downward trend in the popularity of green parties in the Baltics after independence. The answer to this question is that economic development and the re-structuring of the state assumed a more prominent position than environmental concerns.

Nevertheless, it is possible to claim that the image linking national identity and pristine nature is still prominent, and in addition to being visible, it is reinforced through such discourses as the historical longevity of paganism in Lithuania (Strmiska 2005) as part of the national historical master narrative. Given the importance of nature in the Lithuanian narrative, the lack of attention to green issues remains to be an enigma: our work seeks to investigate this by examining the case of practices around trash in Lazdynai. So, how does the socialist approach to nature play out in the context of Lazdynai?

THE NATURE OF LAZDYNAI

The socialist modernist district of Lazdynai was built between 1963 and 1973. It was designed by a group of architects who were part of a distinct national school of architecture which often drew inspiration from Nordic neighbors, and Finland in particular (Dremaite 2013). The main conceptual principles of this regional school were “moderate and simple shapes, human scale, connection to nature, and respect for the existing built environment” (Vanagas 1983: 5, quoted from Dremaite 2013: 86; see also Baldin et al 1987: 472). The fact that Lazdynai was built on woody and hilly terrain was precisely captured by the architects to become a defining feature for the district. For example, the sixteen-storey monolithic high-rises designed by Ceslovas Mazuras were constructed on the top of the hills between Architektu Street and Laisves Avenue, becaming landmarks of the new Vilnius (ARCHITECTURE [excursion] FUND 2012). Given their majestic look they are colloquially called “rockets”. One of these buildings stands on the edge of slope bored to route the main highway, which was designed to protect residents from street noise. Other innovative ideas included the construction of stepped, terraced or broken plan buildings, such as housing blocks of the 1-464-LI series adjusted to the hilly terrain and modern open-plan terraced Lazdynai Secondary School (ibid.). All of these innovations demonstrate that at the planning phase Lazdynai was designed to be in tight relation with the district’s unusual topography.

Whereas socialist planned districts or towns are often afflicted by monotony, the variety of the architectural features made Lazdynai different. Here, the architects sought diversity in the composition of space and included surrounding natural areas into the district’s plan. While initially it was intended that a large part of the forest would have to be cut down, the architect Vytautas Edmundas Cekanauskas drew attention on the planning of Helsinki and proposed to keep the green areas as natural borders between the territories. Zigzag shaped five-floor buildings were bent according to the line of the slope. Thus, for the first time in Lithuania’s history, large-panel houses were built across the slope.

This required some creative technical solutions, since for each of these homes builders had to disassemble the crane three times - until then building sites had usually been selected according to where the cranes could access the terrain comfortably. Conscious of how the surrounding environment influences the perception of self and drawing inspiration from the Old Town of Vilnius, the district was to be adjusted to the human scale: all pedestrian streets, opening prospects and heights of buildings had to be captured in this relationship.

The first inhabitants moved to Lazdynai in 1969. They were happy not only to have a new apartment, but also because the district was built in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Formed by the hilly slopes above of the banks of the Neris River with a calm atmosphere, the district was conveniently situated and had all the amenities necessary for a comfortable life. Thus, when a sociological questionnaire was conducted in 1974 (Balciunas and Vanagas 1983), 91.5 % of

the district’s residents declared that, given the choice of which district to live in, they would prefer to stay in Lazdynai. Trying to evaluate the district’s main advantages, most people stated their appreciation of the beautiful natural environment. Residents also claimed that the architecture, and the possibilities for recreation and the accommodation were very good. The results gathered from the questionnaire were used to improve the design of other new residential districts; showing that Lazdynai was in many senses viewed as an exemplary place.

Therefore, it is possible to claim that from an architectural point of view, Lazdynai represents the successful blending of the built, natural and social environments. Such an achievement was not left unnoticed, and in 1974 the group of architects received the Lenin Prize for Lazdynai – one of the most prestigious awards of the Soviet Union. In light of the dominant utilitarian approach to nature during socialist times (discussed in the preceding section), this might seem paradoxical since it was precisely for the careful application of architectural ideas in the “perfect socialist district” and that preservation of the natural terrain that the architects were rewarded this prize.

In addition to this, the Lazdynai project was crucial for developing a regional school of architecture that had distinctly Lithuanian, and Nordic, rather than All-Union features. Thus, despite the fact that “rocket”-buildings dominate Lazdynai’s silhouette, we can argue that Lazdynai’s relation with nature significantly complicates the view of the socialist engagement with the environment as an ideologically based treatment of nature as merely a resource and a material base upon which omnipotent humans build their society. In relation to this point, we would like to highlight the need of research on how nature was treated in urban planning during socialist times which is unfortunately beyond the scope of this article.

So far, our exploration of the relation between the built environment and nature with regard to Lazdynai has focused on the architectural ideas. However, the relations between Lazdynai’s architecture and its topography constitute only one and certainly not the largest slice of the urban – natural cake. Rather, it can be considered as a topping, a visible part of a much more complex blending. For example, Maria Kaïka (2005) in her book City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City develops the analysis of how the production of cities

such as Athens or London and their sanitation within urbanization from the 19th century onwards is intimately linked to the production of nature. She draws on the metaphor of the transformations involved in a river’s movement from its natural setting to flowing from a dam or reservoir, i.e. its site of production, to the city and the modern home, where it is consumed by the simple opening of a tap. The author argues that the natural, the urban and the domestic are not “separate entities” or autonomous “space envelopes”, but “hybrids, neither purely human nor purely natural” (2005: 6). Thus, it is through the networks of flows, consisting of natural, technological, and human capital inputs that it gives an “output in the form of commodities or services which are central to the production and metabolism of urban space” (Kaïka 2005: 7).

We would like to transfer this relational view on the natural and urban to our case study in Lazdynai, especially as it allows to view rubbish as part of these “networks of flows”. Indeed, we would like to argue that the trash transformations is the process of the “network of flows” through which the outputs of the production and metabolism of urban space come back into contact with the natural environment. In order to do so, we will first explore more closely what is understood by the term “rubbish”.

RUBBISH – DIRT OR WASTE?

What is rubbish? First and foremost a material entity, it is materially constituted, and at the same part of a dynamic system of circulation of objects (Drackner 2005, Hawkins 2001). But what are the objects surrounding us and where do they belong – to the social or the natural life worlds? As proponents of the actor-network theory, exploring the relations between humans and objects, have proven, the rigid categorization between purely “social” and purely “natural” does not hold scrutiny (Callon 1987, Haraway 1985, Latour 1988, Law and Hassard 1999).

For example, Bruno Latour’s (1988) seminal argument about the ways people interact with the mechanical door-closer postulates that nonhuman actors at times play formative, “disciplining” roles in shaping human behaviour and, thus, they must be incorporated into the examination of various socio-physical environments. Following this assumption, is it possible to claim that rubbish is “disciplining” humans? Given that we view it as a by-product of human activity that has many facets, and thus do not consider it as a static or fixed category; we would like to focus on the value which is ascribed to rubbish by people. As material culture scholars joke – what counts as rubbish depends on who is counting (Dracker 2005: 175). So, how do we “count” rubbish in Lazdynai?

A central role in answering this question is played by the conceptual distinction between “dirt” and “waste”. The definition of dirt is derived from Mary Douglas’s (1966) book Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo where it is defined as a matter out of place. Douglas argues that the understanding of dirt is not universal, and understandings of dirt serve as symbolic boundary maintenance both within and across different cultural group.

For instance, Dipesh Chakrabarty (1992) takes up this notion of dirt as being linked to the categories of inside/outside of social worlds in the context of discussing how the “problem” of dirt and chaos on Indian streets is viewed by two groups who want to modernize India – nationalists and imperialists. Drawing on the distinction between home as an enclosed space and the bazaar as an open space that is potentially dangerous, and untamed, but also exciting, the author argues that bringing modernity to India would involve the transformation of public space, of the bazaar and the street into clean, sanitized, and orderly spaces. However, such an aim is counter to the indigenous understanding of the space of the bazaar because it would take the pleasure and thrill of the streets away. What appears clear from this analysis is that the fear of dirty and disorderly open spaces in India is, on the imperialists’ hand, a political and medical fear, and on the hand of the nationalists’, a desire for a strong nation-state. In a similar way, the desire to produce “clean” and disciplined subjects is central to Laporte’s (2000) History of Shit which examines the role of dirt in the establishing of the European state through a history of the “effort to colonize and control the social procedures of dirt identification” (Cooper 2009: 3-6).

However, whereas dirt is essentially “unregenerate”, when thought of as waste it becomes a conceivably productive place (Cohen et al 2005, quoted from Cooper 2009: 3, author’s emphasis), it is brought back to the realm of value. As John Scanlan (2005) argues in his book On Garbage, “waste” is a peculiarly European category which originally meant the devastated lands from which no tax could be collected. In the 17th century the meaning of the word changed to signify in a modern context dissipated value and unrealized productive forces. According to the author, it was during the Enlightenment and its project of modernization and aim to produce improved knowledge, that the binary between waste and value was substantially instigated.

It is in this definition of waste as an (unrealized) resource that the theme of rubbish is taken up by UPE in the examination of the urban nature of environmental problems and how these are reproduced through globalization. For example, Julian S. Yates and Jutta Gutberlet’s (2011) analysis focuses on the integrated organic waste management in Diadema, Brazil and discusses how the problem of uneven solid waste distribution and unequal access to food across the globe are addressed on the ground through various grassroots initiatives. One of such initiatives is the link between catadores (informal recyclers) and community gardeners, the former collecting organic waste from households to be recycled by the latter into compost and used in order to grow vegetables that are later redistributed among the households. Such initiative can facilitate a positive practical impact and socio-environmental change, but they run into various difficulties as well. Nevertheless, the authors argue, “while catadores and urban gardeners struggle with formal political negotiations, they are actively reconceiving urban environments: through their everyday practices of reclaiming and recirculating the value inherent in food waste, they are contributing to a more even distribution of environmental amenities and the resulting benefits” (Yates and Gutberlet 2011: 2120).

