GAMMON

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
Reducing our Consumption of Single-Use Plastics
Rhiannon M. Gammon, April 2019

2023 Anthropology Capstone Reader
Angèle Smith, Editor

DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

GAMMON
On February 6, 2019, it was Green Day at UNBC. The halls were lined with information
booths explaining water use on campus and local vendors sold their locally produced goods. The
purpose of this event was to bring student awareness to all of the green initiatives taking place
around campus and to encourage students to participate. I thought that it would be a good place
to observe student interactions with single-use plastics. Even though it was Green Day, plastic
commodities were not hard to find. Many vendors handed out samples in tiny plastic cups,
accompanied by tiny plastic spoons. Of course, these foods were at least locally produced and
Green Day only happens once a year. I was more interested in the everyday habits of students
and their interactions with single-use plastics. There is one location on campus where single-use
plastics are readily available on any given day: Tim Hortons.
At 9:40am I sat outside the Tim Horton’s on campus to take field notes, with the goal of
counting disposable cup use against reusable cup use. I had seen posters promoting the use of
reusable mugs on Green Day. One such poster was taped to a concrete pillar next to the cash
register. The poster advertised that vendors were giving out free coffee to people with reusable
mugs and that Tim Hortons was hosting a prize draw for people who brought their own mugs. I
hypothesized that with such high incentives, I would likely see a significant number of students
bring their own mugs — this was not the case.
I sat at my rickety wooden table for 20 minutes watching student after student walk away
with a disposable coffee cup. During the time I observed the line, only five individuals brought
their own mug while 31 others took their double doubles in plastic lined paper to go. The next
day, Tim Hortons annual Roll-up-the-Rim campaign began across the country. During this
campaign, thousands of Canadians will purchase Tim Hortons hot beverages in disposable cups

1

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
with the hopes that one of those cups may win them a Jeep Compass, or at the very least, another
cup of coffee.
While my twenty-minute study of disposable cup use is not scientific, it illustrates an
important point: On Green Day, at the Green University, only a handful of students opted out of
single-use plastics, even though significant incentives existed for doing so. The very next day,
the Roll-Up-the-Rim campaign began encouraging consumers to purchase single-use plastics in
excess. It is for this reason that I think our culture of single-use plastics requires further
examination.
Our deep attachment to plastics exists within a complex set of relationships between
manufacturers, consumers, markets, and environmental forces. In this paper, I question the
reasons behind these relationships and seek to discover why we have become so attached to
plastics, and why it is so hard to break this attachment. The effects of plastics extend far beyond
the issue of litter, but relate to our construction of identity and our sense of social justice. In this
paper, I will argue that plastic is reflective of who we are, and also reflective of the global
inequalities we have created and is thus an important social justice issue. I will employ the
theory of political ecology to analyze the consumption of single-use plastics within industrialized
countries and to untangle these complex relationships. This theory will highlight the influence of
finance and power and help to unravel the role of industry and institutions in the seemingly
agential decisions we make as consumers. I will then discuss why the plastics problem is so
pressing, and why we need to change our culture of single-use plastics. The issue of single-use
plastics has widespread global effects, and thus solving the plastics problem is a matter of social
justice. I will then apply a political ecological framework to argue that single-use plastics are an

2

GAMMON
integral part of consumer culture, and lie at the core of our identity as a society. Finally, I will
turn to the question of how and if our plastic culture is capable of changing.

THEORY: POLITICAL ECOLOGY
Paul Robbins defines political ecology as “a field that seeks to unravel the political forces
at work in environmental access, management, and transformation” (Robbins 2012:3). Put
simply, political ecology examines the systems of power which influence the way we perceive
and construct our environment. Robbins further explains that this holistic approach includes
recognizing that people are part of the environment (Robbins 2012:12-13). Although we have
constructed a vision of humans as being separate from our environment, humans do exist within
this environment in the physical world. We depend upon our environment for resources like
food, shelter, and water like any other organism. Our environment determines the physical
limitations of our existence. While our environment influences us, we also influence our
environment. We can construct buildings and houses to create our own environments, change the
course of rivers, and tunnel through mountains. We can affect the physical and chemical
formation of the environment which surrounds us. Humans are inextricably intertwined with
their environment and each symbiotically affects the other. Political ecology recognizes this
connection between humans and the environment (Robbins 2012:12-13).
Of course, where there are humans there are relations of power. Human interactions are
characterized by inequality and power dynamics. The same systems of power which govern our
interpersonal relationships also govern our interactions with our environment. One of the goals
of political ecology is to understand how environments function within systems of power
(Robbins 2012:13). Operating within these systems of power, even small-scale actions can have

