Problematizing Urban Shit(ting): Representing Human Waste as a Problem

Abstract

Shit(ting) as a problem is not an a priori position. It is made a problem through socially mediated discursive and non‐discursive practices. Problematizations of human waste promoted by formal governance institutions have dominated the conversation, while the ways in which slum residents experience shit(ting) as a problem receive considerably less attention. This article examines how human waste and its attendant practices are represented as a problem in Agra, India. Using Foucauldian‐based analysis, this research makes visible problematizations of urban shit(ting) and exposes the divergent logics employed by urban actors. Ethnographic interviews and document analysis reveal six ways in which various actors experience shit(ting) as a problem—as: (1) inconvenient; (2) dangerous; (3) contagion; (4) undignified; (5) polluting; (6) primitive. Inconvenience was the problematization invoked most frequently by slum residents, but never by governance groups, meaning that issues of inconvenience were absent from formal planning processes. This absence can, in part, be attributed to the toilet's ability to address multiple problems simultaneously. Findings from this research support the call to acknowledge the situatedness of urban inquiry through analysis of problematizations. In doing so, scholars and practitioners gain access to a more complete toolkit for developing and evaluating urban sewage initiatives.

‘Bad’ Trash: Problematising Waste in Blantyre, Malawi

“…Nonetheless as Oberg (2019) reminds us, there remains value in bringing to light the full range of problematisations. Considering the full range of problematisations gives voice to previously disregarded problematisations, as well as the potentially marginalised groups forming them (Oberg, 2019). If the BCC does develop Mzedi in the future, the problematisations of these groups should be considered and acted upon, rather than being subordinated to the dominant problematisations championed by the City or privileged groups.…”

“…Until recently, Foucault's notion of problematisation had primarily been utilised as a means for critique within urban studies, at a societal level. However, recent contributions by Bacchi (2015), Barnett and Bridge (2016), and Oberg (2019) have demonstrated how the concept can be utilised as an analytical tool to understand processes of problem formation that occur within the individual, and how these processes may be applied in regards to waste.…”

“…Neither speak explicitly to the ways in which individuals might problematise specific objects, or groups of objects, such as waste. Oberg (2019), however, broadens the utility of the term, shifting the scope of analysis from problematisations around a given issue, to understanding how individuals problematise certain experiences, in this instance open defecation in urban India. Her analysis found that nearly all actors, including a broader range of stakeholders within Agra, problematise open defecation for various reasons, viewing it as inconvenient, dangerous, a source of disease, undignified, polluting, and/ or primitive.…”

“…Her analysis found that nearly all actors, including a broader range of stakeholders within Agra, problematise open defecation for various reasons, viewing it as inconvenient, dangerous, a source of disease, undignified, polluting, and/ or primitive. However, some problematisations, such as its inconvenience, were limited to only certain actors, while others emphasise problematisations, such as the risk of disease, that others do not consider as a problem (Oberg, 2019). To Oberg (2019), the value in using the concept of problematisation as an analytical tool is that it allowed for the full range of defecatory experiences in a given context to emerge.…”

“…Foucault's conception of problematisation, and subsequent elaborations on the notion, allow for a situational analysis of the formation of problems (Barnett & Bridge, 2016). As with individual ontological formations around 'waste' objects, personal conceptions of problems do not exist, as Oberg (2019) identified, independently from the people they affect, rather, these conceptions are continually shaped and reshaped through human agency, need, and livelihood practices. Understanding these processes of problem formation, through which differently placed individuals problematise 'trash', and the degree to which these problematisations are shaped by culture, values, and other contextual factors, has important ramifications for the adoption of appropriate waste management or circular economy strategies.…”