February 22, 2011: Discussion Questions: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Practice Approach
Emilie Dubois
Environment: The Ecological Modernization of Domestic Consumption,”
Environmental Politics, 9:50-77.
Dale Southerton, Alan Warde and Martin Hand, 2004, “The Limited
Autonomy of the Consumer,” in Sustainable Consumption: The
Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision, Dale Southeron,
Heather Chappells and Bas Van Vliet (Edward Elgar). Inge Røpke, 2009,
“Theories of Practice—new inspiration for ecological economic studies
of consumption,” Ecological Economics, 68:2490-2497.
Elizabeth Shove and Mika Pantzar, 2005 “Consumers, Producers and
Practices: Understanding the Invention and Re-invention of Nordic
Walking,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1):43-64.
Hyemi
However, I thought the concept of industrialization, growth, or economical development and the concept of environmentalism were at odds with each other. I thought terms such as “sustainable development” were unnatural to humans’ unlimited craving for growth and development. I am focusing on the premise of Spaargaren and Vliet that technological innovation can resolve the disparate interests between industrial development and ecological sustainability. I think this premise arose prior to a consumer lifestyle and consumer behavior. I question whether the idea that technology is the solution to overcome the ecological crisis is feasible.
In addition, I wonder that even though it might be feasible, the unlikely combination proposed by Spaargaren and Vliet can be realized in developing and underdeveloped countries, which do not share a sociocultural context for ecological sustainability.
Tom Laidley
I like how Ropke 1) asserts that practices, and not necessary material goods themselves, are important in studies of consumer culture, and 2) that agency should have a place in these considerations. Still, I'm not sure there's anything that groundbreaking about this- while I would argue that certain theories err too far to one side or the other, are there really that many people out there speaking in rigididly structuralist, determinist terms- or the opposite, some naive phenomenology of consumption? If there are, there aren't too many people listening to them anyway. Moreover, Ropke writes:
"Although most practices involve the appropriation and use of goods, services and ambience, people first of all think of themselves as being involved in meaningful practices rather than being involved in consumption. Consumption as such is seldom meaningful, and it makes little sense to say that people have a desire to consume. Motivations and wants are the outcome of practices, and the conventions and standards of practices steer behaviour."
This to me is a false distinction. Are material goods the whole story? Of course not. But to say (or imply...) that they don't matter because it's all about "practice"- what exactly does this even mean? Like it or not, BMW's, nickel plated espresso machines, and Dior handbags do fulfill some role for people, and these people do have a desire to consume them. Does it relate to 'practices?' I suppose...but how does that take away their power? They may confer prestige, hard work, accomplishment- tons of psychological implications, causes, etc. Does this calculus work for everybody? Absolutely not- for others, these things are probably a net loss in how they may view themselves or think others view them. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This seems even more obnoxious to me when Ropke goes through hoops to assign value to agency; yet isn't this just as patronizing as the 'dupe' narrative he argues against? I guess ultimately what I'm arguing is that sometimes, "practices" is synonymous with consumption. Perhaps this is a misreading. If it is, maybe Ecological Economics should hire a copyeditor in addition to recruiting referees.
weiwei
practice theory (practice =habitus + field ) (1984). Besides the
difference between Giddens' and Bourdieu’s theories that we discussed
in class, I think their theories also have a few similarities. For
example, just as Giddens' structuration theory attempts to bridge the
gap between structure and agency (Ropke, p 2491), so do Bourdieu’s
habitus and field theories, which aim to reconcile "objectivism" and
"subjectivism". Giddens' structuration theory argues that “agents are
knowledgeable about their day-to-day activities, and most routinized
activities are carried out based on a practical consciousness that
does not require conscious reflection” (citied in Ropke p2491). I
think this is very similar to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, which
argues that people’s actions are internalized, unconscious, and
dictated by their past experiences.
Another thing that I found interesting is that the practice
theory offers some different explanations from the status consumption
model. For example, the theory of practice uses “intrinsic pleasure”
to explain people’s conspicuous consumption (Ropke, p2496), which I
totally agree with. In addition, the practice theory also challenges
some mainstream consumption ideas, such as the idea that manufacturers
attempt to create “needs” for consumers through advertising that they
might not have previously considered necessary (Baudrillard,1970 ).
Likewsie, Schor (2004) also found that media is a strong predictor of
materialism. However, the practice theory approach suggests that
“consumers are not so easy to seduce” (Ropke,p 2496).
L Carfagna
This week’s readings helped me to better understand how to get away from the competing dualism of structure and agency so common in sociological analysis. “Practices” give a medium for the interdependencies of structure and agency (Ropke), between systems of provision and lifestyle (Spaargaren and van Vliet). The example of showering used by Southerton, Warde, and Hand gave an accessible account of how a practice-centered perspective can illuminate resource-intensive practices, a key component of understanding how sustainable consumption could ever become routine and normative.
While these articles focused on the consumer, or consumer-citizen as Spaargaren and van Vliet suggest, I wonder about the practices of people as producers or professionals. Spaaragaren and van Vliet bring up Institutional Analysis as a method for understanding the right side of the graph they show throughout the article. Much of neo-institutional theory and work on institutional entrepreneurship seems to hint at the “practices” of people bounded (albeit temporarily) within the organizations where they work. Institutional analysis in sociology suggests that the structure of an organization and what ever it is that organization “produces” is tied up in normative scripts. These scripts often get communicated through people (as professionalized categories) as much as they get communicated through resource channels or other seemingly abstract, non-human mechanisms. I wonder then if the “systems of provision” are themselves path-dependent because of the cumulative and shared experiences (sometimes wrapped up in institutional history) that are embodied by the actual people in organizations? I would imagine this to be true, so the question then becomes how would one study that? And further, how does lifestyle impact these path dependencies that then influence systems of provision? In other words, if we aren’t going to be satisfied with the dualism of structure and agency, why are we theoretically splitting our “practitioners” as solely consumers? Am I missing something blatant here or does this line of theory not allow for the cyclical view that I’m suggesting is embodied in people?
