Abstract
In this article, in an attempt to analyze the crisis caused by the images of imported plastic waste, we consider the relationship between waste and its meaning in the case of geographical dislocation and de- and re-contextualization processes. Our analysis is guided by two recent concepts: The Wasteocene and semiocide. While the Wasteocene clarifies the signifying mechanisms of this period, semiocide allows us to understand which signs, under what conditions, are rendered invisible or disregardable. In coining the concept of semiocide, Ivar Puura emphasized two key features of the phenomenon. Following this distinction, which is based on (un)intentionality, semiocide refers either to a fully conscious, perhaps even hostile, attempt to destroy a semiotic configuration, or to a completely nonconscious, unaware process in which the unawareness itself is the source of the destruction. Although a more cultural approach dominates in Puura’s assertion of the concept, the concept is applicable to human classification, interpretation and transformation of nature (Maran, 2013; Tønnessen et al., 2015). Focusing on the case of Adana as a recent example of a global waste crisis, our aim is to provide a (bio)semiotic framework for assessing how and under what conditions plastic materials become arbiters of environmental and political crises. With heaps of plastic garbage with foreign names on them, the discourse of recycling, restricted media coverage, public indignation, the struggles of environmentalist organizations, and the encounter of different spatio-temporalities, our study aims to convey an impoverished narrative of a city in the south of Türkiye.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the definitions of the concepts ecosemiotics and biosemiotics, please see: Kull (1998). Semiotic ecology: different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 26(1), 344–371.
See: Shennum (2022). “It’s as if they’re poisoning us”: The Health Impacts of Plastic Recycling in Turkey. Human Rights Watch. Please refer especially to pages 48–54 where the report mentions the testimonies of the people living close to recycling centers.
Public outrage that was caused by the photographs of foreign waste seems to have been effective on the decision of the Turkish government. However, the new regulation, initially introduced as a ban on polythene, was withdrawn before it could be implemented. As a next step, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization circular dated 16 July 2021 introduced new obligations to keep waste under control, stipulating 99% purity of waste, namely not contaminated, and stressing that controls will be very strict. Nevertheless, the credibility of this step is undermined by the fact that the crisis does not derive from a lack of regulation, but from encounters that occur in the seams and blurred spaces of the regulations.
“If we can abstract pathogenicity and hygiene from our notion of dirt, we are left with the old definition of dirt as matter out of place. This is a very suggestive approach. It implies two conditions: a set of ordered relations and a contravention of that order. Dirt then, is never a unique, isolated event. Where there is dirt there is system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements. This idea of dirt takes us straight into the field of symbolism and promises a link-up with more obviously symbolic systems of purity” (Douglas, 2001:36–37).
There is a parallelism between this diagram drawn by Kull and the regime of signs put forward by Deleuze and Guattari resulting in the circulation of signs. Deleuze and Guattari argue that a regime of signs has four components; generative, transformational, diagrammatic and machinic. “(1) the generative component: the study of concrete mixed semiotics; their mixtures and variations. (2) The transformational component: the study of pure semiotics; their transformations-translations and the creation of new semiotics. (3) The diagrammatic component: the study of abstract machines, from the standpoint of semiotically unformed matters in relation to physically unformed matters. (4) The machinic component: the study of the assemblages that effectuate abstract machines; simultaneously semiotizing matters of expression and physicalizing matters of content.” (2004: 162).
This conception of inhumanity implies also the characteristics of human beings that are considered inhuman (unmensch) in the Stirnerian sense (Stirner, 1986).
It is fertile to contemplate this process together with Peircean “intuitive” and “abstractive” awareness (Wheeler, 2019).
See here for an example where following complaints, statements that the necessary clean-ups had been carried out were denied and complaints continued(Ünlü, 2022) : https://yesilgazete.org/adanadaki-cop-aldatmacasi-bitmiyor-ne-temizlendi-ne-de-temizleme-yetiyor/.
The television report that sparked the incident included the views of people living in the region. Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw6KR2vj_bc&t=0s.