3

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
global impact (Robbins 2012:13). To illustrate this point, I will return to our earlier mentioned
antagonist, a Tim Hortons Roll-Up-the-Rim cup. Imagine that you have just purchased a cup of
coffee at our campus Tim Hortons. When you have finished your coffee, you roll the paper rim
up to reveal that you have once again lost the Tim Hortons game — Please Play Again. You
deposit your spent cup in one of the helpfully labelled recycling bins on campus and your cup
begins a journey of its own. From the recycling bin, the cup is collected with other recyclable
materials and put on a truck. Perhaps your cup makes its way to a recycling facility. Or, if the
shipment is found to be too contaminated to be recycled, your cup may find its way to an ocean
barge and be shipped across the Pacific Ocean to Malaysia where it is illegally burned in an open
garbage heap — this is the true fate of some “recycled” materials in Canada (Chung 2018; Sadler
2019: 5:55). A report commissioned by the Canadian Plastics Industry Association estimates that
in 2016 12% of post-consumer plastic materials, or 39 million kilograms, were sold to overseas
markets (More Recycling 2018:4). Once materials are overseas, it is much more difficult to know
what happens to these materials.
While appalling from an environmental standpoint, our small Tim Hortons cup illustrates
an important point about how something as small and insignificant as a single disposable cup can
have an impact on a global scale. The cup is manufactured by Canada’s favourite coffee shop,
Tim Hortons, and passes from storefront to consumer and then through a series of other systems
of power: recycling collectors, transportation companies, and illegal dumping grounds. While a
cup of coffee purchased on a university campus may seem to have a very localized effect, the
reality is that this cup will pass through a number of other organizations and travel globally
before reaching its final destination. Political ecology recognizes that even small-scale decisions
have global impact (Robbins 2012:13).

4

GAMMON
Each of the features of political ecology described here contribute to the holistic nature of
political ecology. By studying each of these components, one can construct a more detailed and
complete image of an issue. Furthermore, the goal of political ecology is to find causes, not
symptoms (Robbins 2012:20). Put simply, political ecology is about not just describing social
issues, but investigating why things are the way they are. By describing each of the abovementioned components, one can begin to get to the root of the problem. By utilizing an holistic,
political ecological framework in this paper, I seek to investigate our use of single-use plastics to
not only describe how we use them, but why we use them.

THE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTICS
The production and consumption of single-use plastics has steadily increased over recent
years. A large portion of our single-use plastics stems from the food industry. The market share
of single-use plastics by the food industry has increased greatly in recent times (Saint-Pierre
1998:9). One only has to visit the local supermarket to see how pervasive the use of plastic
packaging by the food industry has become.
The consumption of single-use plastic packaging is not distributed equally throughout the
world. Industrialized countries consume far higher quantities of plastic packaging, as higher
income is associated with increased waste production (Gwada et al. 2019:83-84). A report from
the Central Pollution Control Board of India in 1998 estimated that per capita plastic
consumption rates were 3.8 kg per person in India, 10 kg per person in China, and 40-60 kg of
waste per person in industrialized, Western countries (Gill 2012:12). Individuals in developing
countries are far more likely to re-use old plastic containers for storage, and are also more likely
to repair broken plastics (Gill 2012:15; Gwada et al. 2019:89). The re-use and repair practices in

5

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
developing countries contributes to the greatly reduced consumption of plastics, and also allows
for increased rates of recycling. It is estimated that between 60-80% of post-consumer plastic
waste is recycled in India, making it one of the highest plastic recyclers in the world (Gill
2012:13). While the developing world may have a much larger population than the industrialized
world, the plastic problem is created and perpetuated by the wealthiest, industrialized countries
of the world.

Why is Plastics Consumption a Problem?
The high consumption of plastic by industrialized countries is an important issue because
of the specific qualities of plastic. Plastic is incredibly difficult to recycle because of its
compositional complexity and cannot be recycled if it has been contaminated with other
materials (Thoden van Velzen et al. 2017:1). The contamination of plastic is a particular problem
as one of the largest consumers of plastic packaging is the food industry (Saint-Pierre 1998:9).
As a result, many of the plastic packages that we consume every day cannot be recycled.
In Canada, only 11% of plastics are recycled. Even if plastic packaging is placed in
municipally provided recycling bins, it may not be recycled because of contamination. A single
dollop of leftover food in a container can contaminate an entire shipment and result in the
recyclable materials being dumped in a landfill (Chung 2018). In addition, some of our plastic
waste is shipped overseas and illegally dumped in developing countries (Sadler 2019). This has a
number of social and environmental global impacts.

6

GAMMON
Positive Social Impacts of Plastic
The plastics industry is tremendously successful, generating $300 billion a year in sales
(Freinkel 2011:7-8). As plastics are so economically successful, the manufacturing of plastics
provides many jobs to people globally. The material qualities of plastic also provide substantial
benefit to society. Plastic materials make possible dentures or joint replacements and help people
to regain mobility, and increase range of motion (Freinkel 2011:81-85; Andrady and Neal
2009:1980). There is no question that plastic materials used in medicine are important and
beneficial to society. But what are the implications of the plastic packaging which surrounds the
products we purchase every day? Does plastic packaging itself have any benefits?
Some scholars argue that plastic packaging is a marvel of modern engineering which
contributes to a more efficient and less wasteful society. Because plastic materials are so lightweight they only account for a tiny fraction of the total weight of the product being packaged.
This means plastic is often a more efficient method of packaging than other materials. In
addition, the reduced weight of the packaged product means that less fuel is consumed during
transport of the product. Thus, plastic packaging, although produced from fossil fuels, reduces
fossil fuel emissions during the process of transport compared to other, heavier types of
packaging (Andrady and Neal 2009:1981-1982). It is also worth noting that disposable plastic
products such as our previously mentioned Roll-Up-the-Rim cup take significantly less energy to
produce than reusable options such as ceramic mugs. A ceramic mug, which uses additional
energy over its lifespan because it needs to be washed, will need to be used hundreds of times to
offset the energy cost of producing it (Andrady and Neal 2009:1981). Finally, plastic packaging
materials are beneficial because they store energy which can be reclaimed through recycling and

