Semiocide and wasteocene in the making: The case of Adana landfill

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.