*************************************************************************************

................................

O novelo da novela

O novelo da novela

Roberto DaMatta

'Vovô - perguntou umas das minhas netas -, por que a gente vê e acompanha as novelas?' A indagação se endereçava não tanto ao avô que, sendo professor, autor de livros e 'antropólogo-antropófago' (de idéias, é claro), tinha a obrigação de saber a resposta, mas a todo grupo que, de olhos vidrados, assistia a mais um capítulo de Paraíso Tropical em mágica sincronia com milhões de outras pessoas.

De fato, tirante a novela, o carnaval, o futebol e os eventos não previstos pelas rotinas - como a visita do papa que faz o mais empedernido materialista dialético e o mais enfurecido ateu virar 'católico' -, só o vergonhoso cotidiano dessa atividade contraditória que chamamos de 'política', faz com que alguém entre em sincronia com seus semelhantes no Brasil.

Achei a pergunta pertinente porque ela deixava de lado o julgamento de valor. O seu centro não era saber se a novela era boa ou ruim, se diminuía ou elevava os espíritos (como gosta de colocar a esquerda estrelada que odeia, mas vive da televisão; e agora vai montar uma indefinível 'TV pública'), mas queria discutir o poder de atração dessa forma de narrativa feita de situações em série, ligada entre si por meio de ganchos retóricos repetitivos, como o arcaico folhetim, mas contada por meio de imagens sucessivas e planos rápidos, palavras, gestos, montagem e música, como o moderno cinema.

Respondi que a novela atraía e enredava porque - como o Brasil das pessoas comuns, o nosso Brasil - ela contava muitas histórias ao mesmo tempo, combinando múltiplas vidas, profissões, personagens, destinos, relações e situações. São tantos contextos e personagens que alguma coisa acaba nos agarrando, promovendo uma densa identificação. Seu poder de 'dar o que falar' e de agregar o público era proporcional aos dilemas que ia apresentando paulatina, ciclicamente. De modo que quando um caso de amor terminava, a narrativa desvendava um ato criminoso, e assim por diante. Era uma forma de arte que simultaneamente prometia as certezas que aliviam e sustentam o voyeurismo, mas não deixava de garantir o inesperado, que é o sal da boa trama.

Por causa disso - acrescentei entusiasmado como sempre, mas sem ver que ninguém estava prestando a menor atenção ao que dizia, pois continuavam colados a telinha -, há em toda novela um núcleo articulador - uma rede central de intrigas - que serve de referência ao que se passa ao seu redor. Tal núcleo, ou centro dramático, pode ser uma academia de ginástica, uma empresa, um casarão, uma fábrica ou um clube, mas dentro desse quadro, o miolo é sempre uma família. Um grupo construído por laços de carne e sangue, atribuído pelo destino (ou por Deus), e dado a cada um de nós por nascimento. Esses laços - enfatizei olhando firme para dentro dos olhos de minha neta - que, no Brasil, são vistos como indestrutíveis e baseados em lealdades perpétuas, estão em oposição permanente com as relações individuais fundadas em escolhas, feitas fora da casa, por meio daquilo que se chama de liberdade.

É o conflito entre essas lealdades de sangue (dadas pelo nascimento), e os interesses individualizados, descobertos pelo amor e pelo erotismo que, com suas ricas variações, forma o tema central das novelas. A história é velha como um mito, todo mundo sabe o seu final e, no entanto, como ela é contada (e não vivida), como é algo a ver visto de fora para dentro (e não ao contrário), todo mundo assisti com interesse.

Ora, completei, esse embate entre a obrigação (que tem a ver com o dever para com a família) e a escolha individual (que promove riscos, pois está centrada num distanciamento do grupo em que se nasce) é muito brasileiro. Fala de como os laços de sangue são tão poderosos quanto as tais 'empresas' ou 'grupos' empresariais que, não apenas na novela, mas no Jornal Nacional, fazem manchete com seus conflitos sucessórios e suas sagas matrimoniais.

Deste modo, novela vai, novela vem, e o drama é sempre o de honrar os laços formados na casa e de ser, na rua, um indivíduo bem-sucedido. Coisa complexa quando sabemos que as normas da rua promovem uma apreciação igualitária das ações e, as da casa, o contrário. Assim, o mandão hierarquiza; mas seus filhos, mulher ou empregados são governados pela igualdade.

'Mas vovô, isso acontece em todas as histórias...' - retorquiu minha neta.

Sem dúvida... Mas em outros trópicos, o ponto todo é romper com a família e individualizar-se completamente, entrando de cabeça num mundo no qual não se tem nenhuma relação pessoal. Mas na novela, tudo pode ocorrer, menos cortar relações. Nosso romance não é biográfico. Não narra a saga de um descobrir-se individualmente, como as histórias inglesas e alemãs. Nele, a regra é o equilibrar-se no fio de navalha constituído pelo individualizar-se sem, em nenhum momento, livrar-se desses laços de família que são leves como as penas de um pardal, mas pesam como chumbo.

ESTADO DE SP,

16 de maio de 2007

'Brasil está destinado a ficar estacionado'

March 25, 2007  -  Estadão

'Brasil está destinado a ficar estacionado'

Desencantado com o País, príncipe francês dizia em 1838 que aqui só a natureza prestava

Lilia Moritz Schwarcz

O Brasil sempre significou um bom espelho invertido a atazanar a imaginação dos franceses. Enquanto 'eles' tinham muita 'civilização e pouca natureza', 'nós' éramos o local da 'grande flora, mas da falta de civilização'. Por isso, a narrativa de viajantes setecentistas, como Léris, Gandavo ou Thevet, acabou por germinar todo um imaginário acerca dessa colônia perdida na América; uma espécie de paraíso perdido. Tal simbologia tenderia a se arraigar ainda mais quando Rousseau, pautado na leitura dos viajantes do 16 e no ensaio de Montaigne, chamado Os Canibais - verdadeiro tratado elogioso sobre a maneira como os tupinambás faziam a guerra -, cunhou a idéia do 'bom selvagem'. É fato que esse era um modelo e não uma realidade empírica, mas a imagem romântica colou-se ao nosso território, associado à idéia do sublime e do maravilhoso. Sublime era a natureza, porém estranhos eram seus homens - nus e de costumes bizarros, ou ainda misturados em suas crenças e raças.

A vida dos franceses nesses trópicos americanos não seria, porém, fácil. Com a vinda de d. João ao Brasil em 1808 e com a declaração de guerra à França no mesmo ano, os compatriotas de Napoleão passaram a ser tratados como inimigos e sofreram, eles sim, um bloqueio transcontinental. A situação só começaria a mudar a partir de meados de 1814, quando, após o Congresso de Viena, o príncipe regente português anunciava que as relações entre os países seriam, a partir de então, 'amigáveis'; o que permitiria o livre trânsito de franceses em Portugal e também na rica colônia americana. Data desse momento o começo das novas relações oficiais franco-brasileiras, assim como se aceleram as trocas culturais, econômicas, científicas e comerciais entre as duas nações.

Entrariam no Brasil de d. João, de Pedro I e, sobretudo, de Pedro II viajantes, naturalistas e curiosos franceses que pareciam querer redescobrir um país descoberto há muito tempo. Para os franceses, que conheciam a América espanhola por intermédio de Humboldt mas desconheciam o Brasil, esse era o país mais 'exótico' do continente - com canibais, serpentes e natureza singular - mas, paradoxalmente, o mais 'civilizado': uma monarquia cercada de repúblicas.

É imbuído do desejo de entender uma nação tão particular que aporta no Rio, em 1838, o terceiro filho do rei-cidadão Luis Filipe de Orleáns; monarca que governou a França de 1830 a 1848. François Ferdinand Filipe Louis Marie d'Orleáns, futuro príncipe de Joinville, era na época um jovem tenente da marinha, e com apenas 20 anos mal sabia que, no futuro, iria se casar com a irmã de Pedro II, d. Francisca, que nesse momento achou desengonçada e com dentes horríveis.

Esta primeira viagem ao Brasil foi talvez aquela que causou maior impacto ao príncipe. François esteve no País de 1º de janeiro de 1838 a 22 de fevereiro e relatou as impressões da estada em um livro que está sendo lançado pela José Olympio, Diário de um Príncipe no Rio de Janeiro (84 págs., R$ 19). Nele, legou um relato espirituoso e escrachado, correspondente à atitude do viajante que traz sempre em sua mala os próprios costumes e traduz tudo a partir de suas lentes culturais, que o fazem oscilar entre o deslumbramento, o choque, a imaginação e a rejeição.

E no caso de nosso príncipe não seria diferente. No ano em que François desembarca, vivíamos a maior das crises regenciais. Feijó se demitira em 1837 e fora substituído interinamente por Pedro de Araújo Lima, que não dera conta de debelar as rebeliões do período: a Cabanagem no Pará, a Farroupilha no Rio Grande do Sul, a Revolta dos Malês na Bahia, além da Sabinada que eclodira em novembro daquele ano na mesma província. Não sem uma ponta de sarcasmo, Luis François refere-se a d. Pedro como 'o pequeno imperador', lamenta o estado de 'abandono e isolamento' do futuro monarca e de suas irmãs, assim como aposta que o País não ficaria integrado e coeso por muito tempo. 'As províncias comerciais do Pará, de Pernambuco e da Bahia vão separar-se, a do Rio Grande do Sul já se libertou e Santa Catarina seguirá seu exemplo. Restará então um império composto do Rio, São Paulo, Goiás e Matocross (sic) e alguns lugares cujo nome esqueci.'