7

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
incineration (Andrady and Neal 2009:1982). Plastic packaging offers many benefits in terms of
energy efficiency compared to other packaging materials.
However, I argue that Andrady and Neal’s (2009) argument is too focused on the
quantitative data concerning energy consumption. Andrady and Neal (2009) fail to examine the
issue of plastics holistically and how plastic packaging affects the world on a broader scale. Just
because plastic packaging may seem more energy efficient on paper does not mean that it is the
best option for packaging consumer goods as there are other factors to take into account.
Remembering Robbin’s (2012:13) assertion that local actions have global consequences, I will
now investigate the negative impacts of plastic packaging to provide a more holistic image of the
plastic problem.

Environmental Impacts of Plastic
The dumping of plastics in landfills and open waste dumps is hazardous to the
environment. Plastics are non-degradable and can take hundreds of years to decompose. The
durability and longevity which makes plastic useful also makes it dangerous to the environment
(Ryan et al. 2009:1999). Because plastics do not degrade, they continue to take up space in
landfills and persist as pollution in the open environment. Even so called “biodegradable”
plastics are a problem, as these plastics break down into microplastics (Ryan et al. 2009:1999).
Plastic waste pollution can be found everywhere on the planet, but is a particular concern
in aquatic environments. Because plastic is so lightweight, it easily floats on water and can be
transported great distances from its original deposition point. As a result, plastic congregates in
massive waste “sinks” in the world’s oceans (Ryan et al. 2009:2000). A recent estimate places
the size of the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” a debris field of floating plastic in the middle of

8

GAMMON
the Pacific Ocean, at 1.6 million km2. The size of the garbage patch is rapidly increasing
(Lebreton et al. 2018). The Great Pacific Garbage Patch nearly covers the same area of the Earth
as the Province of Québec.
Aside from the aesthetic impacts of massive islands of garbage, plastic litter in the natural
environment can be directly hazardous to the health of wildlife. Sea birds and other animals have
been observed to ingest pieces of plastic debris with increasing regularity since the 1960s. The
ingestion of plastic by animals is a problem because it can block the digestive tract of the animal,
causing illness or even death. Animals can also become entangled in plastic debris (Gregory
2009:2014-2016).
Plastic waste can also be hazardous to wildlife in a number of more discrete ways by
affecting the chemistry of marine environments. There is concern over pieces of plastic film
which sink and cover the ocean floor in a layer of plastic sheeting. This can interfere with gas
exchange and create a hypoxic environment underneath the plastic, effectively smothering the
organisms which live under the plastic on the ocean floor (Gregory 2009:2017). In addition,
various chemical additives found within plastic wastes can leach into the water. There is research
to suggest that these additives affect the reproduction and development of aquatic organisms
(Oehlmann et al. 2009:2057).
Plastic pollution affects the environment and the health of wildlife in a number of ways.
However, recalling Robbins’ (2012:12-13) assertion that humans are a part of the environment, it
follows that impacts to wildlife and the environment also impact humans. It is easy to imagine
that the decreasing health of wildlife would impact people who depend on wildlife for
subsistence, but we must also remember that we breathe the same air and drink the same water as
other animals. Affects to wildlife health do not just impact the people who consume the wildlife,

9

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
but affect human populations as a whole. For the purpose of this paper, I have separated the
environmental impacts of plastic from the social impacts of plastic. However, it is important to
note that these categories necessarily affect one another.

Negative Social Impacts of Plastic
Many of the negative socio-economic impacts of plastic relate to the polluting nature of
plastic waste. Gwada et al. (2019) argue that plastic waste has negative effects on economic
activities in areas dependent on tourism-generated income. In places where the “pristine”
wilderness draws in tourists, the pollution of that place with plastic waste poses a risk to the
attraction of tourists (Gwada et al. 2019:84-85). Few tourists wish to spend thousands of dollars
to travel to white sandy beaches covered in plastic shopping bags. If a location becomes so
polluted with plastic waste that tourists no longer go there, this can have a negative impact on the
generation of tourist-based revenue and by extension, the communities which depend on this
revenue (Gwada et al. 2019). Thus, plastic waste pollution can have profound negative impacts
not just to local environments but also to local economies.
In addition, plastics and plastic waste pollution can also have negative effects to the
health of local populations. While plastic itself is inert, there are a number of chemicals added to
plastics called plasticizers which pose risks to human health. Plasticizers such as phthalates and
bisphenol A (BPA) are added to plastics to make brittle plastics more flexible. However, these
chemicals are also endocrine disruptors and can interfere with the reproductive systems of both
men and women. Plasticizers have been associated with increased risk of testicular, prostate, and
other reproductive cancers, impaired ovarian function, recurring miscarriages, decreased
production of sex hormones, increased adiposity, and insulin resistance (Meeker et al.

