The Interface between Political Ecology and Actor–Network Theory: Exploring the Reality of Waste

The human–environment relationship and its association is a prominent discourse in many academic disciplines. Environmental pollution, climate change and vulnerabilities associated with waste have been major concerns for policymakers, activists and academicians across the globe over the past two decades. However, it remains under-theorised despite its significance in the academic world. Waste being a physical and external phenomenon makes it difficult for social science researchers to understand all of its sociocultural aspects with the help of any existing theoretical paradigm. This article addresses the urgent need to understand the multidimensional nature of waste and waste management with the help of political ecology and actor–network theory (ANT). The article provides the areas of possible linkages between both theories to study waste with the help of secondary research tools like the literature review. By adopting theoretical pluralism and a pragmatic approach, this article aims at explaining waste-related issues through the theoretical lens of political ecology and ANT, which corroborate and extend each other on the aspects of analysing the power structure in waste issues, in exploring the changing relationship between waste and people in the globalised world.


Introduction
Waste, in general, is inherent and ubiquitous in all kinds of social institutions, social processes and social actions in human society. As Pongrácz (2002) states, 'Waste is a value concept, culturally constructed and subjective to the individual, be it the observer or the depositor' (p. 83). The meaning and value of waste differ from person to person and from society to society. The difference has always been there in the type and volume of the waste that has varied over the period. Waste has created social, economic and political crises with ongoing urbanisation and globalisation. If we look at the annual municipal solid waste generation by the world, then it is 2.01 billion tonnes from which 33% of waste is not managed safely (Kaza et al., 2018). World Bank forecasted global waste generation to be 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018). Such a serious condition of waste makes it a global social issue and makes the role of social science researchers all the more important.
When we look at waste, they are more than litter. These ownerless wastes have made our landscape a 'trashscape' (Thill, 2015). This refers to the current state of the world, where waste is present everywhere. Waste is an object that has been discarded after the loss of its value and utility, and they tend to bring a burden on sanitation and health in that space of its existence (Brownell, 2011). Waste particularly attracted the attention of academicians, when Strasser (1999) initiated a debate over 'waste', the ignored phenomenon that is a classic in consumer culture. She described the social and cultural history of trash, and how it influenced the life of people in western countries as a social process. Focusing more on finding out the evolution of a throwaway culture through historical evidence, Strasser described the historical evolution and development of different types of waste and their meaning. She also faced the issue of the lack of an existing theoretical framework that regarded waste as an integral part and that has an association with human behaviour and human society. Before Strasser, Douglas (1966), Thompson (1979) and Appadurai (1986) had written in detail about rubbish or dirt and its meaning in the cultures associated. Major works in the literature on waste that followed them are Blumberg and Gottlieb (1989), Rathje and Murphy (1992), Faber (1993), Crooks (1993), Watkins (1993), Alexander (1993), Hine (1995), Bilitewski (1997), Humphrey (1998), Clemons (1998), Tammemagi (1999), Cross (2000), Donohue (2003), Bauman (2004), Enger (2004), Houser (2004), Melosi (2005), Scanlan (2005), Girling (2005), Royte (2005), Hawkins (2006), Brantlinger and Higgins (2006), MacBride (2008), Dauvergne (2008), Beck (2009), Ekbladh (2010, Pye (2010), Anderson (2010), Foote and Mazzolini (2012), Humes (2013), Viney (2014), Morrison (2015), Reno (2016) and Spelman (2016).
Martin O'Brien (2008) tried to paint the picture of the rubbish society with a detailed analysis of rubbish histories in the context of European societies. O'Brien talked about waste in a broader sense by using the term 'rubbish'. To him, waste is never a waste but entails value-it is an unavoidable and important constituent of social life, and has the power of technological, economic and social transformation. O'Brien emphasised understanding the reality of waste with the help of research. Waste is not simply waste but has the power to bring social and economic changes in society. For example, the trash industry flourished in South East Asia and helped many people economically (O'Brien, 2008). The entrepreneurial role of waste is economically enriching. If this is the case, why then the full potential of waste has not been realised yet globally? And what are the lacunae in the understanding of the social processes associated with waste and waste management? This brings the opportunity to study the reality and different aspects of waste and waste management in society.