François conhecia pouco mas julgava muito. Já na chegada, começa a debochar do jovem d. Pedro dizendo que, desde que havia sido anunciada sua visita, o futuro rei todo dia alertava as irmãs: 'Vistam-se depressa que o príncipe vem aí.' E a recepção do nobre francês não seria das melhores: um calor insuportável, 'negros pavorosos de raça cafre ou moçambicanos horrorosos', ameaças de tempestade e nuvens de mosquitos por todos os lados. A visita ao Paço de São Cristóvão também não o impressionou. Ao contrário, quando François desembarcou diante do Palácio Imperial, 'uma multidão enorme aí se comprimia, pois nesse país não há nenhum traço de polícia'. Isso sem esquecer da nota de escárnio diante do fraco cerimonial da corte: 'Uma carruagem atrelada a seis mulas escolta uma cavalaria cujas trombetas produzem sons como de chifres de boi.'

E era chegada a hora de encontrar a família imperial: 'Finalmente percebo uma figura miudinha, da altura da minha perna, empertigada, emproada: é sua Majestade!!' O pior é que a conversa não andava - 'nada o divertia'. Até o regente, percebendo o constrangimento, tentou puxar conversa com o príncipe francês. Parece que ninguém se entendia: o príncipe brasileiro falava sem parar, o francês respondia 'a torto e a direito' e nada descontraía o ambiente. 'Voltei como vim', escreveu o príncipe de Joinville, desfazendo do jovem rei, segundo ele, louro e miúdo como a família austríaca, 'mas com modos de um homem de 40 anos'. A visita a d. Pedro terminara: 'Logo me retirei cheio de piedade por essas pobres crianças abandonadas a quem dão apenas aquilo que é preciso para viver e que são perseguidas por uma nuvem de gente sem moral que deixa o país que lhes foi confiado dividir-se e cair em uma rápida decadência.'

Os costumes também faziam rir a esse representante da Monarquia de Julho. No baile que recebeu, estranhou as roupas da nobreza, e as danças lhe deram uma 'vontade inextinguível de rir'. O jeito foi ficar sentado no sofá, 'morrendo de tédio'. O príncipe só dava sinais de apreciar, mesmo, a vegetação local; na verdade, sua grande missão nessa viagem. Partiu com muita bagagem ('porque num país como este é preciso levar tudo'), viu matas admiráveis cheias de pássaro, o Pão de Açúcar, o Corcovado, atravessou rios de água fresca e montanhas arborizadas, além de ter praticado a caça; atividade dileta dos Orléans. O Brasil lhe parecia, sob esse ângulo, 'um país virgem', o que só fazia aumentar sua saudade da França.

Também não deixou de reparar 'na diferença de cores de toda essa gente'. O império americano era mesmo um 'laboratório de raças' aos olhos desses viajantes. Entabulou conversa com alguns proprietários de terra a respeito do tratamento, castigo e governo dos escravos e, aí sim, desfez dessa 'pobre civilização'. Por essas e por outras é que asseverou que 'o País, por causa de sua situação, população e personalidade dos habitantes, estava destinado a ficar estacionado por muito tempo'. Tudo lhe parecia indecente: estradas, roupas, os negros que dançavam com lascívia, a escravidão e a preguiça. E a conclusão era uma só: 'A viagem foi interessante, me fez conhecer bem o Brasil, mas me desencantei ...'

No entanto, até que a viagem trouxe rendimentos pessoais. François saiu do Brasil levando um leão que crescia e a cada dia ficava mais dócil; um gato tigrado; um sarigueia com seus filhotes no bolso; gazelas; macacos; papagaios; coelhos; uma preguiça e seu filho: 'O animal mais incrível que jamais vi.' Nosso príncipe virou feriado, ganhou medalha com a imagem de um índio ao centro e mereceu uma chuva de fogos de artifício. Essa gente era provinciana, mas sabia se divertir de vez em quando. François até que aproveitou de seu baile de despedida e dançou até as 4 e meia da madrugada, quando d. Pedro já se encontrava, faz tempo, embaixo dos lençóis: 'Dançamos um cotilon no meio do qual soltamos o leão dancei até cair morto.' Não obstante, partiu dizendo que daqui só a natureza prestava.

Mas vida de príncipe também é sujeita a reviravoltas. François acabaria por mudar de opinião, ao menos com relação à (outrora desengonçada) irmã de d. Pedro: d. Chica virou beldade. Por sinal, ele teve de esperar muito para que seu pedido de casamento fosse atendido e voltou mais duas vezes ao País. O bom humor do príncipe também seria afetado pelo destino da 'Monarquia de Julho' e pela destituição da dinastia de Luís Felipe de Orléans, que terminou seus dias com a revolução de 1848, a qual levou toda a sua família ao exílio na Inglaterra. O mundo andava convulsionado e também a civilização dos franceses não era lá essa coisas.

Diário de um Príncipe no Rio de Janeiro é um monumento ao bom humor. Pena que nessa edição faltem os desenhos, aquarelas, estampas e caricaturas que compõem o documento original; que pode ser encontrado no Museu de Petrópolis. Ninguém vê com olhos livres e sem filtros e nosso príncipe estava coberto deles. Mas esse diário não só testemunha a crise que viveu o Império durante as regências, como é original na sua escrita divertida; oposta aos documentos sisudos, que sempre legam uma visão enaltecedora e oficial. Nesse caso, tudo é palco para o deboche.

No fundo, nosso príncipe gozador só pretendia passar pelo Brasil: seu destino sempre foi a França. Diz ele na despedida: 'Velas ao vento, presentes a serem distribuídos e um baile à francesa a me esperar, assim como a honra nacional e nossa bela família.' Quem diria que todo esse cenário iria desabar em menos de 10 anos. Castelos são muitas vezes cenários frágeis.

Lilia Moritz Schwarcz é professora titular do Departamento de Antropologia e autora, entre outros, de As Barbas do Imperador


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 22/3/2007 07:44

Hora de unir a obra de Bento Prado

 
ESTADO DE SP - 21 de jan de 2007
Hora de unir a obra de Bento Prado

Notas de aulas, trechos de conversas: as muitas idéias e conceitos do filósofo foram em grande parte passados de forma oral

Renato Janine Ribeiro

Na adolescência tive uma professora estupenda, que me incutiu amor pelas coisas do conhecimento: dona Lia de Almeida Prado, que lecionava latim e português no Colégio Alberto Levy, em São Paulo. Quando prestei o vestibular de filosofia eu sabia que um irmão seu era professor destacado no departamento da USP, embora relativamente moço, mas demorei a conhecê-lo. Não cheguei a ser aluno de Bento Prado - nem de Giannotti, os dois cassados nossos de abril de 1969: eu entrava no segundo ano, eles não lecionavam no primeiro e, na verdade, pude ter apenas três aulas com Bento antes que a Voz do Brasil anunciasse a sua exclusão, arbitrária e criminosa, da universidade.

Assim, nunca fui próximo dele, que agora se extinguiu novo, aos 60 e poucos anos. Quando voltou à universidade, foi pela Federal de São Carlos, dirigida por um grande reitor, Saad Hossne, que se antecipou à USP na reintegração dos antigos cassados. Ficou em São Carlos, assinando seus textos de "Vila Pureza". Mas seus textos não foram, não são, pelo menos por ora, muitos. Espero que a família e os mais chegados providenciem a edição do que ficou inédito.

Só que o inédito de Bento nem sempre é um texto por ele escrito. Ao contrário de Giannotti, que publicou e publica em dimensão comparável à fama de que desfruta, Bento editou relativamente pouco. Paulo Arantes, num artigo que já tem anos, comentava a freqüência com que Bento presenteava algum aluno com um artigo inédito, após uma longa conversa. Deve haver inéditos dessa ordem. Mas também há notas de aula, lembranças de conversas e, embora possa parecer um pouco arcaizante a sugestão de que para o acesso às idéias de Bento seja preciso passarmos pelos depoimentos, como os que Diógenes Laércio coletou sobre os grandes pensadores antigos, é fato que muito da intervenção de Bento foi oral.

Era um grande conversador, que com facilidade imaginava idéias. Freqüentava não só a literatura, mas também o cinema e até o romance policial. Com ele, os gêneros se misturavam. Retirava conceitos e filosofia de quase qualquer matéria. Num ambiente em que os conceitos se prendem muito aos autores, em que a filosofia se tornou refém da história da filosofia (é assim que eu e alguns colegas vemos os impasses da filosofia no Brasil), Bento Prado era exemplar, porque, conhecedor profundo dos pensadores passados, circulava em meio a eles e a outros criadores como se todos fossem vivos.

Sua própria produção publicada o atesta. Tive a honra de editar seu Bergson pela Edusp, há uns vinte anos. Dirigia a comissão de publicações da Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas e nos empenhamos em fazer que teses notáveis, ainda inéditas, viessem a lume. Acabamos convencendo a Editora da USP, que até a época só atuava em co-edição, isto é, não tomava a iniciativa de editar mas ia a reboque de editoras comerciais, a criar uma série de teses das áreas de Humanas, que na verdade durou pouco. Cada faculdade escolheu um livro e a FFLCH, por seu tamanho maior, teve direito a um quinhão mais amplo, onde por sinal também figurou Antonio Candido.

Digo isso porque Bergson foi um dos filósofos mais afeitos à literatura, às artes, que houve. Pensador algo esquecido ao longo do século 20, foi contudo alguém que, 100 anos atrás, ajudou a estabelecer ou reforçar os laços entre o filosofar e o criar artístico. Também é significativo que Bento, a par dessa tese de livre-docência defendida nos anos 60, dedicasse especial carinho a dois outros tipos de escritos.