For the present analysis, we use “rubbish” and “trash” as umbrella terms that encompass the meaning of both “dirt” and “waste” discussed above, for we think such an approach allows for more complex and holistic view on rubbish. Also, the spatial aspect of rubbish distribution is important here for two reasons. On a more abstract level, it is interesting to compare how trash is perceived in natural and urban landscapes of a district that has a distinct quality: while the human history of Lazdynai is well-documented, the natural history is embodied in the forest adjacent to the district and often referred to in geological time. In this sense, the forest appears as timeless whereas the built areas of Lazdynai are indisputably marked as socialist. Despite the fact that such impressions are deconstructable (see previous section), we question whether they have any impact on the management of and practices around trash.

From a more practical point of view, the management of rubbish in some areas of the district is organized according to how these spaces are defined, influencing by whom and how rubbish is dealt with. For instance, take the fallen branches of a tree. Depending whether they are laying on the pavement of Architektu street or in the adjacent forest, they are differently defined and organized, and thus can be a part of completely different cycles of transformation, or “routes” or “flows” of rubbish.

If lying on the pavement inside the district, they may get into people’s way, and thus be a matter out of place, or “dirt” that can perhaps be even considered dangerous, obstruct the normal way of life, and be a cause of cleaning. However, they may have strikingly different connotations. For example, as Linda, one of the first inhabitants of Lazdynai and also the informant for our research, who works as a street cleaner has said: for her the fallen leaves and branches signify the passage of time, since she remembers how little these trees were when she moved to the newly built district (Linda, 25 Ferbuary 2014, Lazdynai).

Were these branches located in the forest, they would be managed by the state forestry authorities that collect burnable “rubbish” from the woods and transfer it to the local heating facilities, where they become a resource or “waste”. However, would they be considered as rubbish by an individual resident of the district strolling through Lazdynai forest? Or would they be considered “natural” part of the environment and in the “proper” place? Stretching this line of enquiry begs another question – how “natural” is the forest while continuously being managed and kept “clean” by people?

Although we are unable to provide exhaustive answer to these questions, they points towards the necessity of exploring trash transformations in Lazdynai through the triptych of urban – natural – social practices. However, in seeking to understand the context in which these elements interweave we should first look at one more key concept in creating the contemporary epistemology of nature: that of sustainable development.

THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN A POST-SOCIALIST CONTEXT

While the current situation of Lazdynai is testimony to the shortcomings of the communist utopia, another idealist term is currently enjoying a successful international career: that of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development is usually defined following the formulation expressed in the Brundtland Commision of 1987 as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Smyth 2011: 77).

Thus, the concept is embedded in a “strengthening consensus that market logic and economic growth are the best, if not only, means of saving nature and protecting the future of our planet” (Igoe 2010: 376). Inherent therefore in the understanding of sustainable development is the portrayal of nature as a scarce resource wrapped in a language that almost palpably depicts an imminent and dramatic end of the world. However, equally significant in the term’s success is that market logic and economic growth can be ecologically sustainable, if appropriately regulated. The success of sustainable development as a concept is important because it illustrates the constructivist theory of international relations that ideas do matter, and that they influence the policy of particular states as, for example, EU landfill regulations in the context of Lithuania (NWMS 2014). But outcome of the influence of the term is the realisation that, in contemporary urban dominated societies, we are confronted by two epistemological “natures”: a real and a mediated one.

The first “nature” as we know it through everyday direct encounters is real or substantial, and the second “imaginary” nature is communicated to us through various institutions and media. With regards to the former, most of the objects around us are to a larger or lesser extent natural. They are made of materials occurring in nature and the majority of people know how to distinguish between different fabrics, otherwise, they would be cognitively blind. Regardless of the level at which we think about it or not, in choosing whether to buy a wooden or a metal desk we reflect on the qualities of these fabrics, we recognize them. And it is the daily presence of these objects in our lives that we call real or substantially natural.

The idea of “imaginary” nature is developed, for example, by Ulrich Beck (1996) who argues that a (potential) environmental crisis at the core of the sustainable development paradigm is beyond the comprehension of an ordinary individual and is produced by modern communities of elite experts, such as that of scientists studying the thinning of the ozone layer. Given that this second nature is constructed by these communities as a concept, a norm, a recollection, a utopia, an alternative plan, it cannot be addressed outside the truth regimes, within which it acquires meaning (Beck 1996: 4-5, see also Scoones 1999). Therefore, the question of the destruction of nature within the sustainable development paradigm can be transformed into the question of how modern society deals with manufactured uncertainties. Thus, despite their global relevance, the debates about the environmental crisis are located within the confines of international organizations and reacted to differently by national legislations, causing Beck to rhetorically question: “What kind of truth it is [...] which ends on the border with France and is then regarded as pure illusion?” (ibid.).

It is worth reminding that a crucial role in constructing our understanding of the environment (“imaginary” nature) is played by modern information technologies through which a particular vision of nature is transmitted (Brosius 1999). We do not view mediated knowledge as a problem in itself, since the majority of information we receive on a daily basis is indeed mediated. However, when it comes to professional and market-oriented conservation media producers, such as, for example, global biodiversity conservation NGOs, it is important to understand how various techniques and strategies, such as 360-degree marketing, influence not only the images of nature that they transmit, but also the audience they produce.

For example, Jim Igoe (2010) follows Debord’s assumption that mediation is the central feature of late capitalism and examines how the Maasai Steppe Heartland AWF project is portrayed as a success story in various promotion and fund-raising videos that portray the world as remarkably unified one. On the ground, the material that is used in producing the video for the project is much messier and more contradictory. However, the videos are tailored in a particular way (zooming in and out, deploying a rhetoric of “we” as humanity) to target an audience of consumers, creating the “spectacle of nature” as a commodity. They also provide the viewer with an opportunity to solve the

problems occurring in distant places by, for example, donating money to the organization. Thus, the images of nature produced by such conservation initiatives not only use certain techniques to illustrate environmental problems, but also reinforce the idea of markets as arenas of moral action.

A similar logic can be discovered in recycling when viewed in the light of the economic logic of neoliberalism. While we are encouraged to recycle for sustainability, we are also encouraged to consume for economic development, thus producing more waste which we need to recycle. Thus, in unravelling the relations between waste and modernity, waste can be diagnosed as a characteristic product of modernity, but also as a way in which modernity can be subjected to critical analysis (Cooper 2009: 1). The discarding of objects is closely linked to their consumption, and some researchers have gone as far as to name the times we live in a “throwaway society” (Gregson et al 2007). The throwaway society is a replacement of an earlier emphasis on the durability of objects towards an emphasis on the convenience to dispose of objects with ease, a logic of seriality and a finite value (Hawkins 2001: 9, see also Castree 2010, Lucas 2002). It is the craving for the new, modern and fashionable that in many ways directs our consumption. Paradoxically, what is also characteristic of the contemporary moment is the fact that careless disposability of objects is simultaneously problematized as wasteful.

What this underlines is the fact that the phrase “sustainable development” consists of two words: sustainable and development. In order to reach sustainability, through the practical arrangements organized by the municipality, people on the ground are encouraged to recycle as one of the ways to get rid of their rubbish which is also supposed to contribute to the saving of the planet. The opportunity to have this choice is playfully colourful and is located in the inner yards of Lazdynai in the recycling containers under the headings of plastic, glass, paper, locally referred to as varpeliai or teletabiai (lt. in Lithuanian, ‘bells’ or ‘teletubby’). So, do people recycle? And if so, why do people recycle?

Recycling is relatively new phenomenon in Lithuania; the separation of rubbish only started in 2008. According to the National Waste Management Strategy 2014 – 2020, the municipal solid waste accounted to 1.37 million tonnes (including packaging) in 2011 (NWMS 2014: §23). The majority, 75 per cent of this waste, is landfilled, and only 23 per cent of it is processed. What these figures point to, is that, on the one hand, the utilization of rubbish is slow to take root in Lithuania, and that on the other hand, people are not actively recycling their domestic waste. According to the interviews taken during the fieldwork in Lazdynai, some people are recycling for purely economic reasons. For example, the owners of private houses do not have to pay any money to the municipality for the collection of rubbish if they are recycling their domestic waste (Seniūnija, 27 February 2014, Lazdynai). On the other hand, recycling can be seen as an ethically correct disposal of rubbish that is doing good for the planet.

Thus, disposing of rubbish is intimately linked not only to bodily practices related to cleanness, but also to notions of morality where the very act of recycling becomes crucial. Within a broader discussion on the body, governmentabilty, and the establishment of particular political (and moral) regimes, it can be argued that it illustrates the “strong governmental impulse to discipline citizens’ relations with their own wastes” (Cooper 2009: 2, see also Corbin 1986; Hamlin 1998; Laporte 2000; Otter 2002; Joyce 2003). In the present context of sustainable development paradigm, it is through recycling that a person establishes and confirms her agency as a responsible inhabitant of the world, a concept which Drackner (2005) has termed “internalization of blame”. This blame, according to the author, derives from the inability of the urban dweller to assess the direct behavioural impact upon environment, and thus recycling provides a particular moral economy to link up to nature. However, in light of the earlier discussion on nature, it is valid to ask which exact nature it links up to – the real or imaginary one? How are relations with nature constructed by the range of practices transforming trash on a local level in an ex-socialist modernist district? These are the questions we set out to explore in Lazdynai. In the next section the methodology to assess these questions is presented.