Traditionally, waste has been viewed as an external phenomenon without having any association with the rest of the social structure and system. The political nature of waste and its influence on humans who generate them are some areas that need contemplation. Conventionally, waste has been studied as an issue that should be solved but the networks of the relationship between different actors have not been delved into. The social implication of such relationships and what the waste represents need to be understood. There are theoretical challenges in the study of waste as it has not been researched adequately and theoretically. This article attempts to fill up the gaps in research on waste and guide future researchers to adopt relevant methods, study variables and specific ways of analysing data to navigate problems relating to waste and waste management across space and time. The multidimensional nature of waste needs to be studied and the different disciplines have a lot to contribute to better understanding of waste. It entails a powerful call for engagement in a transdisciplinary study. Almost all the studies on waste were based on developed countries, which makes it necessary to have theoretical frameworks on waste and waste management across the countries irrespective of differences.

Idea of Theorisation
The problem of waste is not simply a problem for the scientific community, which needs to be solved scientifically. The surface reality of social phenomena is much more different than that of the underlying hidden reality. Through the research process and empirical measurement, different layers of reality can be discovered. This has been categorically described as peeling the layers of the onion to find out the hidden 'real' structure (Bhaskar, 1975). Sometimes, the issue of waste is said to be socially constructed but the existence of social problems associated with waste is evident through multiple examples like the precarious condition of waste pickers, poor health of animals and birds, and inherent inequalities in the waste management process itself. All types of waste have both visible and invisible impacts. The visible impacts include environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emission, the spread of diseases, loss of lives, etc., whereas the invisible aspects include the power relationship among different stakeholders, the network of relationships and the social group getting the benefit out of the mismanagement of waste, etc. These impacts remain disguised and are given different labels by social actors such as scientists, industrialists, politicians, journalists and environmental activists. The entire issue of waste gets socially constructed like the environmental issues. Their political and economic interests are hidden. There is a need for an investigation into the power relations between nature and society exhibited through various social institutions, knowledge and the life-world of people (Leff, 2012). As per actor-network theory (ANT), the power structure and inequality in the waste and waste management system can be discovered through an understanding of the networks between different actors both human and nonhuman. Beyond the visible problems, exists the power structure, institutional arrangements, administrative pitfalls, linkages and many more that will be exposed with careful application of the political ecology and ANT.
General universal theories explaining waste-related issues are not that popular in the social sciences. Not many researchers and scholars have attempted to do so. Even social science researchers try to have a basic explanation of waste-related issues, like littering, lack of segregation, high level of waste generation, poor recycling services, etc. There have been multiple studies on the linkage between the socio-demographic profile of the citizens with the high level of waste generation and segregation behaviour such as Rame et al. (2022), Afroz et al. (2017), Sujauddin et al. (2008) and Mukui (2013). The theories explaining the waste management behaviour of the respondents are limited to some psychological theories such as the focus theory of normative conduct, integrative behaviour model, theory of planned behaviour, etc. If the social aspect of waste, the power dynamics and networks cannot be understood, then waste management will forever remain a mystery. The grand social processes working through the micro-world of individuals cannot be uncovered. This necessitates a full-fledged study on waste using theories. The question is as follows: Can waste-related problems be understood and solved or not? There is a huge gap in this regard in waste studies across the world. If this is the age of Anthropocene, then it is mandatory to study waste which is the result of human action. There is no doubt why humans cannot change such actions.
While analysing the existing power dynamics, political ecology will broaden its explanation by adding biophysical dimensions in the study of the system and network. Along with all these, the type of connection such as positive or negative, terms of connection, the strength of the connection, the structure of the network and the position of the actor in the network need to be explained. Rocheleau and Roth (2007) posit that the belief behind such analysis lies in the socio-ecological network between structure and agency due to the continuous interaction between human and non-human entities. The world has been networked as always (Rocheleau & Roth, 2007). These networked relationships will shed the light on the required actions at the policy level. If we take the example of the urban areas that are mostly engulfed with the dilemma of handling and sustainably disposing of waste, then they need to be studied in a different context and space. The policies need to be carefully formulated for the genuine and efficient management of waste because a sustainable society depends on a coherent and competent waste management system. While doing a political-ecological analysis of waste and implementing environmental policies, the role played by the natural forces and complex ecosystem dynamics must be considered (Nygren & Rikoon, 2008).