For the objections and demonstrations of organizations including The Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons Adana, Adana Bar Association, The Medical Chamber Adana, The Chamber of Architects Adana, please see here: https://adanabarosu.org.tr/tr/barodan-haberler/5-haziran-dunya-cevre-gunu-dolayisiyla-avrupa-dan-ithal-edilen-coplerin-adana-da-kontrolsuz-ve-kanunsuzca-etrafa-sacilmaya-devam-edilmesini-baromuzun-da-aralarinda-oldugu-sivil-toplum-kuruluslari-basin-aciklamasi-ve-eylemle-protesto-etti.
In parallel with this formulation, we find the concept of response-ability (Haraway, 2016; Despret, 2004; Pali & Aertsen, 2021) insightful as a proposal to establish a different narrative. When talking about a vulnerable and wounded world (Haraway, 2016), the fact that the existence of the inhabitants of this world, the differences in their expressions, and their unique qualities are not adequately and appropriately made audible, visible and palpable constitutes one of the arteries of the concept of response-ability. The concept shares the ethical and epistemological concerns of biosemiotics.
References
Armiero, M. (2021a). The case for the Wasteocene. Environmental History, 26(3), 425–430.
Armiero, M. (2021b). Wasteocene: Stories from the global dump. Cambridge University Press.
BBC News (2020, June 26). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw6KR2vj_bc&t=0s.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Chellel, K., & Moskwa, W. (2022, March 29). A Plastic Bag’s 2,000-Mile Journey Shows the Messy Truth About Recycling. Www.Bloomberg.Comhttps://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-tesco-recycle-plastic-waste-pledge-falls-short/.
Crawford, A. (2021, July 1). Turkey’s plastics ban: Where does the UK send its waste now? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57680723.
Deleuze, G. (1995). Difference and Repetition (P. Patton, Trans.; Revised ed. edition). Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Massumi.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2000). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.; Illustrated edition). University of Minnesota Press.
Despret, V. (2004). The body we care for: Figures of anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 111–134.
Douglas, M. (2001). Purity and danger: An analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge.
EUR-Lex (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.
Eurostat (2020, April 16). Türkiye: main destination for EU’s waste. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200416-1.
Flaws, J., Damdimopoulou, P., Patisaul, H. B., Gore, A., Raetzman, L., & Vandenberg, L. N. (2020). Plastics, EDCs & Health. Endocrine Society & IPEN. https://www.endocrine.org/-/media/endocrine/files/topics/edc_guide_2020_v1_6chqennew-version.pdf.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7).
Gregson, N., & Crang, M. (2010). Materiality and waste: Inorganic vitality in a networked world. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(5), 1026–1032.
Gündoğdu, S. (2022a). Atık Oyunları. Greenpeace.
Gündoğdu, S. (2022b). Plastik: Mucize mi Felaket mi? Yeni Insan.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the chthulucene. Duke University.
Harvey, D. (2010, April 26). The Crises of Capitalism. https://www.thersa.org/video/events/2010/04/the-crises-of-capitalism.
Hird, M. J. (2012). Knowing Waste: Towards an Inhuman Epistemology. Social Epistemology, 26(3–4), 453–469.
Hird, M. J. (2013). Waste, Landfills, and an environmental ethic of vulnerability. Ethics & the Environment, 18(1), 105–124.
IUCN (2021). Marine Plastic Pollution International Union for Conservative Nature, Issues Brief November 2021 https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/marine-plastic-pollution.
Karlsson, T., Dell, J., Gündoğdu, S., & Almroth, C., B (2023). Plastic Waste Trade: The hidden numbers. International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN).
Kennedy, G. (2007). An ontology of Trash: The Disposable and its problematic nature. State University of New York Press.
Kubal, T. (2012). Toxic wastes. Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage (pp. 923–929). SAGE.
Kull, K. (1998). Semiotic ecology: Different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Systems Studies, 26(1), 344–371. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.1998.26.15.