O primeiro são os escritos em torno da literatura, que aparecem em Alguns Ensaios, que publicou nos anos 80, e são complementados em edição posterior, na qual surgem novos artigos, tendo como eixo a ligação da filosofia com a literatura - por exemplo, de Guimarães Rosa com Heidegger. O segundo são os ensaios que dialogam com questões candentes de nosso tempo. Aqui, destaco duas vertentes. Uma é a do senso comum. Trata-se de um debate lançado entre nós especialmente por seu amigo e colega Porchat, que ao se tornar cético passou a celebrar as qualidades do senso comum sobre as da pretensão filosófica. Como muitos sabem, o diálogo aqui é difícil, não pelas personalidades (eram amigos), mas pela dificuldade de alguém de tradição européia continental, isto é, alemã até meados do século 20 e francesa desde inícios do mesmo século, fazer-se entender de (ou entender) alguém de tradição anglo-saxônica.

Porchat, formado embora na escola francesa (de Goldschmidt), fez-se próximo da visão mais prática dos anglo-saxões (um exemplo notável dessa diferença de posições saiu neste jornal há duas décadas, quando Gérard Lebrun resenhou o livro de Olivier Todd - jornalista francês de simpatia inglesa - sobre a filosofia de seu quase-pai adotivo, nada menos do que Jean-Paul Sartre, a quem Todd respeitava como pessoa mas cujas idéias não lhe pareciam simplesmente fazer sentido). Bento tinha escuta. O livro de ambos é um dos mais empolgantes da filosofia brasileira nos anos 90, debatendo eles com alguns colegas sobre a visão filosófica e a do senso comum sobre o mundo.

Falando em escuta, outra vertente que empenhou Bento foi a da psicanálise. Não só porque seu departamento em S. Carlos a trabalha em relação com a filosofia, e pelo conhecimento que sua esposa, Lucia Prado, tem do assunto, mas talvez porque esse movimento de idéias tão decisivo do século 20 apontasse bem os limites do diálogo. Em suma, tivemos em Bento alguém da boa tradição socrática (do diálogo, da conversa, da intervenção tanto mais forte porque oral), mas também com a suspeita que Freud deita sobre o diálogo, ao criar formas de escuta mais carregadas de dúvida.

Um comentário final e inevitável é: como Bento se dava num mundo em que cada vez mais se preza a publicação, a produção? Feita a ressalva de que a filosofia praticamente nasce com um grande mestre hiper-oral, Sócrates, é preciso também lembrar que Bento foi assessor do CNPq (onde deixou a lembrança de um "homem único, extraordinário, de fineza rara, inteligência aguda e espantosa simplicidade") e presidente da associação de pós-graduações em filosofia. Transitou no oral e no informal, mas também na instituição.

Mas creio sobretudo que há um grande erro em pensar que nosso tempo se divide entre o "publish or perish" de exigências que não levam em conta a qualidade e uma criação inefável, imensurável, de quem nunca presta contas em público. Primeiro, publicar trabalhos ruins não é valorizado por nenhum grupo científico. Segundo, personalidades como Bento são raras e não servem para justificar a improdutividade de quem nada faz. Mas termino, com o risco de me repetir: é hora de coletar as memórias, aulas, presenças de Bento Prado. Isso não é repetir Diógenes Laércio. Afinal, temos livros tanto de Hegel quanto de Heidegger, escritos a partir de notas de alunos. Se não me engano, a certa altura um estudante presenteou Bento com um livro pronto, do próprio Bento, que reunia aulas dele. É disso que, agora, precisamos.

Renato Janine Ribeiro é professor de Ética e Filosofia Política na USP e diretor de Avaliação da Capes


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.14/636 - Release Date: 18/01/2007

i carry your heart with me - E E Cummings

 
 
i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart) i am never without it (anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing, my darling)
                                    i fear
no fate (for you are my fate, my sweet) i want
no world (for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you
 
here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart
 
i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)

"Não sou profeta, mas Portugal acabará por integrar-se na Espanha"

 
 


"Não sou profeta, mas Portugal acabará por integrar-se na Espanha"



JOÃO CÉU E SILVA (texto e foto)
Este foi o regresso mais longo de José Saramago a Portugal desde que a polémica que envolveu a candidatura do seu livro O Evangelho segundo Jesus Cristo ao Prémio Literário Europeu o levou para um "exílio" na ilha espanhola de Lanzarote. A atribuição do Prémio Nobel parece tê-lo feito esquecer essas mágoas, mas não amoleceu a sua visão da sociedade e da História, que continua a ser polémica. Como se pode ver nesta entrevista.

Durante dois dias, o Nobel da Literatura português sentou-se no sofá e analisou o estado do mundo.

Na única entrevista que concedeu durante a temporada passada na sua casa de Lisboa, falou muito de política, mais de literatura e também da vida e da morte. Pelo meio ficou o anúncio da criação da fundação com o seu nome e a revelação de que está a escrever um novo livro.

A união ibérica

Este regresso a Portugal é um perdão?

O país não me fez mal algum, não confundamos, nem há nenhuma reconciliação porque não houve nenhum corte. O que aconteceu foi com um governo de um partido que já não é governo, com um senhor chamado Sousa Lara e outro de nome Santana Lopes. Claro que as responsabilidades estendem-se ao governo, a quem eu pedi o favor de fazer qualquer coisa mas não fez nada, e resolvi ir embora. Quando foi do Prémio Nobel, dei uma volta pelo país porque toda a gente me queria ver, até pessoas que não lêem apareceram! E desde então tenho vindo com muita frequência a Lisboa.

Vive num país que pouco a pouco toma conta da economia portuguesa. Não o incomoda?

Acho que é uma situação natural.

Qual é o futuro de Portugal nesta península?

Não vale a pena armar -me em profeta, mas acho que acabaremos por integrar-nos.

Política, económica ou culturalmente?

Culturalmente, não, a Catalunha tem a sua própria cultura, que é ao mesmo tempo comum ao resto da Espanha, tal como a dos bascos e a galega, nós não nos converteríamos em espanhóis. Quando olhamos para a Península Ibérica o que é que vemos? Observamos um conjunto, que não está partida em bocados e que é um todo que está composto de nacionalidades, e em alguns casos de línguas diferentes, mas que tem vivido mais ou menos em paz. Integrados o que é que aconteceria? Não deixaríamos de falar português, não deixaríamos de escrever na nossa língua e certamente com dez milhões de habitantes teríamos tudo a ganhar em desenvolvimento nesse tipo de aproximação e de integração territorial, administrativa e estrutural. Quanto à queixa que tantas vezes ouço sobre a economia espanhola estar a ocupar Portugal, não me lembro de alguma vez termos reclamado de outras economias como as dos Estados Unidos ou da Inglaterra, que também ocuparam o país. Ninguém se queixou, mas como desta vez é o castelhano que vencemos em Aljubarrota que vem por aí com empresas em vez de armas...

Seria, então, mais uma província de Espanha?

Seria isso. Já temos a Andaluzia, a Catalunha, o País Basco, a Galiza, Castilla la Mancha e tínhamos Portugal. Provavelmente [Espanha] teria de mudar de nome e passar a chamar-se Ibéria. Se Espanha ofende os nossos brios, era uma questão a negociar. O Ceilão não se chama agora Sri Lanka, muitos países da Ásia mudaram de nome e a União Soviética não passou a Federação Russa?

Mas algumas das províncias espanholas também querem ser independentes!

A única independência real que se pede é a do País Basco e mesmo assim ninguém acredita.

E os portugueses aceitariam a integração?

Acho que sim, desde que isso fosse explicado, não é uma cedência nem acabar com um país, continuaria de outra maneira. Repito que não se deixaria de falar, de pensar e sentir em português. Seríamos aqui aquilo que os catalães querem ser e estão a ser na Catalunha.

E como é que seria esse governo da Ibéria?

Não iríamos ser governados por espanhóis, haveria representantes dos partidos de ambos os países, que teriam representação num parlamento único com todas as forças políticas da Ibéria, e tal como em Espanha, onde cada autonomia tem o seu parlamento próprio, nós também o teríamos.

Há duas Espanhas

Os espanhóis olham-no como um deles?

Há duas Espanhas neste caso. Evidentemente, tratam-me como se fosse um deles, mas com as finanças espanholas ando numa guerra há, pelo menos, quatro anos porque querem que pague lá os impostos e consideram que lhes devo uma grande quantidade de dinheiro. Eu recusei-me a pagar e o meu argumento é extremamente simples, não pago duas vezes o que já paguei uma. Se há duplicação de impostos, então que o governo espanhol se entenda com o português e decidam. Eu tenho cá a minha casa e a minha residência fiscal sempre foi em Lisboa, ou seja, não há dúvidas de que estou numa situação de plena legalidade. Quanto aos impostos, e é por aí que também se vê o patriotismo, pago-os pontualmente em Portugal. Nunca pus o meu dinheiro num paraíso fiscal e repugna-me pensar que há quem o faça. O meu dinheiro é para aquilo que o Governo entender que serve.

Mas não pode negar que o olham como um deus...

Não diria tanto...

Mesmo sendo a crítica espanhola tão positiva em relação à sua obra?

Também já foi uma ou outra vez um pouco negativa - talvez devido às minhas posições políticas e ideológicas - mas de um modo geral tenho uma excelente crítica em toda a parte, como é o caso dos EUA, onde é quase unânime na apreciação da minha obra.

The democracy of Don Quixote


Issue 135 , June 2007
The democracy of Don Quixote
by Jonathan Rée
Novelists have always turned their hands to essays, and the essay-writing novelist remains a literary force to be reckoned with. The two forms share an inherent pluralism and scepticism that makes them natural allies of democracy
Jonathan Rée is a freelance historian and philosopher

In or around 1605, European literature changed. No one realised it at the time, but when Don Quixote set off to save the world, a new kind of writing was born. The old forms of storytelling—the epic, the romance, the oral tale—would from now on be pitted against a boisterous young rival. Before long it would be universally acknowledged that a reader hoping to enjoy a good story must be in search of a novel.