The Need for Theoretical Integration
In political ecology, the environmental issues can be explained by focusing more on the political structures, and in ANT, the movement of networks between the actors can be analysed to reveal the power dynamics-both of which can provide a holistic picture of the issue. In the case of political ecology, these political structures affect the uneven distribution of resources that, in turn, result in inaccessibility to environmental facilities and impoverishment of people. Such a case has been highlighted by Pelling (2003) in his study of urban floods. He also argued that the unwillingness of the politicians to help people and the nonadoption of different strategies to improve the situation further made it worse. This again resulted in economic and social inequality and deterioration of the environment. Heynen et al. (2006) outlined the importance of including social and political issues related to environmental problems while studying it. When the problems are analysed with political and social issues involved, it empowers the researchers to provide better alternatives to solve real-world problems.
Because waste is a complex object, a single ontological and epistemological orientation will never solve the purpose. Thus, there is a need for using multiple ontologies, which may be referred to as plural ontology. As there will be plural ontology, plural epistemology and plural methodology will be applied to properly study and understand waste. Here, there has been an attempt to integrate both idealist and realist ontologies. A pragmatic philosophical orientation, where there is acceptance of multiple standpoints and the focus is on practicality, is appropriate in the context of waste. In the state of affairs of waste, some may view it as indispensable to society and some others may consider it a social problem. The interpretation and understanding do not end here; the complex system of waste needs to be expressed. For that, to use the lens of ANT and political ecology, the researchers need to take up a research problem related to waste management, which could be waste segregation or volume of waste generation, or appropriateness of waste management practices. Then they need to be ready to adopt certain concepts from both theories while framing research questions. Data, then, can be collected using qualitative and quantitative techniques or both as demanded by the nature of the research problem and methodological convenience. It is important to take into account all the relevant stakeholders associated with the problem at hand. The collected data can be analysed with the help of a chain of explanations and due consideration of available concepts in both theories like 'metabolic rift', 'entanglement', etc.

Why Political Ecology and Actor-Network Theory?
Environmental sociology as the sub-discipline of sociology also has a relationship with geography, political science, anthropology, psychology, science and technology studies, biology, environmental studies, etc. In addition to relationships with various disciplines, there are debates and discussions about various theories and methodologies that lead to new ideas and concepts that further enrich environmental sociology. In some cases, environmental sociology accepts ideas from other disciplines and subjects but before their usage, they are critically analysed (Lidskog et al., 2015). Similarly, the waste issue can be better understood by engaging with multiple disciplines. In the present era of globalisation, global environmental sociology is the need of the hour. There is always a close link between local and global. This particularly is studied by both political ecology and ANT. It adds a cosmopolitan perspective to general sociology as well (Beck, 2009). Castells (2009) noted the need for place-and flowbased sociological analyses in a globalised world. A better understanding of the emergence of context and the impact of contextual approaches in local and global approaches can help in getting new findings, concepts and theories and may help other sub-disciplines as well.

Political Ecology
Bertrand Jouvenel (1957) coined the term 'ecology politique' in French, whereas Eric R. Wolf (1972) coined it in English. Political ecology is critical in nature and views every phenomenon in a dialectical way. This dialectical tradition has been borrowed from Marx and Hegel. Not only does it criticise the environmental and social issues and existing conflicting relationships between social groups, it also provides alternatives for the solution to such issues. Other than being largely ecocentric, it studies the ecological and human conflict by understanding human actions and interests (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) define political ecology as an approach that 'combines the concerns of ecology with a broadly defined political economy'. Though it owes its genesis to the academic discipline of geography, it has significant relevance for anthropology and sociology. Kropotkin (1902) was the first researcher in political ecology who talked about the inherent relationship between man and nature. He further argued that all types of social inequality are not at all natural but man-made. Humboldt and Bonpland (1970), Reclus (1890), Wallace (1870) and Somerville (1848) are worth mentioning in the context of holding similar views. With the use of political history, they have demonstrated the existing underdevelopment and inequality (Robbins, 2012). There is a Marxian orientation in political ecology and the explanation of all environmental issues is mostly based on uncovering the power structure (Forsyth, 2008). The waste-related issues are depicted as a result of political processes. There is cost and benefit inherent in waste and waste management issues. Political ecology analyses these but puts more importance on the political aspect of the issues, which is the only cause of all other social problems (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). In political ecology, as non-human objects such as waste are intertwined with humans, they are also assumed to be political. The complex relationship between humans and waste can be discovered through a dialectic analysis by determining the winning and the losing party, by considering the historicity of a waste-related issue, and by a chain of explanations in waste management. The historicity of ecological processes takes a pivotal role in such analysis (Robbins, 2012). In other words, every kind of social issue and injustice associated has a historical cause. It is not only a result of human interference but has a historical process involved in it.