DÉRIVE: CHOOSING THE RESEARCH OBJECT

The research was accomplished in four steps. First, we had to define a research question specifically inherent to the district of Lazdynai. In order to be able to approach this task we were provided with some initial information based on lectures, excursions and discussions in the framework of the Winter School. This information introduced us to the history of Lazdynai. The second stage consisted of fieldwork during which the group was to define its methodology while keeping in mind to have a map as a final product. During the third stage, the data acquired from fieldwork was sorted, analysed, and visualized as a map which we presented at the end of Winter School to other groups. During the fourth, and last, stage the present article was written and the map updated. The most appropriate method of investigating the psycho-geography of Lazdynai at the very beginning of the project seemed to be short-term dérives within the exact borders of the district. Our team was divided into two groups of 2-3 people. According to Guy Debord (1956), the synthesis of impressions from diūerent groups makes it possible to reach more coherent results. This method helped us to get an overall impression of the district and to familiarize ourselves with its social life. It also helped us to investigate some centres of attraction: important places of the district, some of which were later integrated into the lines presented on the final map.

The selection of places was based on consultation and discussion between the two small groups working together and also with regard to other research teams working on different thematic topics in Lazdynai. Being a centre of attraction was not the only criteria of spot selection. During the dérives, the

group narrowed down the number of spots to the ones ideally corresponding to the research interest – practices that connected to trash transformations. Overall, we did not view conventional rubbish is a pressing issue for the district. More importantly for us were the attitudes of trash circulation and also how these have or have not changed over time. In seeking information about the district, we therefore made citizens’ activity and practices connected to garbage the central axis to which we referred, thus enabling us to follow trash as a more extended object of everyday life.

After having conducted the dérives, we continued our fieldwork and continuously observed the spots of attraction, as well as some other places that appeared to be important for garbage circulation since they seemed to have potential to show the diversity of practices connected to trash.

DATA COLLECTION: OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS

For a closer look at local trash practices we used a combination of qualitative research methods: observations and interviews. Graphically speaking, observations were used to bring out the pattern of these practices. Interviews, on the other hand, were necessary to provide a more detailed look at the patterns uncovered through observations. The empirical material was then analysed and incorporated into the deepness of sections represented on the final map.

Prior to conducting observations at the individual spots which were preliminary defined, we created a list of information to be recorded on the spot. This information was planned to address various forms and manifestations of trash practices. The data recorded was to include:

• what materials and in what amount are presented at specific locations, a point considered important because of our focus on the use and re-use of rubbish;

• what infrastructure connected to garbage is present at the spot, how does it works and what condition it is in;

• social interactions are visible at the spot and how they are connected to garbage transformation practices;

• the overall appearance of the spot, achieved by means of photo-documentation;

• the location of the spot in relation to the surrounding natural and built environment.

To make the observations more efficient, the group decided to continue working in smaller groups rather than as a collective team. Following the dérives to the individual locations, two lines across the district were drawn in order to represent the bottom-up and top-down practices related to garbage. Overall, the information gathered from the observations described the character of trash present at an individual spot and also described the spot itself. The data was expected to be collected in such a way that it could be possible to arrange it into a table in order to provide comparison across the spots. This was done bearing in mind the final visualization on a map. A similar approach was taken in relation to data gathered from the interviews.

Interviews were the source of insightful information, which also brought a participatory aspect to the process of mapping. Almost all of the respondents willingly talked to us, and provided valuable reflections on local practices related to rubbish. Also, interviewees who have been residing in Lazdynai for prolonged periods of time were able to comment on the difference of managing rubbish during Soviet times and nowadays, thus contributing to the answering of our central research question. Sometimes the interviews confirmed our hypothesis, as in the case of water and energy waste in the swimming pool. However, they have also provided new and unpredictable results.

Overall, ten unstructured interviews of varying length were conducted during the research. The subjects included local inhabitants interviewed on the street, a swimming pool technician, a worker of the Eko Taškas, the street cleaning lady Linda, a representative of Lazdynai Seniunija, a representative of one of the housing cooperatives, the representatives of the architectural company that designed recreational zones in the forested park by the rives, and the representative of residents’ association campaigning against the bio-mass facility termed on the map as the “power plant”, which is planned to be constructed in the area adjacent to the district. The interviews were conducted in two languages – Lithuanian and Russian, except for two occasions where interviewees contributed their insights in English. During the interviews with the passers-by that were not recorded by dictaphone, notes were taken. Organized interviews were recorded. To all of the respondents the group presented itself as an international research team working in the field of urban studies.

MAPPING PROCESS

After collecting data in various formats through drifting, observation and interviews, the mapping process was carried out in three distinguishable parts. These focused on visualizing the geographical locations, showing the intrinsic meanings of small scale locations in a materialistic context and finally exemplifying the degree of formality (top-down and bottle-up) being involved when dealing with trash. It should be mentioned that not all the spots could be represented on the final map according to the narratives they were contained in, as there were too many spots for each narrative and we aimed for a diverse selection of spots in order to represent different aspects of trash transformations. Therefore, only the, in our view, the most representative stories have been selected in order to produce a map that can be read as a playful and conceptual “proposition” (Krygier and Wood 2009: 198-9) of mapping trash transformations in Lazdynai. Overall, this resulted in picking twelve spots for the map: eight were located on the top-down and four on the bottom-up section lines.

The individual places picked for the final version of the map all function according to their own logic and either have connotations of natural or human-built features. At times, these connotations are not very well separable. In order to create an overall pattern, the individual locations were connected within two lines. These lines also followed a specific order, both geographically and narratively. By choosing to present narratives over simplified quantitative data, we have jeopardized some of the visual clarity of the map, a fact which can be considered as a shortcoming of this study. However, by doing so, we have tried to represent the small-scale perspective dictated by the localities themselves and to show how multi-scalar, multi-modal transformative practices, such as those involving trash in Lazdynai, constitute a challenge to the calculation based practices of map-making. Thus, we follow Crampton and Krygier’s (2006) call for critical cartography where not all knowledge can be “scientized”.

DATA RESEARCHobservations,

interviews

VISUALIZATION OF THE

GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS

EXEMPLIFYING THE DEGREE OF

FORMALITY:top-down,bottle-up

MAP OF TRASH TRANSFORMATIONS IN LAZDYNAI

The map represents two perspectives considering trash transformations: the top-down and bottle-up. Shown in two different sections with orange and green color. The map gives an overview of the single locations and their individual geographical location. The spots on both lines follow a narrative order as well. The bird’s eye view on the district of Lazdynai shows the natural elements of the environment, such as the river, parks and woods as well as urban infrastructure such as roads and housing.

THE GREEN LINE ON MAP REPRESENTS THE BOTTLE-UP PERSPECTIVE. The line follows a specific order both geographically and narratively. Also it represents the empirical quantity of natural-built environment relations. The empirically geographical spots on section are shown with icons: Pasaku parkas, bottle garden, trash mafia, Eko Taškas and will be described in further text.

THE ORANGE LINE ON MAP REPRESENTS THE TOP-DOWN PERSPECTIVE. As the green line, the orange line follows a specific order as well both geographically and narratively. Also it represents the empirical quantity of natural-built environment relations. The empirically geographical spots on section are shown with icons: power plant, Hesburger, Seniunija, Linda’s place, swimming pool, supermarket, forest, river and will be described in further text.

In order to understand our approach to mapping – what the individual locations along two lines and the spatial dimensions of the lines are representing – it is necessary to dive a little deeper into traditional mapping perspectives and their meanings for the medium being mapped. Our main goal with introducing small scale representations of locations was to introduce a detailed degree of social phenomena within the view upon the area being studied. This degree of detail used to and sometimes still is missing in traditional bird’s eye perspectives.

THE MAP REPRESENTS

the associations between the

small-scale social phenomena and large-scale built

environment

Especially in architectural and urban planning disciplines, it used to be common to think of and therefore map infrastructural elements through large scale representations. This mapping perspective delivers good overviews of areas and makes infrastructural elements and their spatial connections within large compositions easily visible. At the same time, these views tend to represent built environments more technocratically, leaving out of sight detailed problems of social relevance, which could only become visible through a closer look from within the medium or the social milieu. While objects such as building or roads visibly “fit together”, people and their heterogeneous roles and possibilities within urban spaces seem rather invisible from such a distance.

In order to visualize the details of trash production and consumption on a more individual and social level, we decided to carry out our mapping process on a section, focusing on individual geographical locations and their detailed descriptions. This approach was thought not only to reveal more socially relevant details of trash, but also to integrate topographical details of nature and society, in order to better understand human-environment relations.

Creating a more detailed and socially focused description of places also included the visualization processes of agency and introducing possibilities for counter-acting through “bottle-up” tactics against institutionalized top-down processes through participation-oriented forms of agency. In the best case, these new forms of agency would be able to represent the high degree of urban diversity within the district of Lazdynai.

The main part of the mapping production is the visualization of the individual locations along the two lines in a horizontal fashion. For this, the lines served as markings along which two imaginary cuts into the physical ground were performed. These cuts were then horizontally displayed with a detailed description of the single locations. This constitutes a micro perspective of the map.

As described, each of the single locations may stand for itself and follow its own logic. At the same time they can be seen as interconnected with each other. In trying to bring together these two dimensions of materialistic cycles, the geographically fixed locations were embedded into two longer “stories of trash” - each with an individual plot. While the orange line on the map represents a focus on institutionalized affiliations with trash, the green line is a connection of locations in which more small-scale and bottom-up perspectives are represented.

TOP-DOWN PERSPECTIVE (ORANGE LINE)

The description of locations on the orange line begins in the North-East of the district with the river, as a primarily natural habitat, representing the first location. It then follows a progression through locations in which human-environment relations coincide and specific places of production or consumption become visible. The last station is a description of the power plant, representing intensive human influence within nature. Throughout its progression the orange line tries to exemplify different locations and their meaning from an environmentally focused perspective on the institutionalization of trash. At the same time, the first and last stops of the orange line describe a connection between Vilnius city and Lazdynai as a district on its periphery. With Lazdynai being affected by the flow of waste sewage coming from the inhabitants of Vilnius’ city center over several centuries in the past, the planned power plant symbolizes a structure of relevance concerning the energy supply of the entire region around Lazdynai. These connections are further influenced by the greater politics of environmental protection and energy regulation directed and regulated by the European Union.