10

GAMMON
2009:2097-2108; Rustagi et al. 2011:100). As a result, the use of phthalates in consumer
products has been restricted by government agencies in Australia, Canada, the United States, and
the European Union (Rustagi et al. 2011:100). However, the presence of plasticizers is still
widespread throughout the environment (Meeker et al. 2009:2107). People can be exposed to
plasticizers through contact with consumer products, including through food containers. Plastic
bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) can leach phthalates into the contents of the
container, which is then ingested by consumers. Products which have a low pH, such as vinegar
or pop, are particularly vulnerable to the leaching of phthalates. Higher temperatures also
contribute to phthalate leaching (Rustagi et al. 2011:100-101). The plastic packaging which
encases our food could have negative impacts to our health.

Ambivalent Social Impacts of Plastic
A more complex, ambivalent relationship between humans and plastic exists in
developing countries where waste picking has become an important economic activity. In
developing countries such as India, many individuals take part in and depend on work in the
informal sector as waste recyclers (Gill 2012:2). The effects of plastic pollution have an
uncertain and ambivalent relationship with these plastics workers. On the one hand, the work of
these individuals provides a much-needed service that underfunded municipal governmental
structures are unable to organize. These workers divert plastics from landfills and move them
back into the global supply chain, helping to decrease plastic pollution while simultaneously
benefitting the economy (Gill 2012:2) Informal waste recycling is also beneficial to the waste
pickers themselves, as it provides an opportunity for employment that is more desirable and
profitable than other forms of informal sector work. Informal sector recycling also provides

11

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
workers independence and the ability to exert agency and participate in global markets (Gill
2012:26-28).
However, this work can be incredibly dangerous. Profitable informal sector work only
exists and thrives in locales where no welfare or social security exists. Thus, waste picking is
undertaken by some of the most vulnerable individuals in society. Furthermore, there is often
stigma attached to work in informal recycling and other jobs associated with waste management.
This has the effect of further marginalizing individuals who work as waste pickers (Gill 2012:2628). Beyond the lack of social security provided by waste recycling, it can also be physically
dangerous to the health of workers. Work in the informal sector is not regulated, and thus
measures to protect workers from hazards do not exist. Workers who melt materials for
extraction can be exposed to chemical fumes with no protection (Robbins 2012:1-2).
The informal recycling of plastics by workers in the developing world is a complex and
multifaceted issue. While many individuals depend on informal work and this work does have
positive impacts, that does not absolve the informal recycling industry of exploitation. It is
important to remember that due to political forces, illegal dumping grounds are generally located
in developing countries near vulnerable populations (Gwada et al. 2019:84). Although most of
the plastic waste in the world is produced by industrialized countries, the problem of plastic
waste and pollution disproportionately affects impoverished populations in developing countries.

Weighing the Evidence - Are Plastics a Problem?
I would like to briefly return to Andrady and Neal’s (2009) assertion that plastic
packaging is beneficial to society because it is more energy efficient to produce than other forms
of packaging. While energy efficiency is an important quality of plastics, energy efficiency alone

12

GAMMON
does not define their entire cost. I think it is necessary to incorporate a more qualitative approach
to evaluate the implications of plastic on a global scale. The true cost of plastic packaging does
not end with a mere calculation of the cost of the raw materials and the energy required for
production. The true cost of plastic packaging must be continually measured by assessing the
impact of plastic to the consumer’s reproductive health, the impact of plastic to the health, safety,
and economic well-being of waste pickers in the developing world, the impact of plastic to
wildlife and the environment, and the impact of plastic to tourism and other industries. Each of
these impacts and others must be taken into account when calculating the true cost of single-use
plastic packaging.
The issue of plastic packaging ultimately raises the question for those of us in the
industrialized world: is it ethical for us to produce and consume astronomical amounts of plastic
waste, only to ship this waste to the developing world to be “dealt with” by vulnerable,
impoverished populations of people? Is this the kind of world we wish to perpetuate, where the
mess of western consumers is left to be cleaned up by stigmatized workers on the other side of
the planet? If we wish to create an ethical and equal world, our waste management practices
must become more responsible and sustainable. Given that plastic is so difficult to recycle, the
plastic waste problem can only be effectively dealt with through the reduction and eventual
elimination of single-use plastic.
We have known about the problems with plastic for quite some time now. Yet here we
are into the 2020s, and the problem of plastic waste has only grown. How have we come to be so
dependent on plastics, and why is it so difficult for us to change our ways? In the next sections, I
seek to answer these questions and to propose solutions to the growing problem of plastic waste.

13

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
PLASTIC AND CONSUMER IDENTITY – WHY ARE WE SO DEPENDENT ON
SINGLE-USE PLASTICS?
I argue that we have become so dependent upon single-use plastics as a result of both
conscious and unconscious efforts which have ingrained plastics into Western consumer identity.
To take a truly political ecological view of the subject, I will examine both the larger political
forces and the smaller scale and local decisions which influence our plastic consumption.

