The Social Ordering of an Everyday Practice: The Case of Laundry

Abstract

Sociological contributions to debates surrounding sustainable consumption have presented strong critiques of methodological individualism and technological determinism. Drawing from a range of sociological insights from the fields of consumption, everyday life and science and technology studies, these critiques emphasize the recursivity between (a) everyday performances and object use, and (b) how those performances are socially ordered. Empirical studies have, however, been criticized as being descriptive of micro--level phenomena to the exclusion of explanations of processes of reproduction or change. Developing a methodological approach that examines sequences of activities this article explores different forms of coordination (activity, inter--personal and material) that condition the temporal and material flows of laundry practices. Doing so produces an analysis that de--centres technologies and individual performances, allowing for the identification of mechanisms that order the practice of laundry at the personal, household and societal levels. These are: social relations, cultural conventions; domestic materiality; and, institutionalised temporal rhythms. In conclusion, we suggest that addressing such mechanisms offer fruitful avenues for fostering more sustainable consumption, compared to dominant approaches that are founded within 'deficit models' of action.

Institutions and Agency in the Sustainability of Day-to-Day Consumption Practices: An Institutional Ethnographic Study

“…Energy consumption, as an inconspicuous commodity, serves as an enlightening example of how consumption can be inseparable from the practices to which it pertains (Butler et al 2016;Strengers et al 2014). Mylan and Southerton (2018) study laundry practices, advancing a framework that culminates on four mechanisms that relate household level variation in practices to broader coordination in society. These mechanisms pertain to gendered division of labour at home, material facilities such as spatial layouts, conventions concerning especially the cleanliness standards and, finally, collective scheduling of practice performances conditioned by, for example, office hours and leisure time.…”

“…These mechanisms pertain to gendered division of labour at home, material facilities such as spatial layouts, conventions concerning especially the cleanliness standards and, finally, collective scheduling of practice performances conditioned by, for example, office hours and leisure time. Mylan and Southerton (2018) argue that these elements link domestic laundry practice performances to broader patterns in society.…”

Editing out unsustainability from consumption: From information provision to nudging and social practice theory

“…People do not consume energy as such, but rather perform different kinds of practices that, in different ways, entail energy use. So, for example, rather than considering how to get people to purchase energy-efficient washing machines, social practice theory investigates how and why Europeans wash so much laundry each year (Mylan and Southerton, 2017;Shove, 2003). Rather than trying to get consumers to engage with energy conservation, for example, social practice theory asks how energy consumption is driven by changes in daily routines such as showering, and shared conventions such as expectations concerning cleanliness or thermal comfort (Gram-Hanssen, 2017;Shove and Walker, 2014).…”

Making sense of energy management practice: reflections on providing low carbon support to three SMEs in the UK

“…Whether it is necessary for carriers of practice to self-identify as practitioners in order for a practice to be considered as a suitable basis for empirical study is an ongoing debate within practice theory (Bonnington 2015;Hitchings 2012). In energy research, practice theory has been used most notably to investigate overt energy consuming practices such as residential heat comfort (Gram-Hanssen 2010), laundry (Mylan and Southerton 2017) and commuting (Cass and Faulconbridge 2016). Most of these studies use interviews with practitioners who are largely conscious of their activities, and who would agree for instance, that they were actively 'doing the laundry'.…”