Gerone Lockhart
Ropke points out that as long as people are able they will acquire the
material objects that will improve their performance of their valued
practice (2496). Moralizing becomes ineffective when it is unable to
transform value structure. Assuming that both consumer behavior and
civic advocacy on behalf of sustainable lifestyles and systems are
good things, the question then becomes how do people come to hold
their hierarchy of valued practices and how can this hierarchy be
transformed. This seems to apply as easily to persons who are "green"
and those who are not. Even those who are "green" can find their
commitments to sustainable living crowded by environmental
limitations, other valued practices, and simple sheer inertia of
habit.
Southerton, et al point out that "most consumption is collectively and
normatively derived" (33). Efforts to change consumption practices
must recognize its "complex and embedded nature." Simply put, most
people are not as "free" to choose as they might first appear.
Neither wider choices or more information will disrupt the patterns of
most people. How then does a society as a whole transform its values
and practices? I say values and practices, because if Giddens is
right about the dynamism of high modernity (and if it is true for a
society as a whole and not simply technological innovations),
practices that address sustainability will inevitably become less
effective or obsolete. What is need is not only practices but values
and sensibilities (or habitus to use Boudieu's concept) that will
allow persons to adapt to new challenges both individually and as a
whole. I emphasize individually as well as collectively, because even
as collective action will inevitably be needed, our readings for this
week demonstrate that persons must value (an ideal or norm) to be
persuaded to act--collectively or individually.
Monique
gender relations, and unequal access to resources, as well as
political, economic, legal, and cultural institutions are constituted
by practices, but they also provide a context for the performance of
practices that is necessary to include in empirical analyses." What
implications does this have for applying theories of practice to
empirical studies?
Ropke's description of the way Pred conceptualized practices and
projects in daily life seems to have some overlap with Actor-Network
Theory (ANT). In what ways do theories of practice overlap with ANT?
John Petroff
from this week's readings. Coming from an economics background, I am
accustomed to viewing the consumer as a rational decision maker
limited by the constraints of time and income as well as an undefined
set of tastes. This model of course assumes that consumers recognize
themselves as consumers while making fiscal decisions which obviously
is not the case (except while shopping). This week's readings easily
point out how this version of consumer theory does not tell the whole
story although it is convenient for economic theory.
I was particularly interested in Ropke's observation that consumer
theorists have shifted from studies of conspicuous consumption to
inconspicuous consumption. Studies in this area reiterate how
consumers can more aptly be described as practitioners especially in
relation to ecological consumption. People are generally not aware of
the environmental impact of their everyday practices unless these
practices relate to some item or action of environmental significance.
I found it ironic that Ropke pointed how consumers/practitioners are
not as susceptible to market forces and advertising as most theories
suggest (p. 2496), yet market forces and advertising are generally
what signify specific items and actions as environmentally symbolic. I
hope that practice theory is correct for suggesting that practitioners
are not dupes, but for a successful transition to sustainable
consumption, the general public must become thoroughly educated about
ecology. How can people make decisions with respect to a field they
know little about?
Emilie Dubois
consumption beyond symbolic goods purchased by self-reflexive
consumers embedded in static lifestyles. Both convention and culture
problematize our prescriptions for "solving" high impact consumption
practices. So far, the "implications for sustainability [that] are
centered around informing and guiding consumer choice, converting
consumerist values or supporting reflexive eco-consumers" have all
assumed that consumption is, in one way or another, "an exercise of
individual choice" (Southerton, Warde, and Hand, 36). Studying the
consumer as an intrepid, conscious actor insufficiently weights the
routinizing power of social practice. From the rise of the power
shower to the situated social practice of Nordic walking, we've been
shown how to study the constraints of choice sets. On a basic level,
if final consumption is mitigated by routine and practice and, in
turn, folded into culture, then does its position imply we're
attempting to "unteach" the behavioral and motivational terrain that
underlies all of society? How in the world do we start?
Gemma
In the Southerton, Warde and Hand article, I am interested by their concept concerning the limited autonomy of the consumer. They claim that increased product information, ethical conversion of consumers, the regulation of markets, and technological fixes are all not enough to permanently fix the issues of unsustainable consumption patterns. Consumption practices go beyond individual choices and are shaped by constraints, routines, and integrative practices. I am curious if it is possible to break “path-dependency” or is it more important to reshape this practice toward more sustainable consumption patterns? Is it even possible for individuals to “readily shift from one lifestyle to another” (39)? Can you motivate people to do this in a mainstream manner or is it too difficult for the average citizen to reshape their behavior and norms of conduct on their own, without handholding or force?
In addition, concerning integrative practices it is noted, “participation in any practice requires particular forms of consumption, not as a choice but as a necessity of the practice” (40). It is “not in acts of consumption that environmental problems are located, but in the engagement in social practices that are interconnected in terms of the types of consumption involved, and the cultural meanings and significance of the practice.” Is it possible to reduce the amount of consumption required in a social practice without changing its significance or meaning? Is this too large a task for a community to accomplish, and if so how would the government go about accomplishing such a fundamental change? Overall, what will it take for individual lifestyles to be sufficiently disrupted enough for a lasting change to occur in consumption patterns? Are natural or economic disasters our only options?