BOTTLE-UP PERSPECTIVE (GREEN LINE)

While the green line describes half the amount of locations as the orange line does, it represents an opposite perspective on human-environment interactions concerning trash. Its perspective includes a focus on social interaction within human-environment relations. The green line also reveals that the conventional view on trash does not always comply with the definition of “unusable material”. While materialistic values are challenged and contrasted against aesthetic ones, the existence of specific power relations becomes evident. This may mean the exclusion of certain interest groups from materialistic cycles, or that certain interest groups are capable of exercising power over others. The perspective furthermore challenges the ways in which materials may be perceived as trash and how these perceptions result in alternative usage thus enabling an attachment of different values to them.

GREEN LINE REPRSESENTS

the human-environment interaction focusing on

SOCIAL ISSUES

ORANGE LINE REPRSESENTS

the human-environmental interaction focusing on

INSTITUTIONALIZATION

THE RIVER

As already mentioned, the orange line begins with the river as a primarily natural habitat, but also the key geographical feature that led to the situating of Vilnius in its current location. The Neris passes through the city of Vilnius and also flows through the district of Lazdynai, establishing a natural border between the district and Vingis Park situated on the opposite shore. Over centuries the river has been shaping its bed into the countryside and therefore greatly affected the landscape’s topography that, as discussed above, influenced how the architectural features of the district were constructed. Given the importance of the river both for the district and Vilnius more generally, we have decided to take the river as the first and a conceptual stage-setting point for the other spots.

Moreover, the Neris River should not be understood as a purely physical and natural setting, since the flow of water connects different locales and facilitates the “metabolism of urban space”, to use Maria Kaïka’s (2005: 7) words that consists of natural, technological, capital and human labour inputs. On the ground, the connectivity that the Neris facilitates can be represented by two examples. On the one hand, it serves as a recreational site where people can swim, relax and interact with the nature. As researchers of the Neris basin have underlined, the importance of the river is increasing nowadays because of its recreational value, “it has a very high potential due to a variety of landscapes and attractive water sites” (Šceponaviciute and Semeniene 2006: 5) that can be used for swimming, fishing, picnicking or camping in water-front areas. Developing this potential will require both new importance of maintaining of the cleanliness of the water of the Neris and the creation of new infrastructure for leisure along its banks.

On the other hand, and perhaps paradoxically, the river used to and still serves as a peripheral element of Vilnius’ sewage system. Thus, we might observe that the Neris not only connects and divides central and peripheral areas of the city, but it also that this natural setting is influenced by consumption practices in different ways: not only the consumption of water, but also consumption through the use of water as a location for leisure activities, among many other uses. It is also linked to trash practices in different respects, such as sewage, drainage waters from both the city and further upsteam and littering by those who make use of its banks. Connecting the social and the natural, this first empirical spot asks a question of what the proximity to the river might mean not just for Vilnius, but for Lazdynai as a district and also sets the tone for a discussion in relation to how “natural” the urban nature of Lazdynai is. This question is further elaborated in relation to the next spot – the forest.

THE FOREST

The strip of forest connects the River Neris to the residential district of Lazdynai. Situated on the slope above the river, the hilltop of the forest provides a beautiful panorama over the river, the Vingis Park on its other side, and even the Old Town of Vilnius. The landscape of this place is truly dramatic, and carries historical value: it was here that settlements were created after the last ice sheets covering Lithuania moved northwards. It is not surprising that this place was also chosen for the building of the “sleeping district” of Lazdynai. The forest’s natural and recreational aspects set it apart from the densely built and populated inner city areas.

When the district was being built, although the forested areas around Lazdynai were preserved, they bore no legal status of protection. Since independence, the Lazdynai forest was redefined by the Ministry of Environment as a landscape reserve (lt. “kraštovaizdzio draustinis”; rus. “ландшафтный заповедник”). The status assigned to it meant that it is to be used both for protecting nature (a number of restrictions, such as building on site, apply) and for visiting for the purposes of recreation, education, etc. Because of this social function, it was decided to “upgrade” the forest in order to make it more easily accessible for people. This process of upgrading included the establishing of a highly differentiated system of paths for walking (walking routes, skiing and cycling paths), building sightseeing platforms, introducing sign boards, etc. During fieldwork, we interviewed the representatives of the architectural firm that was commissioned to accomplish this task. According to the firm, the park was mainly designed for local people, as the most frequent visitors to the park, and the paths, for example, were organized to match the walking routes already existing (Rekreacine Statyba, 26 February 2014, Vilnius).

The forest is highly valued by the local residents, almost all our casual informants in the district referred to it as the defining feature of the landscape, beautiful place for leisure, and a source of clean air – a natural treasure, to be precise. However, standing on one of the man-made sightseeing platforms built in the forest above Neris discussing our project, it occurred to us that although the forest appears a purely natural area, on a closer look the relationship between the social and natural environments of the district are here too inseparably woven together. Perhaps, this point can be best illustrated by how the social history of the place is writing itself into nature, which echoes Swyngedouw’s (1996, see

also Swyngedouw and Heinen 2003: 897, 908) synthetic approach to nature being, from his point of view, a result of specific geo-historical circumstances.So, the River Neris sets apart two natural areas which appear as uniform green areas. On the left side of the river, there is Vingis Park, while on the right is the Lazdynai forest. These two areas are both distinctly defined: one is an urban park used since the 16th century (Vilniaus Miesto Parkai website 2014), and the other one is a nationally protected landscape reserve. They were both only brought into the area of Vilnius proper with the building of Lazdynai, “encapsulating” the two green areas into the territory of the city. Only a small bridge connects the two. According to their different statuses, the areas are differently perceived and managed: for example, the park appears more “cultivated” while the forest appears more “wild”. The management of rubbish in both areas is also differently organized: the former is looked after and cleaned by the municipality while the latter is under the direct responsibility of the Authority for Protected Areas. These two places also have distinct histories based on how they evolved under socialism that are unfortunately beyond the scope of this review.

However, in relation to the forest, it is important to stress that it was rather an unqualified wild area of which residents made improvised use and in which the nomenklatura built a guest residence that still obstructs walking routes between Lazdynai and Karoliniškes and the Zverynas district. Crucially, for us in this point, under post-socialism the wilderness of the forest is being produced and modulated by an architectural company specializing in landscape design. Thus, in post-socialism, the “wilderness” does not only exist, but is also being valued and produced through design and a new managing of it. So, what the empirical spot of “the forest” illustrates, is how intricate and not always apparent the history of people’s engagement with nature is and also how much the “labels” that we as humans put on different places, influence way these places are perceived and organized over long periods of time. These changes redefine our understanding of what is wild or natural, and reconfigure relations with human practice and what is considered as trash in a given context.

THE SUPERMARKET

So far, the topic of consumption albeit central to our research has not been dealt with in detail. The empirical spot of the supermarket provides an excellent opportunity to do so in relation to trash practices in the district. The supermarket symbolizes a powerful actor in the district’s networks of production and consumption. While it is locally situated in Lazdynai, an important aspect is its international connection to a global market. This connection is expressed in the import of goods from internationally operating actors and foreign countries that follow a capitalistic logic of the market in which the production of goods is primarily not oriented towards the consumption needs of users, but towards the maximization of profit. This results in overproduction.

Given that goods are not produced locally leads to a hazy understanding of where the goods come from, how they are produced, etc. The clarity of where the used goods (rubbish) go to is similarly blurred. As a result, there is the increased non-caring about materials and the ecological implications of their production and consumption. Such dynamics are counter-acted by attaching values to materials in order to counteract an exclusive focus on the exchange value of goods. Since 2006, a 0.25 LTL deposit system for packaging has been implemented, which resulted in a turn back rate of 85-90 %. It is intended to expand this recycling and legally enforce it by law on all major retailers in Lithuania by 2015 (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, 2013). Thus, it is possible to claim that Lithuania is slowly redefining its rubbish into a resource, or in accordance with definitions introduced above, “waste” (Cooper 2009: 3).

What this spot also illustrates is the “internal” cycle of trash as circulation of objects that are continuously defined and re-defined as useful material or rubbish according to their exchange value. This point can be illustrated with the example of the plastic bottles that are collected in Lazdynai by urban dwellers with low-to-none income. For example, empty plastic or glass bottles are thrown away by some residents because they are considered as rubbish or useless material, but are redefined by those who collect and deposit them in return for monetary value as “waste”, or resource. Here, the supermarket exemplifies both the site of selling goods that may be later discarded and the site where some recycleable materials could be brought to for recycling. In some locations these practices may even be so intensive that they turn into informal economies which are connected to trash in the sense that they foster networks and entirely new social realms of deposit collectors working together and also against each other (see empirical spot “RUBBISH MAFIA”).

THE SWIMMING POOL

In 1979, the Vilnius Palace of the Water Sports (lt. “Vandens Sporto Rumai”) was built according to design of architect Edmundas Stasiulis. Such noble name for what was later renamed Lazdynai Swimming Pool (lt. “Lazdynu Baseinas”) was assigned on account of the excellent facilities of the pool: the only 50 metres (Olympic size) pool in the capital, and the only 10 metre diving tower. Thirty-five years after its construction the pool is still operational despite the fact that the building, notwithstanding short-term emergency works, has not been thoroughly upgraded since the time of its construction. Since 2010, the overall building safety standards have been classified as an emergency for ‘it is technically and morally out of date’ (Paulauskaite 2014: 5, our emphasis).

The problems with the swimming pool are multiple: it is not competitive among the privately-owned modern swimming pools, the facilities are in bad need of repair, the ventilation system is not working properly and the roof is on the verge of collapsing. Also, the building is not economically engineered – the humidity affects the walls of the building which are unable to retain heat and water pipes are old which causes water waste (ibid.). Given the scale of the problems, it has been decided that a reconstruction of the pool is not economically viable and that the building has to be demolished altogether. It was also decided to construct a new ‘Multifunctional Lazdynai Health Centre’ which would match the international standards of FINA, comprising two (25 and 50 metres) swimming pools and hosting the world-class swimming competitions. The investment project’s description for the new centre, comprising a gross value of 60 million LTL, was released this year (Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybe website 2014 b).