Politics and Plastic
The petrochemical industry is perhaps one of the largest and most powerful industries in
the world and is inextricably intertwined to our consumption of plastic. Plastics are composed of
polymers which are derived from petrochemical byproducts. This gives plastic great economic
viability to both petrochemical refineries who profit from their waste and plastic producers who
purchase cheap, waste materials as raw materials (Freinkel 2011:6-7). Although only a very
small percentage of the global oil supply goes into producing plastic, the production of plastic is
still important to the petrochemical industry (Freinkel 2011:7) This is because plastic is
immensely profitable. We each consume 300 pounds of plastic each year, generating $300
billion in sales (Freinkel 2011:7-8). Approximately one third of all plastic produced is plastic
packaging, making packaging incredibly important to the plastic economy (Andrady and Neal
2009:1980).
While many industries use plastic packaging for the transport of their products, the food
and beverage industries are particularly reliant on plastic packaging. The food and beverage
industries hold the largest market share of plastic packaging within Canada. In fact, plastic
container use has increased to become the most commonly used type of packaging within these

14

GAMMON
industries, overtaking metal and glass containers (Saint-Pierre 1998:7-9). Andrady and Neal
(2009:1979) argue that plastic bottles will likely completely replace glass bottles in the coming
years.
Another industry with a stake in our consumption of plastic is of course, the recycling
industry. As has been discussed, many individuals in developing countries depend on informal
work as waste pickers (Gill 2012). The recycling industry as a whole has pushed back against
moves to decrease plastic use. In the late 1980s, the detrimental effects of plastic to the
environment coupled with concerns over decreasing landfill space spurred a movement to reduce
plastic waste and to develop degradable plastics. However, the move towards degradable plastics
was criticized as the plastics recycling industry was just beginning to take hold. It was thought
that creating degradable plastics would discourage individuals from recycling and harm the
profitable recycling industry (Crawford 1988:411-412). With so many industries invested in
plastic packaging it is easy to see why plastic packaging has been so ingrained into our everyday
lives.

Consumer Culture and Plastic Identity
Plastic packaging waste is such a pervasive issue not just because of its widespread use,
but because plastic has become a central component of consumer identity. Our relationship with
plastics has developed in tandem with the development of new plastic materials over the course
of the 20th century.
The production of plastic consumer goods became particularly popular after World War
Two. Initially, the new and widespread use of plastics marked a transition into the age of
modernity. Science publications extolled the wonders and versatility of plastics and the promise

15

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
these materials held for packaging. The new synthetic materials could be made clear so one
could see the contents in a container, but could be made flexible or firm depending on packaging
needs (Davis 1940; Davis 1941).
Over the latter half of the 20th century, public opinion concerning plastics swung back
and forth from one extreme to the other. Plastic was hygienic and a symbol of the future, but it
was also perceived as inauthentic. The ability of plastic to mimic other materials, coupled with
its low production cost, landed plastic a reputation as cheap, fake, and merely imitative (Freinkel
2011:8-9; Meikle 1995:7-8). Today, Hawkins (2006:22) argues that plastic holds a dichotomous
identity as simultaneously useful and destructive. While plastic’s identity is complex and
shifting, throughout its history it has been admired for its durability and disposability (Meikle
1995:189-190). It is this disposability which has become ingrained into consumer culture to be a
part of consumer identity itself.
To understand how plastic packaging informs consumer identity, one must first
understand the process through which waste forms identity. Hawkins (2006:2) explains that the
term waste does not refer to a fixed category but to a set of relations in which we engage with
ourselves, objects, and the environment which surrounds us. That is to say, defining what waste
is requires ordering the world around us (Reno 2015:558). Let us take for example, our faithful
Roll-Up-the-Rim cup. When you have finished your coffee and the cup has asked you to “Please
play again,” the cup becomes waste. The physical properties of the cup have not changed, only
your relationship to the cup. The cup no longer serves a purpose to you and can thus be be
discarded. The process of waste-making is not one of expending resources, but of changing your
relationships to those resources.

16

GAMMON
By evaluating what is waste, one also evaluates what does not count as waste. While a
losing Roll-Up-the-Rim cup is waste, a ceramic mug is not. Thus, the act of throwing out waste
is a cultural performance because it signifies your relationship to an object, and consequently the
value which you place in that object (Hawkins 2006:4; Reno 2015:559). By placing the Roll-Upthe-Rim cup into the garbage can, we signify that it has little value to us. By washing and
carefully placing the ceramic mug back in our kitchen cupboard, we signify that it does have
value to us.
This system of ordering the world does not just serve to separate waste from not waste,
but also serves as a mechanism through which we construct our identities. As Reno (2015:558)
puts, “waste is a mirror of humanity.” The act of throwing out, by telling us which items we
value and do not value, tells us more about ourselves than it does about waste. Creating a
category of “waste” allows us a category which we can define ourselves against. Roll-Up-theRim cups belong in the trash can because they are dirty and worthless. People do not belong in
the trash can because we are valued. Instead, people are the ones who get to put garbage in its
proper place, far away from ourselves. The plastic walls of the garbage can create a physical
barrier between your body and the cup, further separating the cup as diametrically opposed to
your concept of self. Thus, people are not waste, but are defined by, and in opposition to, waste.
Putting the cup into the garbage can signifies that the cup is not you, and that you are everything
that the cup is not.
By placing waste into the category of “other,” we define waste as disposable. It is the
quality of disposability which makes waste morally and ethically insignificant (Hawkins
2006:29). We do not offer much thought to waste once we have “disposed” of it. This is a core
component of our consumer identity. Our perception of waste as “disposable” feeds a mentality

