Consumers, Producers and Practices

Abstract

The idea that artifacts are acquired and used in the course of accomplishing social practices has important implications for theories of consumption and innovation. From this point of view, it is not enough to show that goods are symbolically and materially positioned, mediated and filtered through existing cultures and conventions. Twisting the problem around, the further challenge is to explain how practices change and with what consequence for the forms of consumption they entail. In this article, we suggest that new practices like Nordic walking, a form of ‘speed walking’ with two sticks, arise through the active and ongoing integration of images, artifacts and forms of competence, a process in which both consumers and producers are involved. While it makes sense to see Nordic walking as a situated social practice, such a view makes it difficult to explain its growing popularity in countries as varied as Japan, Norway and the USA. In addressing this issue, we conclude that practices and associated cultures of consumption are always ‘homegrown’. Necessary and sometimes novel ingredients (including images and artifacts) may circulate widely, but they are always pieced together in a manner that is informed by previous and related practice. What looks like the diffusion of Nordic walking is therefore better understood as its successive, but necessarily localized, (re)invention. In developing this argument, we explore some of the consequences of conceptualizing consumption and consumer culture as the outcome of meaningful social practice.

Det sociale som performativitet – et praksisteoretisk perspektiv på analyse og metode

“…For det første er der forsøg på at systematisere og positionere praksisteori på et mere generelt teoretisk niveau i forhold til andre sociologiske teoretiske tilgange (Reckwitz 2002;Schatzki 1996Schatzki , 2001Schatzki , 2002Swidler 2001;Turner 2001). For det andet er der forsøg på at gøre praksisteori operativ på et mere anvendelsesorienteret teoretisk niveau på forskellige empiriske områder, specielt forbrugssociologi (Shove 2007;Shove & Pantzar 2005;Warde 2005), miljø-sociologi (Burgess et al 2003;Shove 2003;Spaargaren & vanVliet 2000;Southerton et al 2004) og teknologi-sociologi (Christensen & Røpke 2005;GramHansen 2007). For det tredje bidrager vi med at fremhaeve det performative ved praksisteori og her ud fra at diskutere de potentielle metodologiske konsekvenser af at anvende praksisteori (Halkier 2006(Halkier , 2008Jensen 2006).…”

“…Diskussionerne om praksisteori foregår internationalt (Burgess et al 2003;Reckwitz 2002;Schatzki 1996Schatzki , 2001Schatzki , 2002Shove 2003;Shove & Pantzar 2005;Southerton et al 2004;Spaargaren & van Vliet 2000;Warde 2005), men er tilsyneladende ikke blevet en del af de offentligt publicerede danske sociologiske diskussioner endnu. Det kan f.eks.…”

Civic ecology practices: insights from practice theory

“…To address this issue, these authors suggest using the related activity theory, with its emphasis on transformation of material and cultural artifacts leading to change in activity or practice (Engeström et al 1999), and the theory of expansive learning, which focuses on reflection as a means to expand learning situated in activity (Engeström 1987). However, a number of empirical studies drawing on practice theory do describe the emergence of practices and how they evolve over time, generally through examining how the elements holding practices together change (Shove and Pantzar 2005, Pantzar and Shove 2010, GramHanssen 2011, Kemmis and Mutton 2012. Such studies are closely linked to research focusing on transitions to more environmentally friendly lifestyles and on the creation and spread of social innovations.…”

Reframing Water Efficiency: Determining Collective Approaches to Change Water Use in the Home

“…The fourth perspective presents demand as an effect of socio-technical practices, hereby departing from psychological perspectives, typically with vociferous criticism [3]. From this perspective domestic water consumption is mundane and inconspicuous, entangled the continual achievement of everyday life [27,28]. Rather than being guided by explicit values and beliefs consumption is guided by collective conventions; "shared, accepted ways of doing things" [27] which are coproduced with water provisioning infrastructures and household technologies; intangible meanings around, for example, cleanliness and convenience; and tacit, experiential understanding and skills that reflects ways of doing.…”