The Lazdynai swimming pool is relevant in this study in at least two respects. On the one hand, it can be examined as a swimming pool in the sense of how the flows of “natural” resources, such as water or heat, are transformed through it both materialistically (the chemical composition of water) and socially (water as “untamed”, natural, dangerous to sanitized, clean, useable). Thus, it illustrates not only the invisible transformation of substances from “natural” to “social”, but is also a part of what in UPE is called the networks or flows that connect the seemingly separate urban and natural settings through the “urbanization of nature” (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003: 900).

From the second point of view, it can be examined as a piece of Soviet heritage, and pose question as to how the Soviet infrastructure is dealt with in the context of present day Lazdynai and in relation to trash. For example, as indicated in the investment plan for the new pool above, it is not only that the building is considered to be a source of wasteful practices unfit to the present situation, but also as morally tired. What is this “moral tiredness” is and how is it manifested? In the light of such a definition, can the Soviet heritage more broadly be considered as trash – something unwanted, not valued, not appealing? These are the very important question not only for Lithuania, but for the post-socialist spaces more generally. And their importance often is evident in public debate in terms of what can or cannot be considered as Soviet heritage. At this point we propose reading our colleagues’ work in the present volume, which focuses on heritage in Šnipiškes and deals with this question more extensively.

LINDA’S PLACE

Linda’s place refers to the clearly delineated but, to the uninitiated eye, not visibly bordered area in inner Lazdynai that Linda as a street cleaner is responsible for. During fieldwork, we have conducted an interview with Linda, who showed us the boundaries of her territory, explained the nature of her work (sweeping leaves in the autumn and snow in the winter, the general upkeep of paths, etc), and shared her personal insights on everyday encounters with rubbish in the district. The cleaning and upkeep of the city’s territory is generally under the responsibility of the Vilnius municipality that issues a bid for private companies to take. The company who wins the bid is paid from the taxes collected from residents. At the end of 2013, an interesting discussion took place on who is to organize the cleaning of the territories around blocks of flats – the municipality or the local people. It was decided to delegate this task directly to the residents, but the decision was cancelled in July, 2014 (Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybe 2014 a). Linda is one of around twenty employees of the company that is responsible for cleaning the territory of Lazdynai and thus is a part of what we have called institutional approach to rubbish – the infrastructure of rubbish management in Lazdynai discussed in more detail in “LAZDYNU SENIUNIJA”.

Equally, if not more, interesting is the link between macro- and micro-scale of trash transformations that Linda’s place embodies. First of all, what the interview with Linda has shown, is that the street cleaner’s everyday encounters with rubbish should not be viewed as merely occupational, since it enables the street cleaner to have a very specific experiential engagement with the district’s environment. Probably, no other resident of the place could comment on how much snowing or how many leaves were piling on the streets last year, as the environmental conditions have a direct effect on the cleaner’s body through the nature of their work. Also, this spot can be used to illustrate how rubbish becomes “socialized” on the personal and community level.

Linda has been living in Lazdynai for decades and like many other inhabitants of Lazdynai used to be employed at the local Vilnius factory producing televisions and radios. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these factories went broke, so she has taken the present position as a cleaning lady in order to provide for herself. According to Linda, when she was working at the factory, her engagement with the district was “transitory”: walking to or from the bus stop when travelling to or from work, and spending only little time outside. Being outdoors most of the day now, she has become more aware of the social networks, while being in touch with the materialistic side of the district’s everyday life: freeing public and private spaces from trash, produces by visitors and residents. Linda takes pride in the position she fills as a cleaning lady and as a care-taker for her neighborhood, at times even assuming a didactic approach to rubbish. For example, while we were walking around her territory, she pointed to a heap of cigarette butts under one window and told us that she does not sweep them on purpose, so that the smokers would notice them and stop throwing butts from their window. Thus, she also exerts social control by assuming functions comparable to what Jane Jacobs (1961) described as “eyes on the street”.

Given such intimate and socially significant engagement with trash that Linda’s place represent, we would like to suggest that it is a hybrid example of how private neighborhood initiative in the context of cleaning can be coupled with a cleaning organization on an institutionalized level. In a case, Linda could have been on either line, since while her position is institutionally designed, it is her personal approach to the job that is fundamental to both her experience and the role of trash in the spatial practices at this micro-level of spaces around and between a number of buildings.

LAZDYNU SENIUNIJAThe Seniunija, literally meaning the house of elders, represents the central administration point in the district of Lazdynai. During the fieldwork, we have conducted an interview from one of the representatives of Seniunija who explained how the intricate web of actors related to rubbish works in this micro-district of Vilnius. These actors include the Vilnius City Council, that bears the main responsibility for managing rubbish: setting and applying the sanitary regulations, reaching external environmental targets, issuing licences for rubbish transportation, commissioning private companies for cleaning the territories, etc. etc. On the ground the practical meeting of city’s needs is accomplished by private companies. There are six of these companies in Vilnius, but the business is recently becoming monopolized as there are two leaders among them – “Ecoservisas” and “VSA Vilnius” (Seniunija, 27 February 2014, Lazdynai). These, in turn, sub-commission smaller enterprises to manage separate issues.

On the district’s level, the management works as follows: municipal waste is managed by the company that holds a license for the transportation of rubbish from the containers to the landfill. Residents pay for the services according to their monthly bill, calculated by the square metres of their living area: the larger the flat one occupies is, the bigger the bill becomes. According to the state average, each person produces approximately 96 kilograms of rubbish per year and the monthly spending for rubbish collection per household is between 8 and 18 LTL (NWMS 2014: § 82, 113). The collection of rubbish to be recycled, on the other hand, is conducted for free, since it brings profit to the operator. Despite the fact that recycling does not enjoy popularity among the residents of the district, it is actively used by the owners of private houses. This is due to the fact that the owners of private houses can separate rubbish more carefully (compost food waste, recycle, burn some items, etc.), and not have such large quantities of domestic waste as the residents of blocks of flats. Thus, the private house owners might not need the service of municipal waste collectors altogether. The cleaning of the territory of the district is also organized by separate companies that differentiate between: residential areas, roads, forests or parks, etc. (for example, see “THE FOREST”).

Thus, the institutional management of rubbish in the district is a patchwork of different actors on multi-scalar levels. Although the Seniunija is not an official actor of this system, it basically serves as a coordinating body which delegates residents’ concerns to the private companies, or pressures them to accomplish their work better if there are problems. It thus embodies the plurality of trash transformations characteristic of post-socialism.

HESBURGER

The fast food chain restaurant “Hesburger”, chosen for the map, is situated in the South-Western outskirts of the district, at the intersection of the major highway roads encircling Lazdynai and serving as an entrance to the city. Given its location, the restaurant is not easily accessible by foot, and therefore is principally designed for car owners who can pop in for a quick meal on their way to and from Vilnius. It serves food to be consumed “on the go”, and is thus similar to other fast food restaurant chains, such as McDonald’s. Also, conceptually it is similar to “THE SUPERMARKET” discussed above in the sense that while acting locally, it represents a globally connected actor for importing goods.

However, while the supermarket has been discussed as representing the connections between local and global, i.e. the external connections that it embodies, Hesburger is presented here mainly due to its internal logic of dealing both with food and waste in what we have decided to name a “hyper-rationalization of trash”. Given that it is a chain, the statutes of how food is prepared are carefully proscribed, and the customer, for example, can even view the amount of nutrition intake of various meals or the composition of the oil in which food is deep-fried (Hesburger website 2014).

A similarly strict order is applied to trash: the rubbish bins in which garbage is kept are locked so that – presumably – they cannot be emptied by “scavengers” such as dumpster divers. During fieldwork, we visited the back of the restaurant, where large containers are electronically supervised by CCTV cameras above them. Although we could not figure out whether the containers held rubbish or goods, their surveillance points to the fact that objects circulating within the chain are strictly ordered and organized. Such an observation suggests a hyper-extension of the rationalizing force of modernity noted above: both incoming ingredients and outgoing waste are surveilled as potential sources of value.

What is also interesting in relation to Hesburger is the self-portrayal of the company as environmentally friendly, thus referring us back to the concept of sustainable development discussed above. The company’s website even has a separate section of “Hesburger and the environment”, in which the etalon of their approach is exemplified by the Hyvinkää Eco-Restaurant in Finland which uses renewable energy sources for the operation of the restaurant. For example the interior and exterior are both equipped with LED lights that are energy-efficient, and it also includes green roof “which filters pollutants and carbon dioxide from air, and also functions as effective insulation” (Hesburger website 2014). Many other environmentally friendly steps are described, such as recycling oil used for deep-frying into biofuel, using biodegradable materials as packaging, etc. This illustrates precisely how even once-to-use serial objects are portrayed as a solution to save the planet (Igoe 2010: 376).

THE POWER PLANT

The power plant represented here refers to the rubbish sorting and biomass burning facility, which is planned to be constructed by 2015 by the company “Energesman” in the vicinity of Lazdynai, that would service the whole city. We view it as a semi-fictitious location on the map since it is still in the planning phase and has not been physically built yet. From the top-down perspective, the power plant seems to generate beneficial for the local region in two ways. On the one hand, by converting biomass into energy (the plant is suppossed to process 250 thousand tonnes of waste) it creates efficient ways of supplying the region with power. Especially in the colder winter months the increased efficiency in energy production is planned to lower the heating bills for individual inhabitants, thus making a noticeable difference in their everyday life. On the other hand, the power plant follows EU driven directives and regulations – overall, nine mechanical biological treatment facilities are planned to be built in Lithuania in the near future (EEA 2013). The environmental effectiveness standards are set at the European Union’s level, which adds an abstract and distant variable to the context of material substance conversions within the international energy market.