17

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
which encourages consumption. As Hawkins (2006:viii) states, the freedom to consume allows
us the freedom to waste. Our consumer culture and the need for all things to be new must
consequently allow us to discard the “old” (Hawkins 2006:27). The problem of single-use
plastics can be traced to the consumer need to constantly define against new products and old
waste.
An example of how waste informs identity can be found in Machado-Borges (2017)
examination of the performance of “middle class-ness” in Brazil. Machado-Borges (2017)
observes that middle class Brazilians will attempt to limit the amount of time that they interact
with waste on a daily basis. Machado-Borges (2017) connects this behaviour to patterns of
consumption and the performance of middle class-ness. Amongst individuals in the middle class
in Brazil, the consumption of goods is seen as a mark of affluence. By purchasing and
consuming luxury goods, middle-class Brazilians can display their wealth while simultaneously
distinguishing themselves from the working class (Machado-Borges 2017:303). In Brazil, waste
is perceived as dirty and those who handle waste are perceived belonging to the working class.
By extension, the correct disposal of waste is associated with being educated and belonging to
the middle class (Machado-Borges 2017:307). Machado-Borges’ (2017) study on waste serves as
a perfect example to show how it is precisely through how we distance ourselves form waste that
the waste comes to define who we are.

IS OUR PLASTIC CULTURE PLASTIC ENOUGH TO CHANGE?
In this section, I seek to examine if and how we can change our plastic culture to be more
sustainable. In order to reduce our consumption of single-use plastic packaging, we must instead
shift our focus to promoting more sustainable, pro-environmental behaviour. Some examples of

18

GAMMON
such behaviour include encouraging reusable cup and grocery bag use. After reviewing the
literature and presenting a case study, I argue that changing our plastic culture is possible, but
will require conscious effort at the individual level, aided by institutional and infrastructural
support.

Promoting Reusable Cups - A Case Study
A recent study by Poortinga and Whitaker (2018) measured the number of reusable cups
being used by customers in 12 cafe locations within the U.K. The purpose of the study was to
determine if actively promoting reusable cup use affected the number of reusable cups being
used. All of the cafes in the study used environmental messaging in the form of posters
advertising reusable cups. Each individual cafe was then given the choice of which additional
reusable cup promotion methods they wished to implement, including giving away free reusable
cups to customers and providing various financial incentives for bringing one’s own reusable
cup. After recording reusable cup use at each location for a number of weeks, it was observed
that reusable cup use increased at each location. The increase in reusable cup use was modest but
significant (Poortinga and Whitaker 2018).
The study finds that the most successful methods of promoting reusable cup use are
providing free reusable cups and also providing financial incentive to use these cups. However,
the type of financial incentive being offered for bringing a reusable cup had a substantial impact
on customer behaviour. Offering a discount for bringing one’s own cup had no effect on reusable
cup use, while charging additional money for the use of a disposable cup increased reusable cup
use (Poortinga and Whitaker 2018:7).

19

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
While giving out reusable cups and providing financial incentives for cups were the most
successful, all of the methods tested did have an impact on reusable cup use. Furthermore, each
method had an additive effect when used in combination with other methods of promoting
reusable cups. Put simply, while implementing one method increases reusable cup use,
implementing all of the methods in a cafe location increased the reusable cup use even more
(Poortinga and Whitaker 2018:7).
Perhaps one of the most important findings of this study is that the implementation of
these methods did not decrease the hot drink sales at any of the cafe locations included in this
study (Poortinga and Whitaker 2018:7). Not only were these methods successful in promoting
more sustainable behaviour, but they did not cost business or profit to the locations which
participated. This is an important point for future studies or for planning campaigns to promote
sustainable behaviour. Overall, Poortinga and Whitaker (2018) show that simple and low-cost
programming can increase reusable cup use, and that institutional changes and commitment are
crucial to facilitating change in individual behaviour.
Institutional infrastructure plays an important role in promoting or discouraging proenvironmental behaviours. Many studies have been conducted on the effect of such infrastructure
on recycling behaviours. These studies find that institutions, such as municipal waste collection
systems, do influence individual behaviour. For example, one’s proximity to a recycling centre,
the design of recycling bins, and the efficiency and accessibility of recycling services all impact
the likelihood that an individual will recycle (Byrne and O’Regan 2014:94; Andrews et al. 2013;
Stoeva and Alriksson 2017:733). As discussed throughout this paper, institutions and political
forces play a considerable role in influencing our daily lives, including our decisions regarding
plastic packaging.