The novelty of the novel is of course connected with the rise of printing, and the growth of a literate public with time and money to spare. Beyond that, the sheer scale of the form allows storylines to be extended and multiplied as never before, crossing and re-crossing each other with ample scope for coincidence, surprise and contingency, and hence for the depiction of characters with whom, as William Hazlitt put it, the reader can "identify." But the most momentous way in which novels distinguish themselves from other kinds of storytelling is that they give a central role to a supernumerary character—the narrator—whose task is to transmit the story to us. All kinds of stories invite us to imagine the characters they portray, and involve ourselves in their fortunes and their follies; but to engage with novels we need to go one step further and imagine the people telling the story, or even identify with them.

The art of reading a novel involves a dash of experiment, conjecture, even risk. It requires readers to try out different narrative perspectives, styles, even personalities, and so to explore the inherent variousness of experience, and to recognise the vein of arbitrariness that runs through any possible version of events. Novels, in short, are implicitly pluralistic. In this respect they resemble essays, which, as it happens, came into existence at more or less the same time (Montaigne launched the form in 1580, with Bacon following in 1597). Essays tend to be classier, more learned and more demanding—there is no essayistic equivalent of the "popular novel"—and even when written in a perfectly casual style, they are likely to be strewn with half-concealed quotations or allusions to flatter or perhaps annoy the smarter class of reader. As exercises in hesitation, exploration and experimental self-multiplication, they are like novels, only more so. You might even say that the novel aspires to the condition of the essay, and there is certainly no shortage of novelists who have aspired to be essayists too. Think of Eliot or Henry James, Woolf, Forster or Orwell, or Mann, Sartre, De Beauvoir, Camus and Mary McCarthy. And as the four recently published books now lying open on my kitchen table demonstrate, the essay-writing novelist is still a literary force to be reckoned with.

In his luminous new collection, The Curtain (Faber & Faber), Milan Kundera argues that the special virtue of the novel lies in its ability to part the "magic curtain, woven of legends" that hangs between us and the ordinary world. The curtain has been put there to cover up the trivia of our lives, the forgotten old boxes and bags where "an enigma remains an enigma" while ugliness flirts with beauty, and reason courts the absurd. These neglected spaces were redeemed for literature, according to Kundera, at the moment when Cervantes got his readers to imagine Don Quixote as he lay dying while his niece went on eating, the housekeeper went on drinking and Sancho Panza went on being "of good cheer." By inventing a narrator through whose consciousness such dumb events could be worked up into an affecting "scene," Cervantes created a form of literature that could do justice to "modest sentiments"; and so a new kind of beauty—Kundera calls it "prosaic beauty"—was born. Henry Fielding took the technique further when he created a narrator who could charm his readers with benign loquacity, and Laurence Sterne completed the development by blithely allowing the story of Tristram Shandy to be ruined by the character trying to recount it.

If Cervantes rent the curtain that separates us from the prose of ordinary life, Kafka tore it down completely. After Kafka, according to Kundera, the novel entered a realm where reality could never "correspond to people's idea of it"; from now on the novel would be a constant witness to the "unavoidable relativism of human truths."

Kundera suggests that no one can become a novelist who has not passed through a long night of lyrical self-absorption to emerge on the other side in a state of bewildered, uncertain enlightenment. Novelists are specialists in the kind of moral wisdom which knows "that nobody is the person he thinks he is, that this misapprehension is universal, elementary, and that it casts on people… the soft gleam of the comical." And this gentle scepticism has political implications too, as Kundera notes when he recalls the "Manicheism" that deformed his native Czechoslovakia when he was a student in Prague after the second world war. Politics at that time was not a forum where perplexed citizens could engage in a collective search for freedom and happiness, or truth and reconciliation, but a battlefield where militant partisans would try to vindicate their correct views about everything and punish anyone who saw things differently. Kundera joined the Communist party, where he was taught that art must take sides in a historic "battle between good and evil," but he was never quite convinced. (In 1950 he was expelled from the party for his obtuseness, but eventually gained readmission, only to be expelled a second time in 1970, after which he escaped to France and set about rebuilding his literary life in a second language.) "Art is not a village band marching dutifully at History's heels," Kundera now says, and politics itself will suffocate without access to the forgiving fluidity of the novel. "The novel alone," as he puts it, "could reveal the immense, mysterious power of the pointless."

Jm Coetzee approaches politics with a similar combination of irony, seriousness and principled reticence. His political attitudes may be connected with the difficulties of being a liberal white South African, but they have their intellectual origins in his prodigious work as a novelist. His latest collection of essays, Inner Workings (Harvill Secker), keeps returning to the question of "the novel form," and how Cervantes created it in order to demonstrate the power of the imagination. One of the great virtues of the novel, according to Coetzee, is to teach us that there is no perfect way of carving up the world or recounting its stories. This is a lesson that bears on politics as well, counting against any political aspiration that arises from nationality, identity or tribal loyalty.

But Coetzee does not confine his attention to novelists, and an outstanding essay on Walt Whitman allows him to explore a conception of democracy that he himself would evidently endorse: democratic politics, he suggests, is "not one of the superficial inventions of human reason but an aspect of the ever-developing human spirit, rooted in eros." Those who make a fetish out of politics, he implies, are in danger of foreclosing on democracy. Take Walter Benjamin, for example. Coetzee, refusing to treat him with the awed indulgence that has become customary, contends that when Benjamin decided to become a good communist, it was not through an imaginative appraisal of political options, but was simply "an act of choosing sides, morally and historically, against the bourgeoisie and his own bourgeois origins." And if there was something silly and unconvincing about Benjamin's Marxism—"something forced about it, something merely reactive"—it could perhaps be attributed to a certain literary narcissism. "As a writer, Benjamin had no gift for evoking other people," Coetzee says; he had "no talent as a storyteller," and no capacity for the kind of compassionate intelligence implicit in the art of the novel. In a perverse attempt to opt for political realism rather than literary imagination, Benjamin managed to cut himself off from both.

Susan Sontag would have agreed with Coetzee about the political significance of literature. The novel, as she remarks in her last, posthumous collection At the Same Time (Hamish Hamilton), exists to recall us to a sense of the interminable diversity that is the basis of what she calls "politics, the politics of democracy." In a substantial essay on Victor Serge, she praises him for having combined political militancy with a serious engagement with the art of writing. As a mature novelist, she says, Serge was able to deploy "several different conceptions of how to narrate," elaborating a capacious "I" as a device for "giving voice to others." It was through his narratorial doubles that he liberated himself from what he called the "former beautiful simplicity" of the fight between capitalism and socialism, so as to produce books that were "better, wiser, more important than the person who wrote them."

Sontag herself never found it easy to reconcile the languorous pleasures of imaginative writing with her impulse to political plain speaking. "The wisdom of literature is quite antithetical to having opinions," she said, and "a writer ought not to be an opinion-machine." But she remained an irrepressible opinionator, and in At the Same Time—which contains much that she might have revised if death had not intervened—she sometimes lurches into monologues, adopting an unappealing tone of dogmatism, petulance, hyperbole and egocentricity. She finds it hard to talk about writers without telling us who is or is not "great" or "supremely great," as if world literature were a competitive sport, and she the ultimate umpire. And her fury at the condition of the US—she speaks of a "culture of shamelessness," marked by an "increasing acceptance of brutality" in which politics has been obliterated and "replaced by psychotherapy"—seems to have made her forget her own better self, and her neat summation of the wisdom of the novel: the generous knowledge that whatever may be happening, "something else is always going on."

Kundera, Coetzee and Sontag are, one feels, the kind of writers who might have steered clear of politics if they had not had it thrust upon them; but Mario Vargas Llosa has, on at least one occasion, gone out of his way to achieve political power. He won literary fame in the early 1960s and pursued a charmed career as a writer not only in his native Peru, but also in Britain, Spain and the US. But in 1990 he took a vacation from literature in order to campaign for the presidency of Peru. He came quite close to winning—some say he would have done if his work as a novelist had not been held against him—and if he had done, Peru might have enjoyed an experiment in pluralistic centre-right liberalism instead of the disastrous ten-year kleptocracy of Alberto Fujimori. After his defeat, Vargas Llosa returned with relief to his old preoccupations, and in Touchstones (Faber & Faber), his new collection of miscellaneous writings, he elaborates on the case for the political relevance of the novel.

The longest item in Touchstones is a piece of reportage rather than an essay: an account by Vargas Llosa of an extended visit to Iraq in 2003, chronicling his reluctant conversion from visceral opposition to the western invasion to firm if wary support. He was well aware that thousands of Iraqis were dying, and many coalition soldiers as well, and that the deaths were bound to continue for years; but politics is about comparisons, and he is persuaded that the death rate under the occupation is considerably lower than under the old regime. Beyond that, apart from a scary encounter with an enraged imam, he kept encountering an elated sense of freedom that was more than merely political. "As novelists know very well," he says, "fantasies generate realities," and in Iraq he sensed a gradual awakening from the paranoid fictions that flourish under a dictatorship.

Vargas Llosa's optimism about Iraq may seem excessive, but it is bound up with a subtle understanding of the political responsibility of the novelist. He writes admiringly, for example, about Isak Dinesen; she claimed that she had no interest at all in "social questions," but Vargas Llosa finds more political vitality on every page of her Gothic Tales than in any old-fashioned "literature of commitment," which, as he puts it, "revolved maniacally around realist descriptions." He traces the same kind of practical fertility in a vast range of 20th-century novelists, from Conrad, Mann, Woolf, Orwell and Hemingway to Henry Miller, Camus, Grass, Nabokov and Borges. A society that ignores imaginative literature, he argues, is liable to succumb to the bovine complacencies and populist idiocies of nationalism, and so to degenerate into "something like a sectarian cult."

