System of Practice

A criticism directed at practice theory argues that practices are mere abstract theoretical constructs with little relevance in the real world (Macrorie, Daly and Spurling, 2014). The focus upon single practices performed in particular locations questions the theories of social practice to investigate the change process of practices and conceptualize broader socio-technical systems (e.g. Brand, 2010). As identified by Watson (2012), systems of practice go a long way to nullify this criticism placed on practice theory. In regards to policy Shove (2010a) observes that by re-framing the central issue as one of practice change and not behaviour change, policy would concern itself about how practices develop and not about the individuals’ values, beliefs and choices. This acknowledges that the practice involves a wide range of actors, not only the individual and their performance. Producers, providers, and the state itself all develop and circulate elements of which social practices are formulated from (Shove, 2010a).

Processes of change are rarely entirely reliant with the practice concerned, “rather they arise because of the shifting relative location of a practice within broader systems of practice” (Watson, 2012, p.491). It is this point in which Watson draws similarities between theories of practice and socio-technical systems transitions. Whilst there have been suggestions that systemic change can be examined between the

intersections between practice theory and multi-level perspective (Hargreaves et al., 2013), Macrorie, Daly and Spurling (2014) argue that the use of system of practice alone can sufficiently explain ‘socio-technical systemic change’ without ‘muddying the water’ due to systems of practice advocating a flat rather than hierarchical ontology.

Adopting a flat ontological perspective is reflective of features both of “individuals and their activities and of structures of institutions are products, elements, or aspects of practice-arrangement bundles” (Schatzki, 2011, p.14). No structural level of social phenomena exists above practices and arrangements, thus considerations of ‘macro’

and ‘micro’ of a multi-level perspective cannot designate distinct levels of society (ibid). Schatzki questions the cogency of multi-level perspectives three proposed levels by arguing that what “distinguishes as the micro and the meso “levels” are

really just different components or sectors of a single plenum embracing spaces of innovation and spaces that perpetuate the past and present” (Schatzki, 2011, p.16), whilst the ‘macro’ phenomena simply reflects elements, sectors, or measures of the plenum of practices and arrangements (ibid). Thus, in considering some sites or organisations that are clearly situated in systematically advantageous positions in social life, such as governmental institutions, governing over space is only made possible through the “marshalling, coordination and harnessing of countless practices” (Watson, 2017, p.177).

Just as Urry (2004) has defined the ‘System of Automobility’ (see also Sheller and Urry, 2000) drawing upon multiple elements which produce and maintain the performance of driving a car. Watson articulates that rather than viewing this as one of ‘coercion’ between the system and humans, it is critical to consider that the approach of systems of practices understands that the emergent, persistence and dominance of the system of automobility is only through the flow of practices which constitute and compromise it (Watson, 2012, 492). Systems therefore persist through routinized actions by individuals throughout the system. The practices that exist

“constitute the relations compromising different levels of the multi-level perspective, at ‘regime’ as well as ‘niche’ level (Watson, 2012, p.493). Thus, systems of practice enable the widening of possibility and identification of points of intervention that could create positive recruitment to desirable practices, or defection from an undesirable practice. As Watson comments:

“Practices (and therefore what people do) are partly constituted by the socio-technical systems of which they are a part; and those socio-technical systems are constituted and sustained by the continued performance of the practices which comprise them...Changes in socio-technical systems only happen if the practices which embed those systems in the routines and rhythms of life change; and if those practices change, then so will the socio-technical system” (2012, pp.488-489).

In understanding systems of practice acknowledges and widens investigation into how patterns of practice “are produced and held in place by multiple, and sometimes seemingly unrelated, infrastructures, institutions and policy domains” (Macrorie, Daly

and Spurling, 2014, p.17). Watson (2012, p.491) postulates that practices such as driving rely on a number of wider practices such as those of transport planning and road building to fuel and maintain such practices and as a result utilises the metaphor of practices ‘bundling’ together, yet I argue here that the concept of practices which

‘bundle’ together should be reserved to explain and detail something else, which is subsequently covered in Chapter 2.3. What Watson does refer to and identify however is that investigation may not be with the specific practice at hand but understanding the broader dynamics of systems of practice in which people are arguably caught in.

Furthermore, Watson draws to attention the value of such systems create ‘secondary and feedback effects within the system’ which go beyond simple explanation of one specific intervention (Watson, 2012, p.494). This therefore accounts for the system of practice taking on its ‘own character of self-organisation and self-extension’.

For Watson (2012) a transition in systems becoming larger and overturning existing and competing systems is not about singular points in time or a singular intervention in itself. As already mentioned practices are dynamic and it should not be viewed as static systems. In his example, he argues that if shifts in a practice such as cycling work in unison and contribute to the increase of cycling, then a transition can start to emerge. Rather than considering this as a smooth transition, it is better to understand change as minor tipping points or a series of thresholds being reached, contributing to a momentum in which cycling can be viewed as normal and as a legitimate mode of transportation thus contributing further to enforcing priorities of road design and formal rules of the road being shifted (Watson, 2012, p.495). Shove (2012) supports this idea of a threshold, but emphasises a further alternate view of disappearance.

Either way, the emergence, re-emergence or disappearance are assumed to happen in stages in which thresholds are reached and can signal the emergence/breakdown of a practice as their trajectories develop/decline.

This acknowledges the complexity of systems of practice in which interventions may have unanticipated consequences, generating reactions, interactions and resistance across such practice systems (Macrorie, Daly and Spurling, 2014). With such interventions and the resulting consequences, this leads to a formulation of practice histories, contributing to a dynamic world in which previous initiatives, interventions and knowledge contribute to the perpetuation, evolution or disruption to systems of

practice. Practices therefore evolve across diverse locales drawing in diverse

alterations outside the performance of a practice itself, such as the effects of peak oil translating into shifts in recruitment to cycling (Watson, 2012).