20

GAMMON
Individual and Social Influences to Sustainable Behaviour
At the local level, individual beliefs and social relations also play a part in influencing
our environmental (or not environmental) behaviour. A number of psychological studies have
examined the role of worldview and internally and externally motivating factors in influencing
recycling behaviour. While many of the studies here are focused on recycling in particular, I
postulate that many of the findings may extend to other pro-environmental behaviours, such as
choosing a reusable cup over our much-maligned Roll-Up-the-Rim cup. A study by Huffman et
al. (2014:268) finds that individuals who hold anthropocentric (or human-centric) worldviews
are much less likely to recycle than individuals who hold non-anthropocentric worldviews. In
fact, another study claims that the desire to contribute to a better environment is the strongest
factor in determining whether an individual will recycle or not (Halvorsen 2012:21).
Personal perceptions concerning the efficacy of one’s actions also influence individual
behaviour. Some people will not recycle or engage in other pro-environmental behaviours
because they view the process of creating sustainable change to be the responsibility of
corporations (Huffman et al. 2014:269). Other studies have observed a kind of “recycling
ceiling,” wherein the act of recycling absolves you of any responsibility to engage in other proenvironmental behaviours (Thomas and Sharp 2013:17-18). People must believe that their action
will have an impact in order to engage in a particular behaviour.
In addition to personal beliefs, social pressures and norms also influence the behaviour of
individuals. One of the reasons that many of us recycle is because it has become a socially
accepted norm. It makes us feel good about ourselves to recycle, and by extension, not recycling
is seen as anti-social behaviour which makes us feel guilty (Halvorsen 2012:19; Thomas and

21

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
Sharp 2013:14). Social pressure to recycle is particularly important if an individual’s personal
beliefs, as discussed above, do not promote recycling (Huffman et al. 2014:268).

Changing Behaviour - Institutional or Individual Responsibility?
Encouraging more sustainable behaviour and reducing our consumption of single-use
plastics is not an issue of pitting consumer responsibility against corporate responsibility.
Changing our plastic culture requires change at both the institutional and individual levels.
Individuals will only change their behaviour if alternative behaviours are supported and
accessible (Poortinga and Whitaker 2017:7; Stoeve and Alriksson 2017:733). However,
implementing institutional frameworks alone will not solve the plastic problem. Reducing our
single-use plastic consumption will require more action than simply handing out reusable cups in
cafes. A behaviour will only become habit if it is internally motivated (Thomas and Sharp
2013:15). Changing single-use plastic consumption requires changing the way we relate to
waste, and therefore the restructuring of our own identities. This is a difficult process. Part of the
reason that even recycling is looked upon with disdain by some is that it breaks our perception of
waste as worthless garbage. The process of sorting through recycling forces us to handle our
waste, thereby disrupting our ability to separate ourselves from waste. By re-evaluating waste as
a potential resource, this changes the way we must identify ourselves. Introducing new waste
management practices necessarily changes how we construct our identities (Hawkins 2006:35).
There is also the problem that institutionally ordered change will always bring about resistance
(Hawkins 2006:35). This has been observed in studies regarding recycling and identity, as
individuals will construct their identity as non-recyclers, in direct opposition to the socially
expected norm of recycling (Thomas and Sharp 2013:15). Therefore, both institutional and

22

GAMMON
individual changes of systems and behaviour are required to reduce our consumption of singleuse plastics.

CONCLUSION
In this paper I have examined the holistic effects of single-use plastics at both local and
global levels. My objective in writing this paper has been to highlight the complex nature of our
relationship with plastics, and to go beyond the isolated description of social and environmental
issues to provide a more clear picture of what is at stake. Our relationships with single-use
plastics are complex, and have become integrated into our construction of consumer identity over
the course of decades. While plastics serve useful and convenient functions in our daily lives,
they also have much more ambivalent and negative impacts to wildlife, pollution, health, and
global inequality. Thus, the issue of plastics is not just one of identity, but of social justice. Our
consumption of single-use plastics is an unsustainable practice which will require intensive work
to create institutional level changes to infrastructure and individual beliefs and practices. Future
research should seek to identify the specific areas of institutional policy which would most
efficiently provide sustainable solutions, such as implementing legislation to encourage
manufacturers to reduce single-use plastic packaging in their products. Research should also be
undertaken at the local level to assess individual perceptions of plastic-packaging and to identify
barriers to sustainable use options. Through careful attention to the causes and holistic,
interwoven complexities of single-use plastics, changing our culture to be more sustainable is
possible.

23

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank each of the professors in the Department of Anthropology for
guiding me through my undergraduate degree, and for encouraging me to inquire more deeply
about the world around me. This paper would not have been possible without the solid
foundation in anthropological thought which I have received over the course of my degree. In
particular, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Angèle Smith for all of the time and
support she has given me in developing the concepts within this paper. I would also like to thank
each of my Capstone classmates for their input in developing this paper. I thoroughly enjoyed
our discussions, and your feedback was of great help in refining my research topic. I would also
like to thank the Capstone class for humouring me by drinking their coffee in reusable cups
during class. Your conscious effort to engage in more environmentally-friendly behaviour does
not go unnoticed, and I applaud you for helping to create a more sustainable world! Finally, I
would like to thank the friends and family who have supported me over the last four years. Your
kindness and encouraging words have played no small part in helping me to achieve my goals.

24

GAMMON
REFERENCES CITED

Andrady, Anthony L. and Mike A. Neal
2009

Applications and Societal Benefits of Plastics. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B 364(1526):1977-1984.