The power plant also has a more negative side to it as it pollutes the surrounding areas. The residents of Lazdynai are afraid that polluted air will be brought back to Lazdynai and Vilnius generally by the winds. As we have noted earlier, some facets of trash are not material or even physically visible, and the polluted air is one of these examples. Also, whereas the municipal rubbish being brought to the facility can be conceptualized as waste, i.e. resource, the “dirty” or “clean” air is commensurable in terms of people’s health. Thus, the debates about the facility’s construction are heatedly discussed by the residents of the district, who had bad experience related to the burning facility “Senove” processing chemical substances and polluting the air in the past (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas website 2014).

According to the representative of the anti-power-plant campaign whom we interviewed, most people in Lazdynai are unquestionably against the construction (Antanas, 26 February 2014, Lazdynai). Given that there is little transparency as to where materials that will be put into the plant will be extracted from, which exactly materials these will be and at which rate they will be burned increases feelings of insecurity and intangibility to the topic of energy production. Moreover, whereas initially the company constructing the plant did not intend to conduct the environmental assessment, at the beginning of June 2014 the Lithuanian Highest Administrative Court satisfied the appeal of the Lazdynai inhabitants in their quest to conduct such an environmental assessment (Kauno Diena online 2014 ). There are other problems related to the plant too. For example, as the construction is in part funded by the European Union, there is the competition for who has the right to built it, sometimes resulting in scandals. This is also pointing to the fact that rubbish is not only locally constituted, but is part of global big business.

This is the last location on the orange line, thus marking an opposition to the line’s beginning. The line begins in a natural environment and ends with a human built technological apparatus directed towards transforming trash in order to supply inhabitants with energy for consumption and production: it marks a point where apparently valueless trash has become big business. While the plant functions locally, energy imports and exports mark wider implications on a geopolitical scale as well. Also, while EU directives set standards for energy production, the trash is burned locally to produce energy but also with potential negative impact on local quality of air. Overall the point reveals the complexity of the argument being proposed by the present work.

PASAKU PARKAS

Similar to the red line, the green line also starts in a setting of nature. Pasaku Parkas (lt. ‘fairytale park’) is located between the districts of Lazdynai and Karoliniškes, thus connecting the two districts – locals often use the park to walk from one district to the other. The park was designed in 1986 by the architect Romualdas Jurgilis and opened to the public in 1987. The territory of the park is comprised of forest, within which recreational elements such as playgrounds and benches are situated. There is also a number of wooden sculptures inside the park, and as the name suggests, it was primarily designed for children. While nowadays the park has lost its initial gloss, it is still continued to be used as a leisure destination.

The reason why we mention it here is because the park allows us to ask how the conceptualization of rubbish differs in the different areas of the district. Being a space of transition, Pasaku Parkas is both geographically and mentally set apart from inhabited spaces. We would like to suggest that this leads to “distancing” when it comes to littering practices and responsibilities associated with “cleaning after yourself” on behalf of young people and other users of the park.

Viewed in this way, the spot can be conceptualized in contrast to the “LINDA’S PLACE”, in which responsibility is actively taken by people who inhabit and use a space on a daily basis. In the park, the trash related practices are more hidden than visible, similar to other settings such as woods. So, while this area is also part of the institutionalized management of trash, its psycho-geography allows for a more concealed environment that is perceived and managed on an individual and small-scale level as the place dictates less public control and visibility. It can therefore be argued that rubbish is not only materialistic, but also situational entity. Moreover, as in the case of Lazdynai swimming pool and concerning attitudes towards socialist heritage, it is necessary to ask how people value a place in order to assess and understand the particular way they behave in it. Perhaps, the symbolic devaluation of a location leads to more care-free behaviour and increased littering?

THE BOTTLE GARDEN

The second spot on the green line refers to one of the inner yards of Lazdynai, where some of the house inhabitants have arranged a garden using brown plastic bottles turned upside down as a fencing material. This spot directs the focus towards visualizing alternative values of trash materials, such as empty bottles, away from the monetary value that they hold. As described earlier, in 2006 the Lithuanian government introduced a small economic deposit value on recyclable materials, such as bottles (Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, 2013) in order to increase recycling practices and lower the volume of trash. While the monetary value is attached to materials through a cyclic refunding system in order to facilitate the functioning of the deposit, it is not the only value inherent to the materials. When used in different ways than originally intended, objects can be “out-cycled”. By planting the bottles into the architecture of small private gardens in front of housing blocks where they line flowerbeds, the monetary value is supplemented with aesthetic one. In addition, biological trash, such as branches, was used to decorate the garden. These kind of propositions are not new, and various artists, such as Tim Nobel and Sue Webster, Vik Muniz or Sarah-Jane van der Westhuizen among many others, have been using trash as the material and subject of their work. Although, perhaps of a lesser artistic value, the bottle gardens hold a potential social component – when neighbors notice these activities and interventions, and subsequently engage in talking with each other. They also might be interested in taking part or even copying the idea themselves by decorating and influencing public spaces collectively, thus spreading the idea throughout neighborhoods. Speaking semiotically and in the light of the preceeding empirical spot, we would like to suggest that rubbish plays a quite significant role in communicating relationships between humans and their environment – whereas more littered places can be conceptualized as places of neglect, their decoration signifies that people take care of the environment surrounding them.

Certainly, while used in this way, the economic value of the plastic bottles does not disappear unless the bottles are destroyed or deformed and thsu made “unfit” to enter the cycle of trash transformations again. Also, the instances of reactivating the economic value can occur, when low-income individuals or groups steal the bottles from the garden in order to deposit them at the recyclng point.

THE “RUBBISH MAFIA”

The spot of the “rubbish mafia” illustrates the phrase “what counts as rubbish depends on who is counting”, as it is focused on the group of homeless people who collect rubbish in order to provide for their living by bringing them to recycling deposit points. The spot is mentioned here, not in order to highlight a specific geographical, physical location, but to indicate a wider identification of how bottom-up practices related to trash enable small scale economical as well as social connections.

During our fieldwork, we noticed that homeless people living in Lazdynai collected different materials from different dustbins – not only the ones containing plastic or glass bottles which could be recycled at, for example, “EKO TAŠKAS” (the next spot in our analysis). For instance, on one occasion we witnessed how a group of homeless people gathered around a site. They were hanging around, chatting, laughing. The same people gathered in the same place on the following day as well. Thus, it became clear that they know each other well, and perhaps even “work” together. This brought up the assumption that the activity of the “rubbish mafia”, or “bottle hunters” as they are sometimes called, is stretched beyond economic incentives to create a particular kind of sociality.

This sociality has also its distinctive features, and it is very exclusive. For example, we have tried to talk to some of these people, but they were unwilling to do so. Perhaps, this is due to how these people are generally perceived as “useless”, “wasted” lives that are not actively participating in “normal” society. So, following the work of Mary Douglas (1966) and the classification of dirt as setting the inside and outside borders of society, it is possible to argue that these people are considered as “dirty” both in the direct sense and in the sense of being socially “polluted”. Or, to put in the words of Tim Cooper, “dirt comes into being and goes out of being through social procedures of identification” (2009: 3, our emphasis). It would be interesting to research how both the lives of these people and “the social procedures of identification” are linked to the discussion of post-socialism.

Altogether, on the one hand, the present spot highlights how rubbish is not only the by-product of human life – a derivative of the social world, but can also gather a particular kind of sociality around it. On the other hand, it illustrates the distinction between “dirt” and “waste”, the former being tied to setting boundaries within society, and the latter being conceptualized as a resource.

EKO TAŠKAS

The conception of waste as a resource being one of the pillars of sustainable development discourse, is disccussed here through the example of Eko Taškas. Eko Taškas (lt. “eco point”) is a small kiosk near the supermarket that buys recyclable trash materials (glass bottles, PET packages, aluminum packages, paper) from the district’s inhabitants. As of April 2012, there were fourteen of these collection points in Vilnius (Eko Taškas website 2014). The collection point acts as an intermediary between individual consumers from whom rubbish is bought and large companies to which the collected materials are later sold. As an actor in an economically liberalized society, which is subject to capitalistic market logics, it is included in the institutional system of rubbish management. However, its importance for the bottom-up recycling practices should not be underestimated.

The importance of Eko Taškas is due to the fact that a great variety of recyclable materials (e.g. unused electronic appliences) can be sold here and that it is designed specifically for individual consumers, since the point collects recyclable materials in small quantities. It therefore creates an attractive possibility for individuals to not only to get rid of their domestic waste, but also to actively collect these materials in public spaces. Such active collection re-opens a perspective on local informal economies, as discussed in relation to the “RUBBISH MAFIA”. In some ways, such practices are the continuation of those present during socialism (glass collection points, cleaning streets during school time or during the so-called saturdays (rus. “субботники”)), while in other ways they are completely novel.

Attaching the monetary values to materials and buying them from individuals may increase ecological awareness through the link to recycling practices. Thus, Eko Taškas can be seen as a local actor strengthening these practices and enabling individuals to take part in environment-friendly and more efficient way of living. However, as discussed in the section on sustainable development, a number of problems in portraying and perceiving recycling as “more efficient” and “environmentally-friendly” still remain. The first relates to the fact that market logics are employed in order to tackle problems inherent in the logic itself; the second relates to the question of what kind of nature it links up to – “real” or “imaginary”; and the third asks what kind of subjectivities such practices produce. What seems important overall, is how these subjectivities transformed from socialist to post-socialist times.

CONCLUSION: recycling socialism

Within the two week Winter School Mapping Post-Socialist Urban Spaces in Vilnius, the group focused on researching the transformations of trash practices in the “sleeping district” of Lazdynai. Our goal was to define material, economic, spatial and political transformations of rubbish and to visualize these transformations through critical mapping. Special attention was given to the chronological and political framework of “socialism” and “post-socialism”. On the final map, two perspectives of trash practices were developed: the “top-down” perspective focused on institutionalized practices comprised of more powerful and visible actors and the “bottle-up” perspective highlighted less visible grass-roots practices of local community members and how they dealt with trash in multiple ways.

