Whereas psychological theories of behaviour place the individual at the centre of their analysis, sociological theories of behaviour afford as much importance to the context in which an individualÕs behaviour takes shape and, at times, gets routinised. The behavioural context can have various dimensions, such as social, technical, economic, political, cultural, and institutional. From a sociological perspective, as developed in GiddensÕs (1984, 1991) structuration theory, the individual does not just react to cognitive and external variables that influence behaviour, but interacts with an array of contextual interdependencies in a reflexive relationship. Individuals share a role in collectively shaping the behavioural contexts, the Ôrules and resourcesÕ that define them, and at the same time act as agents confined within these contextual boundaries. As such, the potential for behavioural action is constrained by the context in which it is enacted; but, the context is not static and the individual can play a constructive role in altering the contextual dynamic.
Spaargaren and Van Vliet (2000: 53) use concepts from structuration theory to propose, in their view, a more balanced treatment of the actor-structure dynamic in sustainable consumption behaviour than is available in the social-psychological models (see Figure 6.6). They argue that beliefs, norms and values do not exist in a social vacuum.
Lifestyles and consumption patterns are played out as social practices. They are influenced, on the one hand, by the agentÕs practical and discursive consciousness (after Giddens 1984), and on the other hand, by socio-technical systems of provision, the ÔrulesÕ that govern them, and the ÔresourcesÕ that are available to an agent in specific contexts. Routinised behavioural practices become part of the Ôpractical consciousnessÕ of the individual, shaped by social conventions, among other factors, and require little additional deliberation on a day-to-day basis. Changing such practices requires raising them to the level of Ôdiscursive consciousnessÕ and eliciting an elaboration of the reasoning behind such practices by agents. This may lead to a de-routinisation of existing practices and re-routinisation of new practices through repeated performances.
Spaargaren (2003) suggests that social practices can take the middle ground between structure and agency and identifies three ways in which this model of social practices departs from the individual-centred focus of the various Attitude-Behaviour models (after Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). First, the unit of analysis shifts from individuals and their attitudes to behavioural practices shared by a group of individuals in specific time- space contexts. Second, instead of single behavioural actions, the model focuses on routinised practices as a whole, such as, food, clothing, travel and leisure, and seeks to mitigate the overall environmental impact of the bundle of practices within each FIGURE 6.6 Consumption as Social Practices (after Spaargaren and Van Vliet 2000)
domain. Third, guidelines for environmentally sustainable practices in various domains of social life take into account the agentic capability of individuals with reference to the Ôpossibilities offered to them in the context of specific systems of provisionÕ (Spaargaren 2003: 688, emphasis in original).
A single environmental-attitude dimension is no longer seen to influence all environmental behaviours. SpaargarenÕs model accepts variations in considerations people apply to different segments of behavioural practices; people may, for instance, drive a polluting vehicle, but at the same time be attentive to recycling practice. He suggests practical environmental heuristics or rules of thumb should be developed for each social practice to enable people to easily make pro-environmental choices in daily practice. These guidelines must be context-aware with respect to the specific social and technical systems that characterise the field of practice. Finally, Spaargaren argues that individual responsibility for environmentally sustainable consumption must be contextualised within the enabling and disabling properties of social structures. Some sustainable practices may be better supported by systems of provision in specific places. For example, studies show that in many European countries there is better provisioning for sustainable food consumption (Schuttelaar and Partners 2000, cited in Spaargaren 2003) than for sustainable travel (Beckers et al. 2000, cited in Spaargaren 2003).