There is indeed theoretical fluidity in the political ecology framework (Khan, 2013). Political ecologists, with the use of case studies, participant observation, surveys and ethnographic methods, aim at finding out the political economy affecting the local activities and the environment through the social network. In addition, researchers sometimes use time series analysis, remote sensing, archival research and network analysis of various actors, which are analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively (Robbins, 2012). Political ecology offers leverage to analyse waste with its relationship to the actors and institutions with all these tools, techniques and methods. When marginalised social groups such as the women and children endure suffering due to improper waste management, political ecology advances a step further to understand that inequality and suggests the needed change. The very fact that waste management and all types of waste such as solid waste, hazardous waste, construction and demolition waste, electronic waste and biodegradable waste are political with the involvement of human actors, makes it essential to investigate that political relationship across spatial and temporal scales of analysis. For example, if a particular city faces the problem of solid waste, that can be analysed over a decade or a century with more focus on the actors involved in taking decisions in the waste management of that city, the groups that get the maximum benefit or those who suffer due to the decisions made, the way solid waste management process has changed over the time, why and how there is a struggle for the waste resources among the waste pickers or the community dependent on the waste picking. Along with these, the knowledge production relating to solid waste, policies, the role of the stakeholders such as scientists, social activists and the concern of the vulnerable sections of the society in the waste handling processes are taken care of here. To get a better picture, the use of direct observation and other qualitative methods are being used. A better understanding of the environment emerges from the critique of everyday life (Loftus, 2012). As it is impossible to separate humans from the natural world, nothing can be understood without understanding the socio-natural relationship. The consciousness about such a relationship emerges through everyday interaction with nature (Loftus, 2012). Multiple events are occurring simultaneously in the environment, and in political ecology, these problems are the result of the hybridisation process. The continuous influx of material and energy inside the social system is producing more waste-related problems in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, high levels of waste creation, social inequalities, social injustice, etc. Similarly, the problem of the high volume of waste is a hybrid one, where multiple factors and processes are involved, making the issue more complex. Many scholars have used political ecology in studying different problems of waste in different countries, such as Cornea et al. (2017) who used political ecology to study the urban political ecology of solid waste in West Bengal and investigated the issues in the implementation of segregation at the source project. Again the relationship between consumption pattern and waste generation has been established through political ecology (Pearson, 2010) and the political ecology of food waste has been studied by Gascon (2018). These studies have delineated the hidden power structure in the waste management process.

Actor-Network Theory
For ANT, the world is a network (Law, 1992). In this network, humans, objects, ideas and concepts are networked. These are viewed as actors and the theory searches for the network among all these actors (Latour, 2005). Thus, not only humans but also non-humans and objects are included in the analysis. The kind of network they create results in some sort of power and inequality in society (Law, 1992). According to Latour (1996), society can only be explained in the form of network, not through system, structure, categories or layers. The network refers to the movement of things or actors. Latour focused on the movement of actors and the way movement is recorded in ANT. The society and nature distinction is superseded in network theory. Every actor in the network, their characteristics, distribution of properties, connections and circulation of such connections are subject to the theory. The theory studies the relational aspects of the phenomena.
Here the reality becomes a reality, only when there is an interaction among actors and the interplay among them goes on (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006). Likewise, all types of waste are not external to individual actors, rather, waste is associated and networked with them. This can be explained with a simple example of the waste management of a city, where all are actors including the waste objects that are continuously shaping the lives of each other.