The resulting map included: a discussion of twelve empirical spots which were discussed through the theoretical framework of the discursive production of nature in the Soviet Union, questions on how nature was incorporated into the urban planning of the district, conceptual distinctions between “dirt” and “waste”, and the concept of sustainable development. Bridging the empirical observations with theory elucidated the individual logics according to which each place on the map operates, and also allowed for conceptualizing the twelve places as interrelated. This contributed to the holistic understanding of the district as a mix of agency, infrastructure and structural changes affecting the district at a variety of spatial levels. In addition to examining the management and practices related to trash within the district, the “trash transformations” have also opened up the possibility of conceptualizing Lazdynai in relation to some “global” processes.

What the present research has shown is that globalization proves to be an important factor in shaping the transition from “socialist” to “post-socialist” times in that it entails economic, environmental and spatial characteristics generated globally and simultaneously creating realities locally. For example, the fact that within the global market economy goods are produced cost-effectively in “far away places” and then shipped to regions with high capital in order to maximize profits through sale has been demonstrated through places such as “THE SUPERMARKET” and “HESBURGER”. The distancing between the sites of production and sites of consumption not only increases the intangibility of the goods’ histories (and the rubbish), but it also has a direct effect on

“TRASH TRANSFORMATIONS”

has conceptualized Lazdynai in relation to

global processes

globalizationis an important factor

shaping the transition from “SOCIALIST” TO

“POST-SOCIALIST”

GLOBAL MARKET and its idea to maximize

profit affects the organization of local

economies and creates rubbish as a by-product

how local economies are organized. While socialist economies tended to be managed centrally, post-socialist transformations moved this management in the direction of rearranging different forms of capital in multiple places, which makes them increasingly difficult to trace, and to map. Partially, this question of the complexity of actors involved in managing rubbish has been discussed in relation to “LAZDYNU SENIUNIJA”.

From an environmental perspective, the effect of distancing is also crucial concerning the side effects of production and discarding of rubbish. These may be the pollution of nature or health impacts on local inhabitants. In relation to this point, the fact that locality matters was illustrated by discussing the proposition to construct a rubbish burning facility near Lazdynai (“THE POWER PLANT”). While only few residents questioned what effect local consumption of goods has on the places of their production, many of them were acutely concerned with the construction of the power plant. It is therefore possible to claim that the increased geographical distances may lead to biased perceptions of the impacts at the local level, making it increasingly difficult to tackle these problems in the future. On the other hand, we also came across statements about the importance of raising more awareness concerning the globality of environmental cause several times during the fieldwork. On the ground, the need to recycle is communicated by the very presence of recycling containers and places such as “EKO TAŠKAS” in the district.

Air pollution or the contamination of river does not stop at political borders between “outside” and “inside” (“THE RIVER”). Nevertheless it is also necessary to note that the rhetoric of a borderless world can be skillfully employed by actors, such as companies which, for example, run recycling business, and for whom “waste” does not constitute a problem but a very tangible material resource and capital. This discussion is also tied to some of the problems embedded in the paradigm of sustainable development presented above. Wrapped in the rhetoric of “doing good for the planet” and aiming at fostering a particular kind of subjectivities, practices like recycling often tend to eliminate the side-effect (i.e. rubbish) rather than the root cause (i.e. overflowing consumption). However, when accepted and promoted at the international level, as is the case of various European Union environmental directives, practices following the concept of sustainable development become politically legitimate, economically viable and socially normative.

WHILE SOCIALIST ECONOMIES WERE managed centrally,

post-socialist transformations

has made it difficult to trace

CONCERNING RUBBISH

distancing production and consumption has

side effects

INCREASED GEOGRAPHICAL

distances may lead to biased perceptions of the impacts at the local level

In the context of Lazdynai, it is interesting to compare the notions of recycling during socialist times and nowadays, and to compare these to other “non-socialist” places that have undergone the project of modernization in which urban and industrial development were seen as the motors of progress. Were the socialist relations to nature and trash any different than in these other locales? Perhaps not. However, the fact that individuals often had to recycle on their own in order to get by in the shortage economy, less packaging was produced within less international networks. It can be argued that the socialist era brought forward less waste while still polluting more through industrial production, “uncalculated” landfilling, and a “waste of resources” such as water and heat (“SWIMMING POOL”).

So, although nature was already understood as a material resource upon which omnipotent humans built their society, the impact of human activity upon nature was assessed less than nowadays. Thus, we would like to suggest that nature is more rationalized now than during the socialist times – it can be consumed not only in the form of food or other products, but also as places of leisure or residence in more “green” and thus, “better” districts (see “THE RIVER”, “THE FOREST”). In this way Lazdynai itself becomes more “recyclable” in a post-socialist context than other adjacent districts, such as Karoliniškes, for example. So, how exactly can the infrastructure of Lazdynai be recycled as a space of harmonious relations with nature? Perhaps, as it was planned to be? What are the potentials and problems of this? Are they physical, social, political, economic, or a mix of all of them? Developing these questions further could constitute fruitful future avenues to explore.

And last but not least, what has not been touched in this conclusion is the question of how particular human subjectivities can be “recycled” in the post-socialist times – a term Sonja Luehrmann uses as “a metaphor for what people do with ways of thinking and acting that no longer quite work” (2005: 37). Our research has shown that there are numerous ways of particular socialist modes of thinking and acting that can be adopted to the new circumstances (see “LINDA’S PLACE” and the discussion on “the eyes of the street”), or that can be “out-cycled” as “the wasted lives” (“THE ‘RUBBISH MAFIA’”). It would therefore be interesting to research further whether, and how, a particular type of subjectivity is encouraged in today’s Lazdynai, whether obstacles and alternatives to this exist, and how these subjectivities can be compared with subjectivities cultivated during socialist times.

PRACTICES LIKE RECYCLING

often tend to eliminate the side-effect rather than

the root cause

NATURE is more rationalized now than during the

socialist times

how particular HUMAN

SUBJECTIVITIES can be “recycled” in the

post-socialist times?

BIBLIOGRAPHYAGARIN, Timofey. (2009) ‘Where Have All the Environmentalists Gone?’, in Journal of Baltic Studies 40 (3): 285 – 305.

AUERS, Daunis. (2012) ‘The Curious Case of the Latvian Greens’, in Environmental Politics 21 (3): 522 – 527.

BALCIUNAS, Vytautas and Jurgis VANAGAS. (1983) Lazdynai. Vilnius: Mokslas.

BALDIN, V. et al (eds.) (1987) The Architecture of USSR 1917 – 1987/ Архитектура СССР 1917 – 1987. Moscow: Stroiizdat [IN RUSSIAN].

BECK, Ulrich. (1996) ‘World Risk Society as Cosmopolitan Society? Ecological Questions in a Framework of Manufactured Uncertainties’, in Theory, Culture, Society 13 (1): 1 – 32.

BRAIN, Stephen. (2010) ‘The Great Stalin Plan for the Transformation of Nature’, in Environmental History 15: 670 – 700.

BROSIUS, Peter J. (1999) ‘Analyses and Interventions: Anthropological Engagements with Environmentalism’, in Current Anthropology 40 (3): 277 – 310.

BURNS, Emile. (2010 [1939]) ‘The Marxist View of Nature’, in What is Marxism?. Scottsdale: Prism Key Press: 70 – 79.

CALLON, Michel. (1987) ‘Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis’, in W.E.Bijker, T.P.Hughes and T.J.Pinch (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. London: MIT Press: 83 – 103.

CASEY, Edward S. (2010) ‘Place’, in A.Barnard and J.Spencer (eds.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge: 689 – 693.

CASTREE, Noel. (2010) ‘Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment: What Neoliberalism in, and What Difference Nature Makes to It’, in Geography Compass 4 (12): 1725 – 1733.

CHAKRABARTY, Dipesh. (1992) ‘Of Garbage, Modernity and the Citizen’s Gaze’, in Economic and Political Weekly 27 (10/11): 541 – 547.

COHEN, William A. and Ryan JOHNSON (eds.). (2005) Filth: Dirt, Disgust and Modern Life. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

COOPER, Tim. (2009) ‘Recycling Modernity: Towards an Environmental History of Waste’, in The 2009 Compass Interdisciplinary Virtual Conference. Available online at http://compassconference.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/conference-paper-recycling-modernity-towards-an-environmental-history-of-waste/ [Accessed 4 July 2014].

COPE, Benjamin; KUC, Miodrag; LUNEVICH, Irina; KIRPIKAU, Pavel; BARYSIONAK, Aliaksei and Indre RUSECKAITE. (2013) Jamming Underused Socialist Treasures project ‘JUST Sleeping District? Lazdynai for Lunatics’. Vilnius: European Humanities University. Description available online at http://jammingunderusedsocialisttreasures.wordpress.com/ [Accessed 18 July 2014].

CORBIN, Alain. (1986) The Foul and the Fragrant: Odour and the French Social Imagination. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

COSTLOW, Jane. (2003) ‘Imagination of Destruction: The Forest Question in Nineteenth-Century Russian Culture’, in The Russian Review 62: 91 – 118.

CRAMPTON, Jeremy W. and John KRYGIER. (2006) ‘An Introduction to Critical Cartography’, in

ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 4 (1): 11 – 33.

DEBORD, Guy. (1956) ‘Theory of the Dérive’, in Situationist International Online. Available online at http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/theory.html [Accessed 19 April 2014].

DOUGLAS, Mary. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.

DRACKNER, Mikael. (2005) ‘What is Waste? To Whom? An Anthropological Perspective on Garbage’, in Waste Management and Research 23: 175 – 181.

DREMAITE, Marija. (2013) ‘Modern Housing in Lithuania in the 1960s: Nordic Influences’, in Survival of the Modern: From Cultural Centres to Planned Suburbs. Denmark: Arkitekturforlaget B: 81 – 91.