Andrews, Ashley, Mary Gregoire, Heather Rasmussen, and Gretchen Witowich
2013

Comparison of Recycling Outcomes in Three Types of Recycling Collection Units.

Waste Management 33:530-535.

Byrne, Susan and Bernadette O’Regan
2014

Attitudes and Actions Towards Recycling Behaviours in the Limerick, Ireland

Region. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87:89-96.

Chung, Emily
2018

Many Canadians are Recycling Wrong, and Its Costing Us Millions. CBC News.

Electronic document, https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/recycling-contamination1.4606893, accessed March 21, 2019.

Crawford, Mark
1988

There’s (Plastic) Gold in Them Thar Landfills. Science 241(4864):411-412.

25

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
Davis, Watson
1940

Research Brings New Advances in the Field of Packaging. The Science News-Letter

37(11):170-171.

Davis, Watson
1941

Plastic Packages. The Science News-Letter 39(12):186-187.

Freinkel, Susan
2011

Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York.

Gill, Kaveri
2012

Of Poverty and Plastic: Scavenging and Scrap Trading Entrepeneurs in India’s

Urban Informal Economy. Oxford University Press, New Dehli.

Gregory, Murray R.
2009

Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings: Entanglement,

Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-On, Hitch-Hiking, and Alien Invasions. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 364(1526):2013-2025.

Gwada, B., G. Ogendi, S.M. Makindi, and S. Trott
2019

Composition of Plastic Waste Discarded by Households and its Management

Approaches. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management 5(1):83-94.

26

GAMMON
Halvorsen, Bente
2012

Effects of Norms and Policy Incentives on Household Recycling: An International

Comparison. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 67:18-26.

Hawkins, Gay
2006

The Ethics of Waste: How We Relate to Rubbish. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,

Lanham, Maryland.

Huffman, Ann Hergatt, Brittney R. Van Der Werff, Jaime B. Henning, and Kristen WatrousRodriguez
2014

When do Recycling Attitudes Predict Recycling? An Investigation of Self-Reported

Versus Observed Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38:262-270.

Lebreton, L., B. Slat, F. Ferrari, B. Sainte-Tose, J Aitken, R. Marthouse, S. Hajbane, S. Cunsolo,
A. Schwarz, A. Levivier, K. Noble, P. Debeljak, H. Maral, R. Schoeneich-Argent, R. Brambini,
and J. Reisser
2018

Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is Rapidly Accumulating Plastic.

Scientific Reports 8(4666):1-15.

Machado-Borges, Thaïs
2017

Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Middle-Class Households, Waste, Consumption, and

Environmental Awareness in Southeastern Brazil. The Journal of Latin-American and
Caribbean Anthropology 22(2):298-319.

27

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
Meeker, John D., Sheela Sathyanarayana, and Shanna H. Swan
2009

Phthalates and Other Additives in Plastics: Human Exposure and Associate Health

Outcomes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364(1526):2097-2113.

Meikle, Jeffrey L.
1995

American Plastic: A Cultural History. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,

New Jersey.

More Recycling
2018

2016 Post-Consumer Plastics Recycling in Canada. Report prepared for the Canadian

Plastics Industry Association.

Oehlmann, Jörg, Ulrike Schulte-Oehlmann, Werner Kloas, Oana Jagnytsch, IlkaLutz, Kresten O.
Kusk, Leah Wollenberger, Eduarda M. Santos, Gregory C. Paull, Katrien J.W. Van Look and
Charles R. Tyler
2009

A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364(1526):2047-2062.

Poortinga, Wonter and Lousie Whitaker
2018

Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the

Provision of Alternatives, and Financial Incentives. Sustainability 10:873

28

GAMMON
Reno, Joshua
2015

Waste and Waste Management. Annual Review of Anthropology 44:557-72.

Robbins, Paul
2012

Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. 2nd Ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Rustagi, Neeti, S.K. Pradhan, and Ritesh Singh
2011

Public Health Impact of Plastics: An Overview. Indian Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine 15(3):100-103.

Ryan, Peter G., Charles J. Moore, Jan A. van Franker, and Coleen L. Moloney
2009

Monitoring the Abundance of Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364(1526):1999-2012.

Sadler, Greg
2019 Plastic Waste: The Supermarket Challenge. Marketplace. Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Television program, originally broadcast January 11, 2019. Accessed
https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2015-2016/plastic-waste-the-supermarketchallenge, January 31, 2019.

Saint-Pierre, Étienne
1998

Overview of Products Used by Canadian Manufacturing Industries. Insights On…

3(1):7-10. Statistics Canada.

29

How Plastic is our Plastic Culture?
Stoeva, Katya, and Stina Alriksson
2017

Influence of Recycling Programmes on Waste Separation Behaviour. Waste

Management 68:732-741.

Thoden van Velzen, E.U., M. Jansen, M. T. Brouwer, A. Feil, K. Molenveld, and Th. Pretz.
2017 Efficiency of Recycling Post-Consumer Plastic Packages. AIP Conference Proceedings
1914:170002-1-6.

Thomas, Christine and Veronica Sharp
2013

Understanding the Normalisation of Recycling Behaviour and Its Implications for

Other Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Review of Social Norms in Recycling.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 79:11-20.

30