Vargas Llosa's prose is sometimes slow-paced, but it speeds up when he reflects on the "collectivist ideology" of nationality. "There are no nations," he says, at least not in a way that could "define individuals through their belonging to a human conglomerate marked out as different from others by certain characteristics such as race, language and religion." For Vargas Llosa, nationalism is always "a lie," but its rebuttal is to be found not so much in high-toned internationalist universalism as in the dissociative particularities of literature, and especially in a well-narrated novel. The novel, he thinks, articulates a basic human desire—the desire to be "many people, as many as it would take to assuage the burning desires that possess us." Alternatively, it stands for a basic human right—the right not to be the same as oneself, let alone the same as other people. And the defiant history of democracy began not in politics but in literature, when Cervantes first tackled "the problem of the narrator," or the question of who gets to tell the story. No doubt about it: Don Quixote is "a 21st-century novel."

The Things We Throw Away

 
London Review of Books
 

Andrew O'Hagan

By the time I worked out the style of our death the leaves were back on the trees. The journey in search of rubbish had taken the whole winter long and now I was here with the bins. The evening it was all over I emptied the latest rubbish onto some newspapers spread out on the kitchen floor – a cornflakes packet and old razor blades, apple cores and cotton buds. Looking through the stuff I felt how secret the story had been. I'd gone looking for the end but had always been brought back to this, the rubbish on the floor appearing grave and autobiographical. The seasons are like that and so is our trash: you examine their habits of repetition for long enough and you begin to think of lost time.

It began one night in Camberwell when the orange of the streetlamps was fighting to show through the fog. Alf started up his van and weaved past some roadworks, dodging the cones but not the sleet that flew to the windscreen and vanished. 'My goodness,' he said, 'if this is life I don't want it.' He was talking about the way he felt when he worked as an account executive in a marketing design company. 'I finally found out that it was only worth living for love, not money.'

'What do you mean, living for love?' I said. He ran a hand through his hair and stroked his cheek.

'Putting other people's needs before my own,' he said. 'When I left that hideous job I got a sense we were all interconnected. Freeganism tries to connect with people's needs – putting community first. In 2002, I decided to devote my life to getting the message out and living as sincerely as possible. Instead of using money and all that I wanted to tread more lightly on the earth. I took everything to extremes in my old life.' Alf is 33 years old. His friend Martin, a fellow Freegan, popped his head through from the back of the van and pushed his glasses up his nose. Martin is 36 and comes from Sydney. He said he was disillusioned as a teenager by the way everyone was obsessed with money and ownership. 'You've got to take everything to a logical conclusion,' he said. 'We've given up all our possessions, because, like Mill said, if you want to bring down a corrupt system then you might want to stop buying its products.'

'Yeah,' said Alf. 'You've got to fight the greed in the world by fighting the greed in yourself. Look. Forty per cent of all food in the UK is wasted. Studies say we're the biggest wasters in the world. And the religion of economics has waste as an important component in it.'

'Yes,' said Martin. 'True spirituality overcomes the greed. What we want to do is relinquish power. Lay down your life. Share what you have.'

We passed Peckham Rye and could see blue rooms, television pictures flashing in each flat. Alf and Martin were saying that the way to live properly was to resist commerce. Their philosophy, like that of many Freegans, is a sweet-sounding blend of Karl Marx and Jesus Christ, with quite a bit of Tolstoy and Gandhi thrown in. Not using money means that they pick up food from bins: they have regular haunts, up and down the country, and they visit them when travelling around to give out leaflets. 'We feel joy at all this free food,' Alf said. 'And you also feel disgusted to see all this rubbish in the world.'

'We choose our ignorance, bro,' said Martin as Alf stopped the van in a car park behind Somerfield.

'Do you have a relationship with this store?' I asked.

'Not one they know about,' said Alf.

We sat in the van for an hour or more talking about the ethics of waste. I must have got a little tired of Martin saying that everyone should share and that we should all love one another because I asked him how he intended to deal with people who are without virtue. 'I don't believe that anyone is without virtue,' he said.

'In the spiritual realm,' added Alf. 'The greatest leader is the greatest servant.'

'Yes,' I said. 'That's all right. But Jesus had a slave's mentality.'

'We just want to save resources,' said Martin, with a sigh. 'It's more of a Robin Hood model – we're stealing from the corporations. We found a bin today with fifty or sixty cartons of milk inside.'

Everything Alf and Martin own is in the van. They sleep in the back and they don't have sex with anyone. I asked Alf if there wasn't a lot of anxiety involved in living like this. He told me that the word 'mortgage' means 'death grip'. Rain was coming down heavily on the roof of the van and we sat thinking amid the smell of diesel and socks. 'Suddenly, everybody in the world needs a dishwasher,' said Martin.

We pulled up our collars and walked over to the wasteland behind Somerfield. The housing estate wasn't far away – the flashing blue light was still evident – but there was something very remote about the supermarket at that hour of the night. Alf put a flashlight on a band round his head. He looked like a miner as we turned to where the bins stood, then I saw other lights, and a large group of strangers. 'Bin raiders,' said Alf. 'They all come out at night.' Some of them were immigrants from Eastern Europe, who had come to London to live the dream. A man from Poland had laid out five plump grapefruit on top of a wooden palette. 'Are very good,' he said. 'Not rubbish.'

Alf and Martin dived into the bins – the Americans don't call it bin raiding: they call it dumpster diving – and pulled out bread, vegetables, ready meals, packs of mince. They offered much of it to the Polish guys, but they said they already had enough and had a long way to walk home. An old black lady in a claret hat came round and picked up items here and there. 'Very good here,' she said. 'Terrible to waste things just like this.'

'This is England now,' I said to Alf, his face lighted somewhat ghoulishly under the lamp on his head.

'No,' he said. 'This is the world, bro.'

The old lady had a large family of grandchildren and lived not far away in Camberwell. She said this was a way to get along.

The men took large clear bags of rubbish back to the van and spread some of the contents on the floor. Alf wiped the items down with a cloth dipped in bleach water and showed me them. 'Look,' he said. 'Sell-by date is two days away. This one, today. Perfectly good to eat.' Packets of biscuits were lying there and a giant heap of broccoli. Martin read out some of the labels: 'Chicken and stuffing. Yorkshire pudding. Cashew nuts. Bananas. Three chicken pies. Yesterday.' The lady in the claret hat came up to the door of the van to ask if we had any butter or bread.

'Mince?' asked Alf.

'Yes,' said the old lady. 'Yes. Now, what nice boys you are.'

'And how about broccoli?'

'Ah, yes,' she said. 'Just enough for tomorrow. That's great. Are you boys all right for rice?'

'Very much so,' said Martin, sheltering from the rain. 'We've got everything we need. Every last thing we need.'

The British government's review of its waste strategy is due from Defra at the end of this month, but the matter is as much philosophical. The question of what it means to live a good life has become the occasion for personal accounts of what one does with one's rubbish. This is the way we manage news on the subject, with a growing and often panicked sense of what our personal habits might say about our harmfulness. There are other pressing topics of course, but the environment – and the very local matter of rubbish – is the pamphleteering issue of our time. Yet none of us feels safe with it, none of us knows exactly what to think; intimate disquiet about waste is liable to spring a trap in our minds. 'Rural England is where urban England now dumps its rubbish,' Richard Girling writes. 'Here it tips everything from garbage in landfills to fridges in ponds, broken cars and surplus people.'[1] The Daily Mail says there is a plague of rats in Britain as a result of the lack of care taken in refuse collection. The government has revealed that urban waste is growing by 3.2 per cent a year – faster than GDP. 'Despite dramatic improvement in recent years, the UK still has the worst recycling record in Europe: 27 per cent of domestic waste, as opposed to Germany's 57 per cent and Holland's 64 per cent,' according to a draft policy document shown to me by the Community Recycling Network. 'The average person in the UK throws out their body weight in rubbish every three months,' says Friends of the Earth. 'Most of this could be reprocessed but instead it is sent to incinerators or landfill.'

We used to stub a cigarette out in an ashtray and never think of it again. Now we think, where will the stub end up, the ash and the foam and the paper? We grew up imagining that rubbish was taken away, only to find there is no such place as 'away'. The by-products of our desires are hidden in the earth or burned to make a toxic canopy over our heads: we are aware of that now, and that awareness has grown to feed a spirit of personal regeneration. At some level we recycle not to save the planet, but to free the part of ourselves that is enslaved to the world's goods and the body's functions.

Some people simply choose to be more sensible about separating what they throw out. Nothing more complicated, and I salute them while continuing to believe that the pressing morality of rubbish – the summits, the sea-change, the plains of discourse, and the brave new worlds of anxiety – represents a powerful turn in our collective mind. At its simplest, we are now putting the Sunday papers in the recycling bin, but at its less simple we may be seeking what Emerson called, in Nature, 'an original relation to the universe'. The times may have become ripe for turning self-control into a form of evangelism, sensing that our wish to be the planet's saviours is also a bid for immortality. We discern a new mastery to be enjoyed over the life of everyday stuff and we consider ourselves responsible for stewardship of the ecosystem, or the egosystem.

High above the Brent Reservoir a fringe of red, trailing light was spread across the sky at half past five in the morning. It was still dark on the road and the houses slept as the lorries pulled into the depot. In the artificial brightness of the 'office' – a huddle of Portakabins – the binmen were gathered around a newspaper. 'Here,' said one of them. 'Have you seen the new lottery?'

'Na,' said another.

'Breast reduction, mate. Tummy tucks. That's what you win if you win the lottery: cosmetic surgery.'