GILLE, Zsuzsa. (2007) From the Cult of Waste to the Trash Heap of History: The Politics of Waste in Socialist and Post-Socialist Hungary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

GREGSON, Nicky; METCALFE, Alan and Louise CREWE. (2007) ‘Identity, Mobility and the Throwaway Society’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25 (4): 682 – 700.

HAMLIN, Christopher. (1998) Public Health and Social Justice in the Age of Chadwick: Britain 1800 – 1845. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HARAWAY, Donna. (1991) ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century’, in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge: 149 – 181.

HAWKINS, Gay. (2001) ‘Plastic Bags: Living with Rubbish’, in International Journal of Cultural Studies 4 (5): 5 – 23.

IGOE, Jim. (2010) ‘The Spectacle of Nature in the Global Economy of Appearances: Anthropological Engagements with the Spectacular Mediations of Transnational Conservation’, in Critique of Anthropology 30 (4): 375 – 397.

JACOBS, Jane. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Modern Library.

JOYCE, Patrick. (2003) The Rule of Freedom: Liberalism and the City. London: Verso.

KAÏKA, Maria. (2005) City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City. London: Routledge.

KEIL, Roger. (2003) ‘Urban Political Ecology’, in Urban Geography 24 (8): 723 – 738.

KRYGIER, John and Denis WOOD. (2009) ‘Ce n’est pas le monde (This is not the World)’, in Making Maps: DIY Cartography. Available online at: http://makingmaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ce_n_est_pas_le_monde.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2014].

LAPORTE, Dominique. (2000) History of Shit. Cambridge: MIT Press.

LATOUR, Bruno. (1988) ‘Mixing Human and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer’, in Social Problems 35 (3): 298 – 310.

LAW, John and John HASSARD (eds.). (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

LUCAS, Gavin. (2002) ‘Disposability and Dispossession in the Twentieth Century’, in Journal of Material Culture 7: 5 – 22.

LUEHRMANN, Sonja. (2005) ‘Recycling Cultural Construction: Desecularisation in Postsoviet Mari El’, in Religion, State and Society 33 (1): 35 – 56.

MAURER, Eva; RICHERS, Julia; RÜTHERS, Monica and Carmen Scheide (eds.). (2011) Soviet Space Culture: Cosmic Enthusiasm in Socialist Societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

OLDFIELD, J.D. and SHAW, D.J.B. (2002) ‘Revisiting Sustainable Development: Russian Cultural and Scientific Traditions and the Concept of Sustainable Development’, in Area 34 (4): 391 – 400.

OSTERGREN, David and Peter JACQUES. (2002) ‘A Political Economy of Russian Nature Conservation Policy: Why Scientists have Taken a Back Seat’, in Global Environmental Politics 2 (4): 102 – 124.

OTTER, Chris. (2002) ‘Making Liberalism Durable: Vision and Civility in the Late-Victorian City’, in Social History 27 (1): 1 – 15.

PAULAUSKAITE, Vaida. (2014) ‘Daugiafunkcinio Lazdynu Sveikatinimo Centro, Erfurto g. 13, Statybos Investicinis Projektas’/ ‘The Investment Project for the Multifunctional Lazdynai Health Centre Situated on 13 Erfurto Street’. Available online at http://vz.lt/images/publicationimages/ac01a2d2-e93e-4714-a053-c89f4c9cf803.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

PRYDE, Philip R. (1972) Conservation in the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RELPH, Edward. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Limited. RINKEVICIUS, Leonardas. (2000) ‘Transitional Economies’, in Environmental Politics 9 (1): 171 – 202.

SCANLAN, John. (2005) On Garbage. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

SCOONES, Ian. (1999) ‘New Ecology and the Social Sciences: What Prospects for a Fruitful Engagement?’, in Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 479 – 507.

SIKK, Allan and Rune H. ANDERSEN. (2009) ‘Without a Tinge of Red: The Fall and Rise of the Estonian Greens’, in Journal of Baltic Studies 40 (3): 349 – 373.

SMYTH, Luke. (2011) ‘Anthropological Critique of Sustainable Development’, in Cross-sections VII: 77 – 85.

STRMISKA, Michael. (2005) ‘The Music of the Past in Modern Baltic Paganism’, in Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 8 (3): 39 – 58.

SWYNGEDOUW, Erik. (1996) ‘The City as a Hybrid: On Nature, Society and Cyborg Urbanization’, in Capitalism Nature Socialism 7: 65 – 80.

SWYNGEDOUW, Erik and Nikolas C. HEYNEN. (2003) ‘Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale’, in Antipode 35 (5): 897 – 918.

ŠCEPONAVICITE, Rasa and Daiva SEMENIENE. (2006) ‘Neris Case Study Report (Deliverable D31)’. Institute for Environmental Studies. University of Amsterdam.

Available online at http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/D31%20Status%20report%20case%20study%20Neris%20Lithuania_tcm53-188714.pdf [Accessed 10 July 2014].

ŠIDLAUSKIENE, Aušra. (2007) Masters Thesis: ‘Lazdynu Seniunijos Socialiniai – Ekonominiai Pokyiai Atkurus Lietuvos Nepriklausomybe’/ ‘The Social- Economic Changes in the Lazdynai Seniunija After the Independence’. Vilnius Pedagogical University: Department of Natural

Science. Available online at http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2007~D_20070816_173224-55138/DS.005.0.02.ETD [Accessed 7 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

WEINER, Douglas R. (1988) Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

YATES, Julian S. and Jutta GUTBERLET. (2011) ‘Reclaiming and Recirculating Urban Natures: Integrated Organic Waste Management in Diadema, Brazil’, in Environment and Planning A 43: 2109 – 2124.

ONLINE SOURCESARCHITECTURE [excursion] FUND. (2012) ‘Expedition to the Soviet period Residential Districts: Map of Lazdynai’. Available online at http://www.archfondas.lt/en/excursion/post/expedition-to-the-soviet-period-residential-districts [Accessed 6 July 2014].

Eko Taškas website 2014. Available online at http://www.ekotaskas.lt/lit/IMG/51 [Accessed 20 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

European Environment Agency. (2013) Municipal Waste Management in Lithuania. Available online at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste/lithuania-municipal-waste-management [Accessed 25 June 2014].

Hesburger website 2014, Food. Available online at http://www.hesburger.com/food/hamburgers/double_burger [Accessed 18 July 2014].

Kauno Diena website 4 June 2014, Teismas: Del Vilniaus Atlieku Perdirbimo Gamyklos Aplinkosaugininkai Spres iš Naujo/ Court: The Environmentalists will Think about the Vilnius Waste Treatment Facility Again. Available online at: http://kauno.diena.lt/naujienos/vilnius/miesto-pulsas/teismas-del-vilniaus-atlieku-perdirbimo-gamyklos-aplinkosaugininkai-spres-naujo-633107#.U8qvtPmSwb0 [Accessed 19 July 2014].

Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2014, Atlieku Deginimo Gamykla prie Lazdynu/ Waste Burning Facility near Lazdynai. Available online at http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=9262&p_k=1&p_d=141353 [Accessed 18 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

National Waste Management Strategy 2014 – 2020/ Valstybinis Atlieku Tvarkymo 2014 – 2020 Metu Planas, approved on 16 April 2014 by the Lithuanian Government Decision Nr. 366. Available online at http://www.am.lt/VI/article.php3?article_id=13594 [Accessed 1 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

Vilniaus Miesto Parkai 2014, Vingio Parkas/ Park Vingis. Available online at http://www.vilniausparkai.lt/parkai/vingio-parkas/36-parkai/bernardinu-sodas-sereikiskiu-parkas [Accessed 18 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybe 2014 a, Vilnieciai nuo Liepos Nebebus Atsakingi uz Šalia Daugiabuciu Esancios Teritorijos Prieziura/ The Residents of Vilnius are not Going to be Responsible for the Territory Around the Block of Flats. Available online at http://www.vilnius.lt/lit/Vilnieciai_nuo_liepos_nebebus_atsakingi_/11790/5603 [Accessed 18 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybe 2014 b, Vilniuje Planuojamas Daugiafunkcio Lazdynu Sveikatinimo Centras, Projekto Verte – 60 mln. Litu/ The Multifunctional Lazdynai Health Centre is Planned in Vilnius, The Value of Project – 60 Million Litai. Available online at http://www.vilnius.lt/lit/_Placiau/11685/5492 [Accessed 18 July 2014, IN LITHUANIAN].

LIST OF ARRANGED INTERVIEWS1. Linda (pseudonym), 25 February 2014, Lazdynai. Linda is a local street cleaner of retirement

age. During the interview, she showed us around the territory she is responsible for, and explained the nature of her work. The interview was held outdoors (unrecorded) and lasted about 40 minutes.

2. Rekreacine Statyba, 26 February 2014, Vilnius. Interview was held with several representatives of the firm which is responsible for the project of making Lazdynai forest accessible to the public. During the interview, representatives described the nature of work conducted in the forest, and the guiding principles that were applied. Interview was held in their office and lasted one hour.

3. Antanas (pseudonym), 26 February 2014, Lazdynai. Antanas is a representative of the local public organization campaigning against the construction of the bio-mass burning facility near Gariunai. During the interview Antanas explained how the power plant is perceived by local community and the potential health hazards that polluted air causes. The interview was held in Lazdynu Seniunija and lasted 40 minutes.

4. Lazdynu Seniunija, 27 February 2014, Lazdynai. The interview was held with the representative of the Seniunija (unrecorded) who explained how the management of rubbish is organized in the district. The interview was held on site and lasted about half an hour.

TRASH TRANSFORMATIONS

EKO TAŠKASRUBBISHMAFIA

BOTTLEGARDEN

PASAKU PARKAS

natural BOTTLE-UP PERSPECTIVE built

POWER PLANT

HESBURGER SENIUNIJA LINDA’SPLACE

SWIMMING- POOL

SUPER-MARKET

FOREST RIVER

built TOP-DOWN PERSPECTIVE natural