A theory of social practice was first developed by Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens (Bourdieu, 1979, Giddens, 1984). According to Bourdieu, ‘action is theorized as a culturally mediated response to structural constraints and change’ (Swartz, 1997). His work has been extremely influential across many disciplines; in addition to introducing the idea of social practices, Bourdieu developed the concept of social, cultural and informational ‘capital’ as a distinct currency from economic capital, which can also be used by privileged members of society to gain advantage. The work of Bourdieu expounds social structures as influential determinants of human action.80
80 To clarify, it is not that Bourdieu disregards the agency of humans, but rather that he stresses the ‘importance of agency within a structuralist framework’ (Swartz, 1997, p.98).
Over the last two decades Elizabeth Shove has contributed widely to the development of SPT in relation to research on sustainability and energy consumption (Shove, 1998, Shove, 2003, and Shove and Walker, 2010). In her latest book, Shove et al. (2012), explicitly align their position, in relation to the structure and agency dichotomy, with that of Giddens (1984) who writes the following:
‘The basic domain of study of the social sciences, according to the theory of structuration, is neither the experience of the individual actor, nor the existence of any form of social totality, but social practice ordered across space and time’ (p.2).
Shove et al. (2012) critique individualist conceptualisations of energy consumption, which prioritise human agency and choice in driving behaviours and are grounded in ‘rational choice theory’. The authors argue that these are reflections of the utilitarian ideas of Jeremy Bentham, where ‘action is, [….] explained by the pursuit of individual interests’ (p.2). Instead, SPT can
‘transcend the dualisms of structure and agency’ (p.3).
What is a practice?
‘Practices’ are routinised and recursive activities which take place over space and time (Shove et al., 2012, p.6-7). Schatzki (2002) defines a practice as an ‘organised nexus of actions’ (p.71), where actions are ‘bodily doings and sayings’ (p.72). He notes several examples, include cooking practices, religious practices and banking practices. These are activities which are carried out in a multitude of different ways, in disparate locations and at varying times, yet they still share some commonalities which make them recognisable as part of that particular
‘practice’.81
Social Practice Theory (SPT) supports a more holistic understanding of energy, technology and consumption than the individualistic studies of ‘behaviour’. With SPT the main unit of enquiry is collective ‘practice’, rather than the individual energy ‘user’. A given practice exists independently from individuals, who are its ‘carriers’, and its components, or elements, cannot be understood as personal attributes (Shove et al., 2012, p.7).
Practices can exist as both ‘entities’ and ‘performances’. The concept of practice as entity refers to the idea that ‘a practice represents a pattern which can be filled out by a multitude of single and often unique actions reproducing the practice’ (Reckwitz, 2002, p.250). Following this, a practice entity can be interpreted as an ‘ideal’, ‘typical’, or ‘normal’ way of doing things, or as the sum of ‘all the performances of a practice across time and space’ (Spurling and Blue, 2014, p.4). This second definition is more closely aligned with Schatzki’s description of practices as
‘complex entities joining multiple actions, projects, ends, and emotions’ (Schatzki, 2002, p.88).
81 This is not to say that they cannot be part of other practices simultaneously; e.g. for some, banking activities may also be part of their working practices, studying practices or shopping practices.
The concept of practice as a performance relates to the instantiation, or bodily enactment, of the practice in question. As Warde puts it: ‘Practices are thus coordinated entities but also require performance for their existence. A performance presupposes a practice’ (Warde, 2005, p.131).
Working with practices
Various authors have tried to break down SPT into more manageable components to inform empirical research. Some of the key perspectives of practice theory developed by these authors are summarised in Table 14 and are discussed below.
Table 14: Key elements in practices 82 interconnectedness of bodily routines of behaviour, mental routines of understanding and knowing and the use of objects’ (p.258). Warde (2005), provides an early application of SPT to consumption studies, stating that ‘consumption is not itself a practice but is, rather, a moment in almost every practice’ (p.137).
Shove defines a practice as the ‘interconnected relations’ between three ‘elements’: ‘materials’,
‘meanings’ and ‘competences’ (Shove et al., 2012, p.25). Although Shove has written extensively on theories of practice, the environment, technology and everyday life (Shove, 1997, Shove, 2003, Shove and Pantzar, 2005, Shove et al., 2009, Shove et al., 2012),84 a limitation of her analytical method is that it often relies on historical data. This provides a rich and insightful account of how social practices, technologies and institutions have evolved in the
82 Adapted from Gram-Hanssen (2008b). Text in italics and shading added by author. See 3.3.4 for a discussion of Gram-Hanssen’s empirical work.
83 The term grand theory refers to abstract and analytical theory building as opposed to theories based on empirical studies (Schwandt, 2007).
84 Shove, 1997 refers to a conference paper which was lost in a computer error (personal communication with author) but has been cited by many scholars including Shove herself as the first record of the ‘Materials, Meanings and Competences’ framework.
past,85 but it may not be so helpful for examining situational and local data such as that collected for this thesis. Furthermore, Shove’s work places less of an emphasis on the structuring nature of material objects, and is therefore less useful for this research which places equal weight on the physical and social configuration of homes and their ventilation technologies.
In “The Site of the Social”, Ted Schatzki introduces the notion of an ‘arrangement’, which is the
‘hanging together of entities in which they relate, occupy positions, and enjoy meaning (and/or identity)’ (Schatzki, 2002, p.20). He describes four types of entities, as outlined in Table 15, below.
Table 15: Entities
ENTITIES Human / man made Non-human / non-man made
Living People Organisms
Non-living Artefacts Things
Entities and practices hang together in a mesh of ‘arrangements’ which ‘order’ the ‘site’ where social life takes place. Certain practices and entities are held together closely in ‘bundles’ of related activities, while others are more disparate. According to Schatzki’s framework, the arrangement of physical artefacts and things (e.g. entities) helps facilitate or constitute social relations. One type of social relation is ‘prefiguration’. Schatzki writes that ‘the different components of arrangements enable and constrain one another’s activities’ and that ‘the site of the social prefigures the flow of activity by qualifying the possible paths it can take’ (Schatzki, 2002, p.44-45). This quote demonstrates how, in Schatzki’s work, the physical and material fabric of the world plays an important role in structuring the activities that take place within it.
This conceptualisation aligns with the socio-technical understanding of ventilation phenomena which was presented in the previous chapter, where the social and physical world is mutually constructed. The concept of groups of entities and practices being held together in arrangements, across a site, is illustrated in Figure 24. Schatzki’s ideas have been pivotal in exploring the data collected in this research and were particularly influential in formulating the theoretical framework which guides this thesis, as discussed in 3.4.1.
85 See, for example, Guy and Shove (2000), Chapter 5, for a discussion of how local, historical, cultural and commercial factors have influenced the take-up of insulation since the 1960s.
Figure 24: Concept diagram illustrating Schatzki's social 'site'