The UK governmentÕs focus on personal responsibility for behaviour change (Halpern et al. 2004) has been called into question by other social practice theorists. In particular, Shove (2010) argues that behavioural practices are inextricably embedded in the historically co-evolving social, technical and institutional contexts. Scholars following a social practice approach have focused on ÔordinaryÕ or ÔinconspicuousÕ consumption and the material contexts that configure such consumption practices (Shove 2003; Gronow and Warde 2001; Warde 1997, 2005; Shove and Southerton 2000; Shove, Pantzar and Watson 2012). Consumption that is part of routine everyday behaviour, they argue, is not so much an expression of individual choice as a practice governed by habit, convenience, and convention, which are in turn contingent on socio-technical structures. Social practice theorists challenge the implied assumption in the discourse of individual responsibility that ascribes power and resources to individuals for effecting system-level changes.
In a similar vein, recent sociological studies on food waste take the focus away from individual responsibility per se and turn it, for example, on global food waste regimes (Gille 2013), the material function and ÔperformanceÕ of food packaging (Hawkins 2013), the effects of institutional risk management through mandating date labels (Milne 2013), and the material agency of food waste bins (Metcalfe et al. 2013). EvansÕs (2011, 2012) ethnographic work on household waste is particularly illustrative. His study shows that household food waste is generated not so much because people do not care about food waste or do not know how to avoid wastage but because household actors often find themselves entangled in multiple competing everyday-life constraints, including: planning meals for the relatively fixed tastes of family members under pressures of family and work schedules (see also DeVault 1991); cultural understandings of what constitutes Ôproper mealsÕ (see also Murcott 1982); and the material environment of food provisioning that includes domestic technologies for storage and institutional food safety guidelines. ÔThe take home messageÕ, according to Evans Ôis that any effort to reduce household food waste could usefully reach beyond the default position of blaming the consumer in order to target the social and material contexts through which food practices might be changedÕ (2011: 438).
Looking from the social practice perspective to the field of food consumption, the power of retailers, regulatory bodies and large globalised food-producing companies may overwhelm the ability of many consumers to control the drivers of their consumption practices (Lang 1999a, 2004; Pollan 2009; Stuart 2009; Nestle 2013). In other words, human behaviour is captive within its contextual landscape that structures and limits the available choices for action. It is not possible for individuals alone to bring about societal transformations that are required to alter these landscapes. Policymakers and other institutional actors must, therefore, all share responsibility and combine appropriately to configure the necessary social and infrastructural contexts where pro- environmental behavioural practices can then be carried out. Recent studies on behaviour change commissioned by some government institutions in the UK accept that a whole-systems approach is necessary. Consumers cannot always be seen as Ôfree to chooseÕ; they often Ôfind themselves Ôlocked inÕ to unsustainable patterns of consumption, either by social norms which lie beyond individual control, or else by the constraints of the institutional context within which individual choice is negotiatedÕ (Jackson 2005: 13). In addition, Darnton (2004: 9) notes that some
sustainability goals Ômay be better reached not through behaviour change by individuals but through government-led interventions, the targeted delivery of public services or upstream solutionsÕ.
Another sociological contribution to specifically understanding food consumption behaviour comes from the sociology of consumption, and in particular, the sociology of food (cf. Warde 1997; Beardsworth and Keil 1997; Murcott 1983). Many consumption practices play a role in creating and maintaining a personal identity for individuals in relation to others in the society (Giddens 1991; Baumann 1998; Gabriel and Lang 1995). Consumption may facilitate identity formation in ways that bind people to a group identity or act as markers of social distinction (Bourdieu 1984; Veblen 1899). The symbolic meanings of material possessions and consumption practices are socially constructed (Douglas and Isherwood 1979). For instance, particular consumption practices may be embedded in social rituals such as dinner parties, celebration of cultural festivals, team building events at work, and religious codes. As such, they are important for people in maintaining social relationships and group identities (Shields 1992).