Les said he liked the early start and the afternoons off. He has worked in Harrow for more than a dozen years, up early every day and out clearing the bins before anybody is awake. He now drives the truck and considers that a significant upgrade. 'I'm the gaffer,' he said, 'but not really.' Les and I tried to make jokes but tiredness got to us and the laughter came slower as we progressed along the route. Every few hundred yards I jumped down and joined the lifters as they rolled the bins from people's yards. That morning the crew were only responsible for collecting organic rubbish. 'It's a nightmare,' said Joshi, whose parents were born in Bangladesh. 'No matter how many times you give them information, or mark their card, they still contaminate the bloody recycling bins. They hide all sorts of stuff at the bottom of the organic bins – like machine parts. There's no telling them.' He showed me one of the bins outside a large house; it had grass on the top and Tesco bags full of paper underneath. Harrow has a system of compulsory recycling: green bins for paper, cans, bottles, and brown bins for organic waste, which includes garden waste and leftover food. People in Harrow who mix the stuff up, or 'contaminate', have their rubbish left uncollected, and must pay £20 to get it picked up, after they've sorted it; persistent offenders can be prosecuted and fined up to £1000.[2]

Les keeps a chart of the offenders and notes down their addresses. Next to the Rayners Lane Conservative Association, he tried to reverse the bin lorry up a dark lane and Joshi came up to his window shaking his head. 'Number 9,' he said. 'Contaminated.' Les put on his handbrake and lifted his pen, turning to me at the same time.

'That's a bad one, Number 9,' he said. 'Number 63 is the same.'

There was a camera in the cabin and I could see Joshi and Sam lifting the bins of the better citizens onto a lifting device and then the stuff being tipped into the compactor. Les started telling me he drove both a BMW and a Renault and that he used to be a bodyguard for the 1970s rock groups Slade and Mud. It was clear he felt he had led a progressive life, and he seemed very composed as he pulled and hauled at the steering wheel. By then the sky had become bluer and people were beginning to queue at the bus stops, heading for Pinner. 'A lot of the old people,' Les said, 'they get worried because of recycling. They don't understand the new ways and are afraid of the fines.' As he said this I noticed an elderly lady sweeping open the curtains of a mock-Tudor house with a two-car driveway. 'But we've gone too far, too fast on the recycling,' he said.

Next to the Jewish Free School, Les beeped his horn when he spotted another veteran of the Harrow refuse system, Fred, who was driving his truck on the other side of the road. 'Spent years in rubbish,' Les said. 'He's about to retire.'

'Lucky bastard,' said Joshi.

It took the best part of six hours for the team to do their round, emptying the bins and marking the contaminators, and the morning was in full flow as Les pointed and laughed at an England flag waving over a house in Hereford Gardens. Half an hour later, we were beyond the suburban rim of Harrow and into the Middlesex countryside, heading at speed for the composting site at the extremity of north-west London.

The place smelled powerfully of rotting Christmas trees. There was smoke rising from the composting area; the process takes ten weeks from the delivery of vegetable matter to the maturation of compost, and not only is it a fulfilment of local councils' commitment to go greener, it also costs a great deal less than sending the rubbish to landfill sites. West London Composting is licensed by Defra and is the biggest facility of its kind in London, processing 50,000 tons of organic waste a year. When we arrived on the site Les's vehicle was weighed on a weighbridge; this determined the price that Harrow would receive for the load. I stood at the side of the tipping shed as other trucks arrived and dropped their material into a large hangar, where it was scooped up for shredding. Already steaming, the shredded material is then taken to the composting sheds, where its temperature and oxygen levels are controlled. At the end of the ten weeks it will be bagged and sold for agricultural and commercial use.

Les was shaking his head. The inspector who examines the material in the back of the bin lorries before it is offloaded was not happy. 'No,' said the man with the clipboard. 'Contaminated,' and then he signed a sheet and handed it to Les. Despite their efforts the gang had allowed too much non-organic rubbish to be tipped into the back of the lorry.

'The people who are serious about it are very serious,' said Les.

'And what about this load?' I asked.

'It's not good enough,' he said. 'We'll take it to Ruislip tip and Harrow will have to pay to dump it there.'

'That's a pity,' I said. 'A long morning too.'

'Never mind,' Les said, turning the wheel and smoothing his hair in the rear-view mirror. 'We won't be saving the world today.'

Whoever you speak to, in whichever corner of the waste industry, you are liable to come away with the impression that soft utopianism has taken the place of militant politics in contemporary Britain. Many of these people were born in the 1960s, which means they are not children of the 1960s – dreaming of toppling governments or teaching their uptight professors a lesson – so much as children of the 1980s, a generation all too aware of the limits of idealism. Even the Freegans, for all their hatred of corporations, take it for granted that greed is seen to be good, and their ambition is not to gather political forces but to replenish the spiritual motives of their generation. And those who have joined the establishment – the politicians, the civil servants, the lawyers – speak with energy about ethical improvements in the absence of any notion of revolution. They speak of potential and of broader choices. They speak of personhood and of lifestyle.

Among these people the question of what to do with rubbish is not about ripping up the system, much more about fulfilling your personal goals, increasing the peace, opting for harmony. They don't curse the world, they compliment it with kind acts, and their attitude to a non-recycler is rather like General William Booth's attitude to drunks. The hardcore waste community does not hate its enemies, but feels sorry for them, and in every other thing it says appears to believe a new day is dawning.

Though much slower and much less ambitious than the lobbyists would like, the government – which speaks of increasing recycling rates to 40 per cent by 2010, when Friends of the Earth wants 75 per cent by 2015 – has not dodged the bullet when it comes to enforcing penalties on big business to encourage better habits in the way it handles its rubbish. Defra recently commissioned a report from the AEA Energy and Environment Group, a private consultancy, that addresses the question of landfill and how to increase the tax on it. No British person giving an account of their life would think to mention landfill sites, but that is where most of the stuff in the average life ends up. All the bins in all our lives have gone to landfills or incinerators. We have never thought about it, and now that we are thinking about it, say the evangelists, we can never be the same.

'Final disposal to landfill is considered the least attractive option in the waste hierarchy,' says the report for Defra:

The largely organic content of food industry wastes can contribute significantly towards the detrimental aspects of landfill (for example, as a source of methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition within the landfill). The EC Landfill Directive sets targets to reduce the amounts of biodegradable wastes (biodegradable municipal wastes) consigned to landfill – the first target has to be achieved by 2010 (for the UK).

Where the amounts are not reduced, waste producers will be taxed to hell. The government recently announced the scale of this taxation, and it is good and punitive, with a medium to long-term rate of £35 per tonne. 'This provides a very strong driver,' says the report,

to encourage businesses to take action to reduce their waste sent for landfill disposal. Most noticeably, the landfill tax escalator appears to have brought about an approximately 10 per cent reduction in the tonnages of standard rate waste landfilled in the two years between 2003-4 and 2005-6. This shows that a key policy, closely linked to reduction of waste disposal, is working.[3]

Calvert Landfill site lies in the most beautiful part of Buckinghamshire, snug against a former brickworks. They say that there have been quarries here since the 15th century, when Londoners passed their rubbish to rakers, who dumped it in the Essex Marshes. In later centuries people burned most of their combustible waste in domestic fires, and the dust was taken in carts to be sieved for use in brickmaking. Bottles were reused and plastic was a science fiction. The 19th century was the age of salvage, and Victorian Britain was a recycling nation by necessity: wood was redeployed and bone was ground down; ash was spread on the land, and the only things buried were bodies and vegetable matter. But by 1875, and the Public Health Act, the regulation of household waste had become a priority, dealt with by local authorities. The act stipulated that households maintain a 'moveable receptacle' for rubbish – the birth of the bin – and a charge was made for its removal.

The 1930s saw the rise of non-biodegradable rubbish and warnings were issued against dumping. Yet rubbish tips surrounded most urban areas and were constantly on fire. After 1956, and the Clean Air Act, domestic bins began to fill up with paper and packaging (tied to the rise of marketing), and in the 1970s chemical and electrical waste became part of the picture. Overall, the move in domestic trashcans from dust and cinders to paper and plastics has taken a little over a hundred years and has changed the air we breathe.

Calvert has been one of the country's biggest landfill sites since it opened in the 1980s. April Jennings is a tough, science-educated woman in a man's world, and nothing appears to bother her, not even the four inches of mud on her boots the day I went to see her. 'It used to be a bit of a black art, the landfill site in the 1980s,' she said, 'but the science of it has improved and we know much more about it. We can recontour the old landfill sites and extend our years.' She reckons the Calvert site may have about twenty-five years left. The great buzz-phrase in April's world is 'renewable energies' – Tony Blair loved to hear himself say it – and the people at Calvert feel good about the electricity they are able to produce by harvesting the methane gas created by the buried rubbish on their site. 'We have the capacity to produce 17 megawatts,' April said. 'We can extract the last bit of value from what people throw away.' She seems to shrug at the view (even the government's view) that landfill is at the bottom of the hierarchy when it comes to ways of dealing with Britain's rubbish. 'Everything is checked,' she says.

Her colleague Peter Robinson chips in. 'The whole area of waste handling and management is so much more technically sound in the UK than it ever was before.' He smiles. 'This country's history of landfill has actually been quite safe; it has served us well.' On the walls of the management offices at Calvert, there are pictures of green fields and of tractors moving rubbish. 'It's all changing,' Robinson said. 'We're moving from a "throw everything away" culture to one of preservation and recycling. In order to make it work there has to be a shift in how we manage our own waste and in how we handle the costs.' I asked him if there was something alien to the British mind in the idea of making a fuss about what we throw away. 'Yes,' he said. 'People don't have that understanding – but it's coming in a big way. The UK is trying to do something in a handful of years that other member states in Europe have been doing for a long time.'