Kull, K. (2010). Ecosystems are made of Semiosic Bonds: Consortia, Umwelten, Biophony and Ecological Codes. Biosemiotics, 3, 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9081-1.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
Maran, T. (2013). Enchantment of the past and semiocide. Remembering Ivar Puura. Sign Systems Studies, 41(1), 146–149.
Maran, T. (2021). The Ecosemiosphere is a grounded Semiosphere. A lotmanian conceptualization of Cultural-Ecological Systems. Biosemiotics, 14(2), 519–530.
Maran, T., & Kull, K. (2014). Ecosemiotics: Main principles and current developments. GeografiskaAnnaler: Series B Human Geography, 96(1), 41–50.
Moore, S. A. (2012). Garbage matters: Concepts in new geographies of waste. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 780–799.
Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. Verso.
Nixon, R. (2011). Slow violence and the enviorenmentalism of poor. Harvard University Press.
OECD. (2022). Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_de747aef-en.
OECD (2022b). Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/global-plastics-outlook_aa1edf33-en.
Pali, B., & Aertsen, I. (2021). Inhabiting a vulnerable and wounded earth: Restoring reponse-ability. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 4(1), 3–16.
Posner, R. (2000). Semiotic pollution: Deliberations towards an ecology of signs. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 290–307.
Puura, I. (2013). Nature in our memory. Sign Systems Studies, 41(1), 150–153.
Rathje, W. L., & Murphy, C. (1992). Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage: What our Garbage tells us about ourselves. HarperCollins.
Reno, J. (2011). Transnational Waste and its discontents. Anthropology Now, 3(1), 23–30.
Reno, J. (2014). Toward a New Theory of Waste: From ‘Matter out of Place’ to Signs of Life. Theory Culture & Society, 31(6), 3–27.
Reno, J. (2015). Waste and Waste Management. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 557–572.
Selke, S. (2020). Übereffiziente Menschen und manipulative Werkzeuge. Selbstvermessung in Kontext digitaler Vulnareabiltät und informationeller Suffizienz. In M. Sahinol, C. Coenen, & R. Motika (Eds.), Upgrades der Natur, künftige Körper: Interdisziplinäre und internationale Perspektiven (pp. 75–95). Springer VS.
Shennum, K. (2022). It’s as if they’re poisoning us”: The Health Impacts of Plastic Recycling in Turkey. Human Rights Watch.
Stirner, M. (1986). Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Nachw. u. hrsg. v. Ahlrich Meyer. Reclams Universal-Bibliothek.
Tønnessen, M., Beever, J., & Hendlin, Y. H. (2015). Introducing Biosemiotic Ethics. Zeitschrift Für Semiotik, 37(3–4), 3–12.
Ünlü, B. (2022, May 17). Adana’daki çöp aldatmacası bitmiyor: Ne temizlendi ne de temizleme yetiyor. Yeşil Gazete. https://yesilgazete.org/adanadaki-cop-aldatmacasi-bitmiyor-ne-temizlendi-ne-de-temizleme-yetiyor/.
Uslu, M. E. (2020). Semiocide: An introduction to semiotics of destruction of the meaningful. Sign Systems Studies, 48(2–4), 224–245.
von Uexküll, J. (1934). Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen. Springer Verlag.
Wen, Z., Xie, Y., Chen, M., & Dinga, C. D. (2021). China’s plastic import ban increases prospects of environmental impact mitigation of plastic waste trade flow worldwide. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–9.
Wheeler, W. (2019). Culture, Politics and Biology from a Biosemiotic Perspective. Recherches Sémiotiques, 39(1–2), 183–203.https://doi.org/10.7202/1076232ar
Yang, Z., Guo, C., Li, Q., Zhong, Y., Ma, S., Zhou, J., Li, X., Huang, R., & Yu, Y. (2021). Human health risks estimations from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in serum and their hydroxylated metabolites in paired urine samples. Environmental Pollution, 290, 1–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors wrote the main manuscript, and both reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Alnıaçık Özyer, E.T., Çavuş Peksöz, R. Semiocide and Wasteocene in the Making: The Case of Adana Landfill. Biosemiotics 17, 49–65 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09539-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09539-6