Haciendo realidad los planes

6.1.1 Multiplicity of material engagements

In the literature on social practices, it persists that the dominant understanding of the dynamics between practices and materiality is defined through the practicality of things or flows of materials. As the object of inquiry is a practice, materials settle into being treated as parts of entities or practice-as-performances. By expanding the analysis from distinct things, such as freezers, to material arrangements and systems of provision, and by elaborating on the

and emphasizes the multiple, complex object relations of everyday life. It does so by providing an account of how things simultaneously exist as elements in a flat and dormant ‘background’, as dynamic components of ongoing action, and as sites and vectors of judgement and evaluation. The study explores how object relations evolve by recognising the forms of material engagement that are evidently not related to the ongoing enactment of specific practices and which resist and are opposed to coherent or rational narrative ordering, but which nonetheless constitute crucial aspects of everyday experience. In addition, the findings of the study points to how objects can be described or judged, and active or dormant, and by doing so, they broaden the theoretical understanding of practice-materiality relations.

These notions help to fill out an otherwise overly ‘functional’ view of things that concentrates on moments of use and utility, underplaying their uncertain, ambivalent and contested role in the conduct of daily life, and underestimating the overlapping and multiple temporal registers through which object relations are defined. Exploring the various ways in which material elements figure in everyday life gives a sense of how materiality switches between passive and active forms and provides an important reminder of the extent to which these relations reflect and reproduce forms of judgement and evaluation regarding the conduct of daily life and the social order as a whole. Materiality is far from being inert objects, but rather dynamic animators of the ‘doing’ of everyday life as well as generative of emotion and engagement. This is a central concern for those interested in the production of value, and in how objects come to be needed, desired and discarded. This also implies that exploring the ordering of technologies in everyday life is not to foster technological determinism, but to accept that, to an extent, technologies have momentum that is temporary and varies from context to context (Nye, 1999).

A broader notion of materiality can also be harnessed to distinguish how different practices intersect with each other. Recognising the different material characteristics of practices may direct studies to find interlinks between integrative practices, which are found in and constitutive of particular domains of social life, and dispersed practices, which are more dispersed practices such as describing, ordering and following rules (Schatzki, 1996). Appreciating the multiplicity and complexity of materiality may further challenge the process of defining practices, which is a central concern in sociology of consumption.

To further deepen the understanding of practice-materiality relations, a focal task is to broaden the discussion on the resource requirements of social practices. Perhaps the notion of ‘things’ as a rather ambiguous concept has helped practice scholars to dodge the question of how practices demand different resources, but for a stronger contribution to studies on sustainability, it may not be the way forward. For example, while practice theory turns attention to the demand for energy, it should not be taken to be indifferent in terms of the modes of energy provision but rather used to ask more questions on the very complex intertwinements of supply and provide. In the case of heating, this would mean to better acknowledge the scope of provision modes and its

distinctive and complex implications for users’ roles, and the organisation of heating as part of the plenum of practices.

Materiality, in this sense, is conceptualised as constant process of becoming as it mediates both standardisation and localisation, and transformation and rooting of practices. This has implications for change as it shows that continuation and variation are not necessarily material, but the diffusion of skills and competencies is also crucial. Hence, the study entails that besides the challenge of making clearer distinctions within the material element of practice between arrangements, things, objects, and resources, making distinctions between the elements of practice is unclear. For example ideologies such as sustainability are being remade through materials, which implicates a vague cut between materiality and meanings. The study suggests a shift away from the individualistic idea of subject–object relations towards an understanding of objects in relation to practices. This view and this thesis in general contribute to a more dynamic view of the role of material in social practices. Humans encounter material, which is in the process of constant re-making, upgrading, and decay. Moreover, the flux of people and new material modifications imply that practices hardly settle. Rather, co-aligning and mutual influences between users and material are ongoing processes.

6.1.2 Underpinnings of flexibility in everyday life

One of the central temporal orders of technologies has to do with their flexibility.

This thesis discusses flexibility as the relatively independent and non-contingent nature of material arrangements and also as the ‘rhythmlessness’ of their use.

The notion of flexibility helps in unravelling the performance of material-temporal dynamics of practices, and paves the way for conclusions on the question of convenience (discussed under policy implications).

To more broadly understand the practical relationships in social practice, there is a need for transitional concepts such as temporality and materiality that describe how practices are embedded and enacted in time and space. This study points out that while time is already an important topic in various guises within social practice theory, it is less often acknowledged that temporally sensitive accounts of material engagement provide an understanding of how the hardware of daily life is situated in time, and how that situating is in part defined by the changing roles that objects play before, within and beyond moments of practical action. Furthermore, it is relevant to ask whether considering practices as consisting of elements including materiality, competence and meanings easily overrides questions of temporality. Bringing temporality more strongly to the centre of practice theories, either through the element of materiality or as a distinct category of analysis, may have the potential to make practice theory more informing.

The study implies that practices are most binding when they have a dense spatial and temporal organisation – a strong teleological structure – and when the materials are actionable and in use (Schatzki, 2010a). Hence, when the teleological structure is loose, practices or materiality are not binding but more

ability of other elements of practice to be dormant and resurrected. This teleological structure is also indicative of the positioning of the practitioner.

Many practices are linked to each other, but the practitioner may not consciously choose the bundle of practices he or she takes part in. Hence, for sustainable action we need to look beyond the individual and explore how practices stand out as a nexus in space and time, and produce coordinative succession.

As previous literature has discussed, inconsistencies, misalignments and inconveniences within and between practices are one way to think of change in the apparently stable everyday life. This study confirms the notion that while practices link, overlap and interact, practical action is seldom internally coherent. There are tensions as the tactical ways and skills of doing and coping may not match the rhythm of the day or available resources, and even when they do, they may not be consistent with the ways of strategic reasoning and moral judgements. Moreover, new technologies and knowledge intervene and challenge and bring existing routines into questions. However, with their stabilising momenta, practices succeed in bringing durability into social life.

Inquiring into the dynamics of how flexible the social conduct is, how standardised and normative practices are, and what is the role of materiality in specifying performances, is helpful in evaluating the stabilising momenta.

Grasping the inflexibility of practice and analysing its implications for sustainability requires that we look at the material arrangements critically, broadly and from the perspective of the ecology of materials, which acknowledges both the non-human and human matter, and the different positions of materiality in practice. While material configurations of practice include a wide spectrum of objects, some are more engaging, or focal, than others, and practices consequently centre life at variable intensities.