The relational dimension of waste can be studied with it. Thus, in waste issues, there can be an in-depth study on the properties of the relationship between waste and people and how this relationship becomes very dynamic and evolving. It is not simply the effect of waste on people or the effect of humans on waste but more than that. Multiple studies that used ANT in their analysis of waste issues are Gille (2010) who used ANT to analyse the interface between waste and society, Lepawsky and Mather (2011), who applied ANT to study electronic waste issues in Bangladesh and Canada. Wastewater issues in the UK were studied by Bowler (1999), and ANT has also been used in the case study of waste management on university campuses (Méndez-Fajardo & Gonzalez, 2014).
The concept of human versus nature is flawed because we are part of nature. Humans and nature can be differentiated on the basis of the capacity of humans to change their environment and no other species is capable of doing the same. Humans are capable of changing nature. This is purely anthropocentric but the only difference is how it can be used. It looks more into how the actors are connected, disconnected and reconnected in society. This theory has more potential to offer how and why the interconnections are established and such associations are transformed continuously over time (Latour, 2005). If we take some temporal data on the quantity of waste generated in a state, the theory is capable of explaining the reasons for such an increase in waste quantity other than simple socio-demographic factors, increased population and growth of urbanisation. And yet, if the governing body is not doing enough to deal with such issues, then it is due to a lack of availability of material benefits and power. The emerging new start-ups related to waste such as recycling and segregation are more interested in serving the state just because there is an availability of power and material benefit in that process. The inequality evident in society in the waste management process is explained not as the impact of the structure or system but rather as the impact of the networks. If the network is big, there is gain, if the network is small, there is loss. The type of network determines the social aspect of waste. The networks play a big role in shaping waste-related issues in society. In the waste management process, the most powerful group is the one that knows, and that knowledge is very much linked with already established scientists who are part of the big networks. The whole discourse revolves around the claim of these groups being related to science and knowledge and here the actors with the limited network have a little role to play. The actors are rational and they work consistently to maximise their benefits, which may result in inequality.

An Overview of the Linkage between Political Ecology and ANT and their Application in Understanding Waste
The theory of political ecology emerged in the discipline of geography and the ANT emerged in the discipline of science and technology, but both theories can be harmonised with social science perspective in the study of waste. Scholars have identified the linkage and similarities between the two theories. Indeed, Holifield (2009) posited ANT as an alternative to political ecology. Political ecology and ANT emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, and both have an amazing application in waste studies. For political ecology, the human-nature relationship is viewed as if humans and nature are different conceptually but have a dialectical relationship, and, on the other hand, in ANT, relationships between humans are mediated by non-human entities or nature. Likewise, the relationship between humans and waste is dialectical, and waste and waste management determine the relationship between the stakeholders of the society. In political ecology, the forces of social-ecological change are understood as environmental problems associated with political interest. However in ANT, the interaction between the actors and object and their movement in the network act as the forces of social-ecological changes. That being the case, while studying waste-related issues, the existence of interaction between the waste and humans and the movement of both the actors shaped by that interaction is acknowledged.
In political ecology, those who are benefited and those who lost in the due course of the environmental problems are undertaken as the units of analysis. In ANT, actors, humans, non-humans and networks are all undertaken as units of analysis. Similarly in waste studies, not only the actors who gained and lost from mismanagement of waste are studied but all kinds of networks can be studied between waste, government bodies and the public. The interconnection between actors and networks and existing political relationships in the waste management process are dismantled by using both theories. Scholars of political ecology have already exhibited the possible linkage between political ecology with ANT in their studies such as Swyngedouw's concept of the hydro-social cycle (2004), Robbins's American lawn culture (2007), Sarah Whatmore's hybrid analysis (1999Whatmore's hybrid analysis ( , 2002.
Both theories provide an integrative explanation of the local and global. For example, this linkage between all the actors will help in explaining the types and causes of waste-related problems like poor segregation practices, and unsafe disposal of the waste in a local context that will have an impact on the entire state as also at the global level. As the theories aim at finding out the causes of the issue rather than the basic characteristics of the issue, not only the basic nature of the waste issues like related environmental impacts, and socio-demographic linkages but also the inherent structural inequalities and power relations causing such impacts will be revealed.