Food is ascribed meanings in various cultures and groups that go beyond its biological utility function (Beardsworth and Keil 1997). Food choices can be integral to the formation of personal and group identities. For example, ÔMuslims should not eat pork and alcohol, Catholics should not eat meat on Fridays, Jews should separate milk and meat, and Hindus should not touch cow meatÕ (Scholliers 2001: 5). The symbolic link between meat, men and masculinity in western culture has been discussed and demonstrated in several studies (Twigg 1979, 1983; Adams 1991; Fiddes 1991; Beardsworth et al. 2002). Meat has the connotation of ÔessenceÕ (as in the Ômeat of the argumentÕ) whereas vegetables are seen as passive, dull and monotonous (as in the verb Ôto vegetateÕ) (Adams 1991; Beardsworth and Keil 1997). The identity of vegetarians and the meanings they give to meat, on the other hand, stand in stark contrast and opposition to the dominant meat-based food culture in the west. Reasons for being vegetarian range from concern for animal welfare, health, and ecology to spiritual aspirations of purity and asceticism (Ruby et al. 2013; Fox and Ward 2008; Twigg 1979). But crucially, being a vegetarian requires one to step Ôoutside the culturally prescribed forms of eatingÕ (Twigg 1983: 19). While accepting that vegetarians and
gourmets may form their identities around food, Warde (1997) questions the salience of food consumption as an identity marker for most people. He argues that food consumption is almost invisible to most peopleÕs conscious thought processes, and plays only a marginal role, if at all, in expressing identities. In response, Scholliers (2001: 9) draws on the works of Levi-Strauss and Bourdieu to assert that since consumption choices invariably rely on socially constructed discourses and narratives, Ôsocial identification and demarcation are present even in ÒsimpleÓ, Òself-evidentÓ and ÒunconsciousÓ mattersÕ.
In the context of sustainable consumption, Soron (2010) argues for integrating self- identity concerns with socio-structural and material dimensions of consumption in sociological analysis. He suggests that thinking about structural changes towards supporting sustainable consumption also requires consideration of locating agency and cultural drivers for change. He notes: ÔThe promise of É ÔalternativeÕ models of sustainable consumption Ð comprising bottom-up initiatives such as cooperative local distribution food systems, non-monetary community barter networks and so on Ð resides not only in their capacity to transform the context and material intensity of everyday consumption practices, but in their ability to challenge the powerlessness that people feel as individuated ÔconsumersÕ by reconstituting a social, collective and non- commodified basis for personal identityÕ (Soron 2010: 180). Moreover, participation in ecological lifestyle and environmental campaign groups has the potential to engender new forms of habitus (i.e internalised dispositions) through doings and learnings that foster shared identities and the routinisation of environmentally sustainable practices (see Haluza-DeLay 2008; Crossley 2003).
At the same time, from the institutional perspective, there is a demand on policy regimes to be alive to the multiple Ôvalues for moneyÕ that consumers seek in the marketplace (Lang 2010). Figure 6.7, for instance, shows a matrix of concerns that animate policy considerations on sustainable diet (Lang, Dibb and Reddy 2011). The policy goal, according to Lang (2014, 2010), must be to resolve potential tensions that may arise between some of these values, minimise trade offs, and build on synergies to deliver appropriate systems of provision and regulatory standards that enable sustainable practices throughout the food supply chain, and not just at the end points of consumption.
Sociological studies of food consumption offer important perspectives. Food represents Ôboth a vignette and a microcosm of wider social realitiesÕ (Lang 1999b: 218). In addition to maintaining human health, food is shown at once to be: infused with multiple cultural meanings; a marker of identity; a carrier of social conventions and ÔinconspicuousÕ routines; an expression of political and ethical value preferences; and a vital piece in considerations of environmental sustainability. Additionally, scholars, particularly from the strand of social practice theory, have attempted to shift the dominant policy discourse on pro-environmental behaviour change from an individual choice and responsibility oriented focus to one which needs to account for material and infrastructural contexts, cultural meanings and social conventions.
Figure 6.7 Sustainable food as a complex set of Ôomni-standardsÕ or Ôpoly-valuesÕ Source: Adapted from Lang, Dibb and Reddy (2011: 14)