Most of the waste at Calvert comes in overnight. There's a railway beside the landfill and the large cranes and the ghost trains arrived in the dark with their loads of domestic rubbish from London and Bristol. Every day, five days a week, at least four trains a day, each train consisting on average of fifty containers, each holding 15 tons of rubbish. 'That's a lot of rubbish,' I said.

'It is,' April said. 'We have two power stations running off this site. A third of the country's renewable energy is coming from landfill.' (The trouble is that only 3 per cent of the UK's electricity comes from renewable energy sources.) We walked into the heart of the landfill area and April pointed to the trees on the horizon. 'All the way to there,' she said. The ground in between was landscaped and looked pretty much like any English scrubland, except that beneath the covering of vegetation there were hundreds of thousands of tons of suppurating English garbage. 'It's like an apple pie,' she said, 'with the clay as the base and the grass as the sugar.' I wasn't sure if this was the right image, conjuring a hot, sticky, unstable filling and a thin crust, but April said it was the best she had. Peter Robinson spoke of the 'leachate', the brown liquid that is drawn from the centre of all that old plastic and paper and general rubbish, the liquid being purified onsite and running out clear in a ditch at the end. I could also see pipes – there are 450 of them – drawing off gas that would be harnessed for electricity.

We climbed a ridge of brown sludge to reach the summit. Looking down from there was like staring into a crater of the moon, except that the colossal indentation was filled with rubbish. The sky was very blue above the ridge of sludge and the carrier bags strewn in the mud. The crater was 60 metres deep and a murder of crows swooped above us, followed by seagulls. At the near edge it seemed there were Tesco bags as far as the horizon; I looked down and saw a bottle of children's bubble mixture, a squashed box of Typhoo tea, a tin of Dulux paint, a Capri Sun fruit drink carton: the recent detritus of an average life, and in the distance there were more plastic bags trapped in the branches of a copse of trees and blowing in and out like struggling lungs. Something in the scale of the rubbish and the size of the canyon dizzied one's nervous system: a metaphysical smack came with the sight of the layers of used-up stuff, like the feeling that comes when sixty thousand people shout at a football match or a when a million supplicants crowd into Mecca. April walked off and I stood on the ridge of the landfill surveying the scene. A dumped bath, a heap of carpet, a thousand empty bottles of orange squash, a hundred thousand legs of lamb, a million bottles of shampoo: it was all the stuff of life and it was all evidence of death.

'There are four thousand landfills in the UK,' April said, as we walked through the mud and the crows dived. 'This will fill up eventually: landfill is a finite source of waste management.' For a second I wondered if April had noticed the shock and awe on my face. 'Look,' she said. 'The best thing of all would be for us to stop making waste.'

'Then you'll be out of a job,' I said.

'I'll just fall back on my chemistry.' We both laughed and I saw a seagull (or an albatross) out of the corner of my eye diving to darkness on extended wings. A plastic radio was crushed in the mud against a box of unused Oxo cubes, and I fancied the bird had spotted the shiny paper and was seizing its opportunity. 'We have a lot of pest control here at Calvert,' April said. 'You have to. We keep falcons. These seagulls are notoriously bad for carrying litter and dropping it out there.' I looked over the trees to the place she called 'out there', the villages and commuter towns of Buckinghamshire, and beyond them the cities where people sleep soundly while a train carries away the stock cubes that they forgot to use and then just simply forgot.

We have to believe that the litter of commodities melts into air, just as we do, or else we would have to live very differently in the world, much more consciously in company with the choices we make and the mess we create. Life without rubbish would mean living in a state of ethical awareness that might threaten pleasure – threaten commerce – while never releasing individuals from the facts of the past and the realities of death. We don't admit it, but the idea of absence is a comfort to the present, for if nothing is away then everything is a deposit. If nothing is away, we are suddenly not dots on a linear track of time but in some sense are constituent with all that has been, or will be. That is not convenient, and it might explain why a real engagement with recycling can come to seem transcendental. It might leave people with the impression that there is more to one's life than one's life, and that impression is powering the mood of a generation. Throwing things away has been so essential to our sense of how to live that we forget we invented the process just to increase our pleasures.

Like everything else – like health, like famine relief, like national security – the ethical impulse to minimise our waste must be rendered sensible in business terms before it can be understood to be practical in any other way. The liveliest new thinking in relation to rubbish is therefore about the great financial benefit recycling brings – there are profits to be had, and this is understood to be a motor of change. The concept was essentially invented by the Japanese, by companies such as Toshiba, who invented a system of 'total quality management' whereby the manufacturing process would build in the possibility of zero defects. Many Japanese companies are now working on an understanding that their processes will suffer only one defect per million. 'Transferred to the arena of municipal waste,' said Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace,

Zero Waste forces attention onto the whole life cycle of products. Zero Waste encompasses producer responsibility, ecodesign, waste reduction, reuse and recycling, all within a single framework. It breaks away from the inflexibility of incinerator-centred systems and offers a new policy framework capable of transforming current linear production and disposal processes into "smart" systems that utilise the resources in municipal waste and generate jobs and wealth for local economies.

At its most basic, this means that a company that aims to produce spoons will have made a plan, before they produce a single spoon, about how to source the metal ethically, how to transport it in vehicles with low carbon emissions, what to do with the metal shavings, how the water that cools the metal will be rerouted back into the system, and how the packaging will be reusable. Zero defects. Zero waste.

Zero Waste may turn out to be one of the key concepts of the post-industrial era. It will change everything: it will change what you are doing now and will do in five minutes. Robin Murray of the London School of Economics has put the matter more purposefully than most. In Zero Waste, his 2002 report for Greenpeace, he peels our habits in relation to rubbish to the core. 'Waste has been seen as the dark side,' he writes,

as that against which we define the good. It has been the untouchable in the caste system of commodities. The idea that waste could be useful, that it should come in from the cold and take its place at the table of the living, is one that goes far beyond the technical question of what possible use could be made of this or that. It challenges the whole way we think of things and their uses, about how we define ourselves and our status through commodities, by what we cast out as much as by what we keep in.

If the notion of Zero Waste wasn't so life-altering and revolutionary it would appear simply sensible. It relies on absolutely no discharge of toxic waste and no atmospheric damage, but it also means a new intolerance of material rubbish. From the Zero Waste point of view, a society in which a person drops a sandwich wrapper in the street would be as unthinkable as one where a person in the street pulled down their pants and shat. Everything would be understood to have an ongoing life. At its best, it amounts to a wholesale reconceptualising of our economic and moral worlds, bringing the idea of 'away' into the social sphere of 'here'. Forgetting to do the right thing with an ice-lolly stick might come to be like forgetting not to kick a dog. (Street cleaners in this country presently clear away half a million tons of rubbish every year.) You would do it automatically because that is what you do, sensing, as a form of knowledge, as a categorical imperative as opposed to a species of choice, that nothing in the world is rubbish. Our focus, then, Murray argues, would be on the material life cycle, in which it should become natural for materials to live and transform and live again. 'From cradle to cradle,' he writes, 'rather than from cradle to grave.'

A recent issue of Resource magazine ran a list of the 'Hot 100 Agents of Change' in the waste debate. Standing at number 28 – one above new entrant David Miliband, the environment secretary – is a man called Andy Moore, who is head of the Community Recycling Network. The first time I met him, in the bar at Paddington Station, he seemed weary but refreshingly non-morose when it came to talking about rubbish. He gives the impression of having spoken to everybody and thought of everything: he gave me a head start on some of the trends, and then, several weeks later, I travelled to Bristol to see him in his element.

At the Prince of Wales pub on Gloucester Road, everybody was drinking either Weston's organic cider or organic real ale. Andy had the latter and he spares no ire on the waste companies. I asked him what his first memory of rubbish was and he spoke about an incinerator that used to exist in Chapman Street in Hull. 'I was eight,' he said, 'but what I remember was a big warehouse with a concrete floor. In the middle was the most massive hole and I knew there was a fire burning underneath. It was a horrible place, owned by the Cleansing Department.' He also remembers the rag and bone man, who went through the streets shouting two syllables: 'ra' bo'.' He took a sip from his pint and smiled over the glass. 'Where there's muck there's brass,' he said. 'That's an old Yorkshire expression. We're all Gypsies when it comes to it, looking after the bins. It's how we used to think. "Sovereignty," Georges Bataille wrote, "is the freedom to waste." At festivals, at Christmas, and every day, we waste, we give things away, that is what seemed normal to us.'

The area around the waterway in Bristol has been reinvented. The architects have had a field day, and you detect, thereabouts, the flurry of design competitions and the late-night glow of Anglepoise lamps. People have worked hard to make the place modern, to overcome a possible downturn in West Country parts and labour, but you couldn't say the results made it the most soulful place on earth. There's plenty of life around, though, and later that night Andy Moore gathered a few of his waste-industry honchos at a restaurant sited in a former Bristol fire station. Mal Williams is great company, a round, avuncular man who lives in Wales, and Iain Gulland is Scottish and quieter, though not for long. He studied ecology at the University of St Andrews. Each of the men likes a drink and is bound by a sense of social justice tailored to new realities.

'Are they going to do it?' I asked. 'Is the public going to get into the business of changing its character?'

'Of course,' said Andy. 'And business is the right word.'

Mal looked through the candles and the organic wine. 'The old paradigm was "out of sight, out of mind," but the new message is more like "you create this waste, you can stop it." We are all defining a new kind of industry now.' He made it clear – they all did – that they don't believe it will be the waste companies who lead the way. The waste companies, they say, have changed for the better but they still have an old-fashioned view of how to profit from rubbish. Bury or burn is the philosophy, and that won't do any longer because the rest of the world isn't having it.