In political ecology, there has been an analysis of the 'assemblages' of both humans and non-humans, which make the world. It accepts the fact that both man and nature have a close relationship and they both affect each other (Murdoch, 1997). Similarly in ANT, both the human and non-human entities are taken together to study the network between them. Waste though seems politically neutral or apolitical, can be explained in a political-ecological way, where the engagement of multiple stakeholders who have manipulated the process of waste generation, disposal and management can be unearthed. The hidden economic and political benefits and the political dimension of waste issues across all the spaces of the world can be revealed.
To understand every issue, researchers need a chain of explanations, not a single explanation. Social phenomena or problems never occur due to a single cause, as multiple stakeholders are included in the process, it is essential to identify the stakeholders and their roles and relationship with the other existing stakeholders. Waste issues in a city cannot be dealt with by changing government bodies and their policies, rather other causes of illegal dumping and people's lack of concern for the environment, poor implementation of the waste management laws need to be unravelled. Political ecology and ANT propose the existence of multiple actors, stakeholders and processes in every kind of complex social problem. All kinds of issues associated with waste do not simply originate due to a particular pattern in the behaviour of the people. It also results from poor implementation of waste management rules, and poor handling of waste by private entities who try to sort and recycle it. The policies associated with waste to make the city clean can be analysed better with the help of these theories. For example, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and various local government policies are implemented but in that implementation process, in the delivery of waste-related services, the power structure is involved. Also at the national and international levels, multiple actors shape the flow of waste and its management. This can be uncovered with adequate analysis of the linkages.

Conclusion
To study the nature and culture divide, often there is the need to integrate all the disciplines of social science and reduce their epistemological and institutional gap. To understand this nature and culture dichotomy, a continuous interaction must exist between them to study the human-environment relationship. Such kind of interaction requires paradigmatic changes in scientific practice at the epistemological, methodological and institutional levels (Little, 2006). As propounded by Barnes and Bloor (1982), to get a complete picture of reality, we need to have 'epistemological symmetry' and only then can we understand the cause of a particular phenomenon that is emerging from both the natural and the social worlds. Thus, all the disciplines need each other's help to expand their analysis. For example, while researching air pollution, the human element or anthropogenic forces in the analysis can be incorporated. To do so, the social science researcher can add the main biophysical forces like the geological features of an area, the biological evolution of the flora and fauna, and the air quality index along with the human factors, such as the transportation and communication system, household activities, industrial air emission discharged in the environment. Besides looking at both the causes, the researcher also needs to identify the 'socio-environmental realities emerging from the interactions between the biophysical and the social worlds' (Little, 2006, p. 89). With a transdisciplinary approach, waste and waste management can be explained better.
Political ecology already has a multidisciplinary approach as it has included concepts, methods and disciplines like anthropology, human ecology, geography, medicine, political economy, botany and history. Both the theories of political ecology and ANT highlight the ongoing conflicts on waste problems, and the involved socio-environmental actors, revealing oft-ignored connections and relations of power. In the field of waste and waste management, there is not much work on the political-economic aspect, and the power structure appropriated by a few groups through the waste management process. Globally such investigations are scanty and no specific interventions have been adopted by any country to deal with the challenges posed by waste management. If the understanding of the aforesaid issues will be made public through established research with a definite integrative theoretical approach, some positive changes can be made by the governing bodies. This, in turn, can be appropriated by social science researchers and help them question existing public policies and propose a new form of action and public policies to bring change in waste management. Such an opportunity to work together must be seized by all the disciplines, where they can act together and tackle real-world problems like waste. This engagement requires both the scientific institutions and societal actors to acknowledge and promote such transdisciplinary research approaches. The problem lies in the lack of communication, political will, and scientific and governance structures. If such transformative and collaborative research endeavours are not fostered, then the sustainability problems cannot be resolved (Brandt et al., 2013). The scientific and governance structures need to be such that they can adapt to the rapid socio-ecological changes. The theories of political ecology and ANT seem to corroborate and extend each other on the aspects of analysing the power structure in waste issues, in exploring the changing relationship between waste and people in the globalised world. They tend to transcend the dualism between subject and object or nature and society.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.