Frente a los cursos

Practices can feed off one another in a positive cooperative relationship. Here, practices are positively correlated in which at least one practice benefits another.

Pantzar and Shove (2010) refer to key sites and societal rhythm being home to or host forms of inter-practice collaboration. Practices are therefore not performed in

isolation but relate to one another in how people perform them in relation to the organisation of their day (Watson, 2012). For instance, in the morning breakfast provides an arrangement of numerous independent practices, whilst driving home from work correlates with a peak in telephone calls (Pantzar and Shove, 2010, p.24).

Whilst the example of driving and calling loved ones may refer to a cooperative relationship, Pantzar and Shove also draw to attention that such practices are also performed separately, therefore refer to dynamics of such relationships, such as

‘epiphytic cooperation’ (asymmetric cooperation) whereby, driving could increase the likelihood of using a mobile phone but not vice versa (2010, p.24).

Bundles of practices refer to the co-existence of practices that are interrelated as a result of being co-located within a particular aspect of time and/or space, yet have separate existences. Some bundles of practices relate to the physical location of material elements, for instance, practices which require the supply of running water converge around taps and drains (Shove et al., 2012). But this is not limited just to materiality with other elements having the ability to work in the same way, such as concept of privacy informing potential where a number of practices are likely to be reproduced. For Watson (2012), understanding these bundles within a practice approach enables opportunities of change to be identified outside of the practice in hand. As a result of this, it can be considered that the alteration of one practice can have consequences for other practices too. An example of this is to understand how practices of working, socialising and shopping engender the need for particular modes of mobility and therefore interventions in such practices can have resulting impacts upon such mobility needed to complete practices (Watson, 2012, pp.493-494).

Termed as ‘radical innovation’ in everyday life, emerging ‘dominant practices’ can re-configure entire socio-temporal landscapes through the cooperative relationships they are involved in, creating as a result new rhythmic patterns (Pantzar and Shove, 2010).

Practices may also be connected or united to other practices through the elements they have in common. For instance, the smart phone bridges “entertainment (games, watching TV/DVD); socialising (Skype, email, Facebook); household management (online banking); learning and working” (Shove et al., 2012, p.88). Images and meanings of modernity and youth may draw together ‘drinking, driving and wearing jeans’. When elements figure in several practices they constitute a common ground and point of connection, acting as zones of overlap and intersection between practices (Shove et al., 2012). This can act as a connective tissue that holds complex social arrangements in place, whilst also having the opportunity to disrupt and pull them apart (Shove et al., 2012, p.36). This refers to the ‘sticky’ or ‘fragile’ relationships in the persistence or dynamic character of societal rhythms of practices (Pantzar and Shove, 2010, p.26).

Whereas practices may bundle together to form complexes that structure the majority of an individual’s daily-with the connection to other practices through “sinews of common and orchestrated organizations and timespaces, shared activities, chains of action, and intentionality” (Schatzki, 2015, p.7). Practice complexes denote practice constellations which are either hard or impossible to separate from one another (Pantzar and Shove, 2010) due to their dependence upon each other, through ways of sequence, synchronization, proximity or necessary co-existence (Shove et al., 2012, p.87). An example of ‘driving’ as a co-dependent form of a practice complex is used to show how it once involved multi-tasking of individual practices such as steering, navigating and braking. Today however it is considered as a single practice in its own right whereby the learning process involves the novice becoming ‘drivers’. In

considering that practices are co-dependent on one another, Pantzar and Shove (2010) argue that a change in one practice may provide opportunities of chain-reactions through such practice complexes. Thus an intervention in one practice provides feedback cycles in which one item in the chain catalyses another (2010, p.26).

Practices are in themselves circuits of reproduction. As elements constitute a practice, these elements are as a result reproduced through the performance of it, resultantly producing a circuit of reproduction of that practice and therefore providing a mutually constitutive relation between the practice and elements (Pantzar and Shove, 2010).

Yet as Pantzar and Shove illustrate, practices themselves form bundles or complexes which are “defined and held in place by a second ‘circuit’ or reproduction, namely that which characterises the mutually constitutive relations (for instance of

competition, cooperation or more elaborate forms) between practices and complexes of practices” (2010, 27).

This draws to attention the potential competition between practices. On a basic level, it can be conceived that practices compete for time, yet as cooperative practices show, time maybe shared through a variety of practices which are carried and performed cooperatively. Practices may also vie and compete for space in which space is used in different ways and therefore become defined by what goes on within it (Shove et al., 2012). For instance, in urban areas, children played in streets that have, in time, been displaced by driving practices. In some circumstances streets are still sites of transport and leisure, thus referring to how practices define what space is when used in

different ways.

This competition can be expanded to include the elements of such practices, such as material, skills and meanings. In its simplest form, mobility practices of cycling and driving share common elements such as road infrastructure and can therefore prove to be sites of competition (Shove, 2012). Watson (2012) also draws to awareness

competition between systems of practices too. He argues that the over emphasis and focus upon the recruitment of people to a practice risks sidelining the understanding the potential defection from one practice to another. As Shove (2012) alludes to, any systemic transition to a more sustainable method of mobility will almost certainly necessitate the downfall or considerable alteration of contemporary sociotechnical regimes. In the case of cycling, recruitment to such practice must have in some manner result in defection from other practices such as driving. As a result of this interaction between such systems of practice and the potential of growing defection, this would have a compound effect on competing performances such as driving by the increase of such cycling performances.

Yet the emergence of one practice doesn’t necessarily result or coincide with the disappearance of another as a consequence of competition. Shove (2012, p.364) prompts further discussions of the relation between co-existing socio-technical trajectories are necessary in order to define and understand how and to what extent elements of past configurations persist. Systems may break down yet still co-exist with new regimes of practice which subsequently dominate. Therefore partial remains of once dominant practices but have since been ‘eclipsed, bypassed or radically reconfigured’ may still remain and it is this understanding of co-existence and

persistence that is of interest. As already outlined previously, the obduracy of material and social cultures which survive after such decline of a practice to a point of being somewhat redundant refer to previous practices and ways of doing. For Shove (2012), the process of revival or reintroduction of a practice is not the same as the emergence or innovation of a new one first time round. As a result of remnants or the existence of a marginalised practice already exist in the forms of elements and therefore the challenge is more about rescuing, remembering and adapting such elements but not generating from scratch. What is critical for Shove is that in such cases “relevant cohorts of lead users might turn out to be those who are least experimental in orientation, and who are in fact laggards doggedly clinging to old ways” (2012,

periphery “have greater scope and motivation for doing things differently and that old-hands, who define the core, are typically stuck in their ways” (2012, p.71).