'In Denmark in the 1970s they stuck it into education,' said Iain. 'They said, "We'll invest in the young," and out of that they developed high standards of environmental protection. And those people are now voting. Next thing we knew they want 10p on plastic bags. But we have not done environmental stewardship before now, that's why people think the whole thing is tough and punitive. But it's happening.'

The main point of the Community Recycling Network is to get away from the kind of shoddy recycling practice I saw at work in Harrow. 'There's too much contamination,' Andy said, 'as there would be because the methods are way too coarse and are propelled by the profit instincts of the waste companies. We are talking about much finer kinds of separation: not just paper in one bin, but different kinds of paper and no comingling of different materials.'

'But the main thing,' said Mal, 'is you must put value on these things as a resource. And you've got to give the people a shove. You've got to give them the stuff to do it with.'

'That's us,' said Andy. 'Most of our people do kerbside collections, and we have composters, furniture collectors. Some of them are motivated by the environment and some are motivated by social concerns and for others it's just something really, really personal.'

'Like what?'

'Well, value systems. Empowering people in life. Your waste stream is really the most visible way that you impact on the world. You can see the stuff in the waste bin and you know what you're generating. The thing that makes me angry is the way waste companies have been able to con local authorities – the con-ability of local authorities itself angers me. At the moment we're trying to achieve a better system: not just minimising the waste stream but realising value from it. Do you see the difference? The government's problem is that its attitude is too much 'end of pipe'; it waits until the rubbish is there before it thinks of what it's going to do with it. The real task is to design society so that you're not stuck with rubbish.'

Into the night, the group talked about the transformation of personal values in Britain and the state-sponsored murder of old habits and stuffed bins. Unlike the Freegans, they didn't look to God for guidance in the wasteland, but to Europe, where a great many communities already view past mindlessness with a sort of bafflement. The men at the table had mortgages and they believed in eco-business: they foresee a future in which the profit motive will transform rubbish into dollars, which they assume is the only way the world will listen. In the end, it may be that the Freegans go the same way as the incinerators, made redundant by the smart redeploying instincts of big business, those forces that once kept each of them burning through the dark.

You know where it all ends. But how very slowly the sense of an ending is transmogrifying into a new beginning. I was reminded of the distance to go the first time I spoke to the public relations representative at the Edmonton Incinerator, or, as they prefer, the London Waste EcoPark Recycling and Energy Centre. Edmonton is responding to some of the realities I've been trying to describe – they speak of treating rubbish as a resource – but still they feel tarred with the old brush. And it would be hard not to feel that way: the plant is burning household rubbish at an absolutely colossal rate and the world doesn't like it.

'I'm just having trouble working out what it is you would like to do,' said Wendy Lord, head of corporate communications.

'I want to see what you do at Edmonton.'

'But we're quite an old facility. I could arrange for you to visit one of the newer ones.'

'I'd prefer to come to Edmonton,' I said. 'Just to see how you're coping with some of the new demands.'

'I don't know, Andrew. Whatever.'

'If you need to know more about me, that's fine,' I said.

'And how would I do that, Andrew?'

I don't know if they say so at public relations school, but extreme reluctance can be understood as a form of aggression. (As can over-deployment of one's name.) It can also signal a feeling of paranoia or shame, but none of that was in evidence when eventually I met Wendy Lord. She came striding up to me in the reception area at Edmonton wearing knee-high boots and a frighteningly professional smile, part tolerance, part indulgence. I felt that Wendy might have trained herself to spot an eco-nutter at 500 yards, but she seemed to give me the benefit of the doubt and led me up the stairs where I was invited to sit and watch a video. The fact that she starred in the video did not contribute largely to my sense of ease, but in no time I was learning about London Waste's flagship efforts to clean up and renew. The PR job was happening on an industrial scale, but that notwithstanding, many people believe incinerators are merely landfill sites in the sky. 'The problem has not been with organic waste,' Murray writes, 'but with materials which give off toxic emissions when burned.' Early tracking 'of dioxins and furans identified incinerators as the prime source and even in the mid-1990s, when other sources were uncovered, municipal incinerators still accounted for over a third of all estimated emissions'.

The Edmonton centre is owned equally by the North London Waste Authority and the private waste management company SITA UK. Far from admitting to being a blight, Edmonton sees itself as a model of regulation, boasting that 'the official fireworks display on Millennium Night was equivalent to over a century of dioxin emissions from our plant.' In 1996, the plant invested £15 million in gas cleaning equipment that it claims has contributed towards the reduction of emissions to the point where they are 'negligible' and 'insignificant'. When Wendy Lord came back to find me scribbling, she started to speak like something of an eco-warrior herself. 'Nimbyism is rife in the UK,' she said. 'And we need more joined-up thinking. In Japan, they'll think about waste management before they build the town. We follow a holistic approach, where electricity is produced from residual waste, and it all requires a new way of thinking. The organic waste produced by a town can be used to "green" that town.'

If we hadn't been sitting to the side of a monstrous furnace that day, I would have sworn Wendy Lord was one of the new evangelists. 'It's about the three Rs,' she said: 'reduce waste, reuse as much as you can, and recover value from what's left.' She counted them out on her fingers. 'It's a choice you – Andrew – make,' she added. 'Be informed. Think. No one wants to talk about rubbish. It's not sexy. We're interested in shiny. You know, I have nothing in my attic but a Christmas tree. And the profile of waste management is now being raised.'

Or erased. It cannot have escaped Lord's notice that the company she represents so effectively will be put out of business when Zero Waste becomes a reality. That is the irony that lies dormant inside the volcano: Edmonton talks eco-friendly – and is, indeed, as eco-friendly as an incinerator could be – but it remains a factory for the mass immolation of rubbish and that concept is antithetical to progressive thinking in the waste management sphere. The logical end to Lord's words is in fact the closure of her own firm, as human virtue would have rendered it obsolete, though there might always be a greatly downsized role for the plant in burning clinical waste. As she spoke of the electricity that is produced by the furnaces at Edmonton, it occurred to me that perhaps the future use of incinerators would be to burn other incinerators, keeping a few lights running to lead us out of the dark.

We walked through the building, stopping on a concrete platform like the bridge of a giant destroyer (In Which We Serve, with me as Noel Coward) to watch the procession of bin lorries that swept into the bays to drop off their rubbish. Outside, I could see two huge ash-heaps, the latest cinders of the 24-hour fires, and beyond them the high flats of Enfield, and I wondered whether an examination of the breast-milk of the mothers who lived there might not settle a silent argument between Wendy and the world. But that's not fair: Wendy was being reasonable and professional, and much of what she said expressed a truth about London Waste's progress. The heat rose as we climbed the stairs. It rose with a notion of tension, and the scale of the fires below began to occupy my mind. The whole place seemed to thrum, as if we were standing on a great and natural instability, a faultline, a volcano, whose threatening energy was powering an industrial process.

At this point we entered an immense hangar that looked like a missile silo out of James Bond; it looked Soviet and outmoded, it looked built for massive destruction, capable of unleashing violence and deadly force on an old-fashioned scale. The air smelled sulphurous and I looked down into a number of unspeakably deep concrete canyons, with grabbing equipment hanging above them and the litter of our lives heaped at the bottom. The grabbers were truly huge; each one looked as if it could easily lift a house and a family and all their desires and all their trash too and drop the lot into the flames. 'The rubbish comes down to nothing with burning,' said Wendy. 'It's magical.' The grabber puts 15 tons of refuse an hour into the boilers. The colossus seemed hungry for black bags and boxes. It roared and I almost toppled into the yawning canyon when thinking of the countless miles of rubbish that had passed through there since 1969. All burned. Living somewhere still. Gone but not gone. A single plastic bag fell from the edge of the canyon, and glided down, all the way down. It felt very primitive, with the smell of burning trash and the grind of titanic engines a suddenly vertigo-inducing denouement to the mad logic of commodification.

We went behind the boilers and looked at the complicated system by which the rubbish is burned, and the even more complicated system by which the resulting gases are cleaned and made to produce electricity. It would be too boring to describe, but it works. I stood behind the bank of screens in the control room and watched through thick glass as the fires were filmed by a camera. The fire is 850ºC. A large screen shows the chemical make-up of the burning rubbish – substances can be added to the boiler to counterbalance some of the toxins. The electricity-creation is all basic physics, but as the control room manager explained it to me my face took on the look it used to have when I was doing physics at school, and I imagined there were bigger things going on in the world. I was still dizzy from the death-in-life experience of the canyons next door, and feeling too that I had visited a scene that one day will have joined the blacking factory in our memories. 'Local people just think the dustcart throws the rubbish in and it's burned,' said one of the workers in the control room. 'But it's much more complicated than that. People see the chimney and they panic.'

I turned on the kitchen light at home and examined the rubbish lying on the newspapers. Perhaps Bataille is right and a loss of disposability will mean a loss of sovereignty, but it didn't feel like it as I picked through the things and remembered the fire. The bulb in the light overhead might have an afterlife and so might the fridge that hummed in the quiet of the small hours. The tiles under my feet might stock the foundation of a new road one day; the kettle and the clock would never die. After putting the stuff back inside the bag and closing the lid I went online to see about organ and tissue donation.

Footnotes

[1] Rubbish! (Eden Project Books, 414 pp., £7.99, June 2005, 978 1 903 91944 6).

[2] According to BBC news reports, some boroughs are now set to employ 'recycling police', whose job will be to capture and fine people who contaminate bins or fly-tip.

[3] For this and other reports, see the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk.

Andrew O'Hagan is a contributing editor at the London Review and an envoy for Unicef. His new novel Be Near Me will be published by Faber in August.