Practice-as-Entity and Practice-as-Performance

A common distinction in practice theory is made between practice-as-entity and practice-as-performance (Schatzki et al., 2001; Shove et al., 2012), the former being the thing, ‘block’ or ‘pattern’ (Reckwitz, 2002) we can readily identify as a shared practice (such as riding, cooking, shopping) and the latter being the enactment of the practice, or its actual ‘doing’. Spurling and Blue (2014) extend upon the notion of practice-as-entity and practice-as-performance in order to identify how change is enabled through these definitions. In its simplest form, practice-as-entity refers to an

‘ideal type’ in which the entity considers the combination of all characteristics of a phenomenon without reference to any one particular case (Spurling and Blue, 2014).

Schatzki (2008, p.101) clarifies this when commenting:

“The understandings, rules, and teloeaffective structure that organize a practice specify how actions (including speech acts) ought to be carried out, understood, prompted, and responded to; what specifically and unequivocally should be done or said (when, where …); and which ends should be pursued, which projects, tasks, and actions carried out for that end, and which emotions possessed – when, that is, one is engaged in the practice.”

This refers to when a particular practice is spoken about or understood in a mainstream, normal or typical way of doing, thus creating a straightforward and simple correlation between practice-as-entity and its performances by creating a formal structure in identifying what performances are correct or acceptable. Yet as cycling is clearly performed in different ways with a wide variation of cycling performed as well as being performed differently through time and space, thus “the practice of cycling as entity provides the framing, the resources and pattern for a diversity of performances of cycling” (2012, p.490). Thus, when considering entity as all the performance of a practice across time and space, it refers to the multiplicity of the entity in three particular ways.

Firstly, rather than contributing towards a particularised ‘ideal type’, considering entity as all the performances of a practice at a given moment embraces the diversity of ways of doing. For instance, in the case of cycling, the variety and range of such cycling is the practice entity. Shove and Pantzar’s (2005) focus upon the growth of Nordic Walking practices sheds light on this, acknowledging varieties of other

walking practices such as for transport, walking for fun and incidental walking, which all share enough similarity to be considered as an entity of walking, yet can be viewed a distinctive forms with unique elements of their own. Watson refers to a

‘diversification’ of practices through the growth of niches of innovation. Examples within cycling include the emergence of fixed gear bikes; wearing ‘velo-chic’

clothing which resists the wearing of fluorescents clothing or lycra which is

commonly associated to cycling; and the use of alternate bicycles such as cargo bikes or box fronted tricycles commonly associated within cycling practices in northern Europe (Watson, 2012, p.495). This, according to Watson leads to the proliferation of manifestation of the practice of cycling, producing multiple points of contact in which new practitioners can be recruited and the wider practice of cycling be increased.

Conversely, entity can be considered by a broader range of performances, for instance, the entity of cycling is not made up solely by cycling performances but involves multiple practices which enables this performance. The performances of engineers, transport planners, car manufactures, policy maker etc. are assumed into a

‘reproduction circuit’ in which the practice of cycling shapes and is shaped by. This concept is better understood as relating to the ‘System of Practice’ which is explored

in Chapter 2.1.4 and refers to the widening of possible interventions and investigation beyond the performance of a practice itself.

Finally, practice-as-entity can also be considered as the accruing and development of performance of a practice over both time and space. This contributes further to the variety of elements in which the history of performances affords. Past performances can have obdurate qualities in which the practice as entity maybe constituted with embedded elements that persist through the history of performances. Spurling and Blue (2014, p.6) argue that this obduracy is easily identified in the material world, with structures built in relation to ‘ideal types’ of practices and perception of what was ‘normal’ historically which maybe no longer relevant. Whereas Shove (2012) highlights that obduracy, instead of being caused by materiality’s alone, also involves social groups in relation to their specific ways of thinking. Whilst again embracing variety, it expands on this through the recognition that past performances are subsequently associated to both performances of the now and in the future, both enabling a constraining particular trajectories of a practice through the ‘stickiness or durability of material and social cultures’ (Shove, 2012, p.371). Performances of practices over space on the other hand considers the diffusion of meanings,

competences and materials which circulate between different countries, communities and cultures which then come together in alternative ways (Shove and Pantzar, 2005).

Practices cannot be something that can be exported in its entirety as they are situated performances, always in the process of formation, re-formation and de-formation through their enactment (Shove et al., 2012; Shove and Pantzar, 2005). Furthermore, this neglects the understanding of how such a practice is positioned within that particular society in relation to other practices as well as the resulting system of practice and community of practice it is located within, which we explore in due course.

When considering the entity concept as one of these three examples, it moves away from a processual, static and standardised conception in which there is a reproduction of the status quo when considering practice-as-entity as an ideal type and instead embraces spatio-temporal qualities and emphasises the variation and potential

transformation of such entity of a practice (Spurling and Blue, 2014). Whilst Figure 2-1 helps to visualise Shove et al.’s three element model of practices and how such

elements connect and interact with one another to constitute a practice, Kuijer’s (2014) working paper usefully expands upon this conceptualisation through the introduction of ‘bubbles’, thus visualising how single performances themselves contribute to and constitute partial manifestation of the entity of practice in question.

Figure 2-2 refers to an example of Kuijer’s bubble model, highlighting how various performances of a particular practice may share a number of elements yet also include a number of unique elements in respect to their performance.

Figure 2-2 Relationship between practice-as-entity and practice-as-performance visualised (Kuijer, 2014, p.43).

Kuijer’s (2014) edited visualisation of Shove et al.’s (2012) three element model assists in moving such model away from a static view of a practice in helping to envisage such fluidity and variation. However, whilst the ideal formulation of practice-as-entity maintains a deterministic quality, it none-the-less still enables change but on a lower scale. In considering Giddens (1984) notion of a ‘reproduction circuit’, we can consider loops of feedback and feedforward in which ongoing

‘monitoring’ of both entity and performance result in either the continuation or alteration of a practice-as-entity. As a result practices are never static or the same, but are dynamic and constantly being reproduced, therefore enabling opportunities of change to happen at any point. What is consistent then is that whilst these two concepts can be analytically separated, it is critical to consider both practice-as-performance and practice-as-entity fundamentally connected and mutually

configuring. “To intervene in performance is to intervene in entity and vice versa”

(Spurling and Blue, 2014, p.6).