In this section I introduce relevant social science theory and approaches. Through using appropriate frameworks (e.g. social practice theory) it is possible to contextualise the link between demand (energy, data) and everyday life; how variations in practice may lead to variations in energy consumption. I then explore how a social practice approach opens up discussions around the dynamics of daily life.
2.2.1 Social Practices
Whilst there are many versions of social practice theory; in his article summarising their main components, Reckwitz defined a practice as “a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of under-standing, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” [108, p. 249].
It is perhaps more useful to employ a reductive model of practices. Shove et al. con-ceptualise Reckwitz’s definition as entities that make up three elements in their reductive model: materials (technologies or other physical objects that facilitate a practice), meanings (symbolic significance of performing a particular practice) and competences (the skills and know-how associated with a practice, which are necessary for correct performance of that practice) [121, p. 23]. Taking the practice of cooking as an example, we can see how it can be divided into these three categories: the materials (the ingredients, kitchen equipment and cookbooks); competences (the ability to follow the cookbook’s instructions, use the equip-ment and cook the intended meal) and meanings (the need and desire to eat homecooked meals).
Employing the use of such a theory moves the interest away from individuals and to-wards practices themselves; rendering these as the unit of analysis in research. By
in-2.2 Theory and concepts for studying everyday life 11
terrogating the meanings associated with a practice, or group of practices, it is possible to comment on how drivers, such as meaningful relationships between people, can affect expectations within a practice, thus enabling much more insightful exploration of the rela-tionships between practice, digital technology and energy and emissions impacts. Given my interest in digital technology, the adoption of a social practice approach here avoids discus-sions of an individual’s particular uses of a technology and opens up a dialogue around how that practice has come to be, what it accomplishes, and what it means and to whom.
Changes in practices
Naturally as technology, people, environment or infrastructure changes so do social prac-tices. To effectively discuss the histories and futures of growth in social practices and as-sociated energy and emissions surrounding digital technologies it is important to consider how, why, and when practices change. A social practice approach allows for the dynamic nature of social practices to be explored. Changes to one element can be seen to affect the others, and the practice itself, with links between the elements being made and broken leading to new practices emerging and old practices persisting or disappearing [121, ch. 2].
Through time, these elements can be seen to circulate and endure [121, ch. 3]. Using a social practice approach allows for deeper understandings of circulation and endurance in practices and their elements. For example if, to listen to music, one stops using a record player connected to a hi-fi and starts using an iPod and headphones, unforeseen impacts can be had on the practice. If the qualities of listening to vinyl records are important to the listener, the original device (the record player and hi-fi) may be brought back into practice (e.g. the old practice persisting). This may occur due to strong associated meanings (e.g.
preferred experience of listening to vinyl) or older competencies persisting (e.g. digitising one’s music collection is nothing like the older competencies of maintaining a record player or caring for vinyl).
Bundles and complexes of social practices exist, where practices have intertwined in such a way that when two or more practices occur in the same space, and can be seen as
“dense clusters and loose bundles that hang together in different ways across space and time” [121, p. 152]. Bundles occur when practices overlap in time, location, or mate-rial [96], whereas complexes of practices are more tightly bound together, co-depending on each other, and are tightly linked, routinely, in both space or time (e.g. practices performed in sequences or at the same time) [121, p. 84–87]. For example, a bundle may occur when a practitioner checks their email whilst watching TV as the time and space of email checking overlaps with the watching. An example of a complex of practices could be listening whilst working or studying (e.g. listening to background music whilst essay writing). For the
prac-titioner, these practices are are tightly coupled in the performance of working or studying, sharing space, time and a material.
By using social practice as a unit of analysis, the changes in social practice (e.g. the evolution or persistence of elements, the relationships between practices) can be explored to better understand the involvement of digital technologies in everyday life. We want to un-derstand what implications digital technologies’ incorporation in practice has for the future of energy demand and environmental impact. But, practices are constantly changing, and so is digital technology. By observing variations in practice across different participants, and discussing with them how things have changed over time, we stand to be better informed about how digital technology might develop to be lower demand and lower impact. Shove’s simplified model shows us how changes in practice can be explained as a co-evolution of its materials, meanings and competencies.
2.2.2 Space, time and digital technologies
Røpke and Christensen highlight a number of areas in which digital technologies are en-abling the softening of the temporal and spatial constraints surrounding social practices [112].
“In addition to the general applicability of ICT, mobile technologies and the internet offer a unique potential for softening the constraints of time and space.
Many practices have become partially decoupled from their previous time–space location, and a more fractured timescape has emerged.”[112, p. 359]
The softening of these constraints can enable practices to continue in different times and spaces both inside and outside of the home (e.g. communication can now be done almost any time, anywhere with modern ICT). Digital technology can encourage practitioners to
“activate dead time” by filling “unproductive time” with the activities supported by digital technology [112, p. 255]. This dead time can urge users to complete more tasks throughout the day, and may lead to feelings of “harriedness” that stem from the “anxiety regarding the temporal overload created by the proliferation of simultaneous demands” [129, p. 8]. Al-though the activation of “dead time” can be seen as positive by the practitioner, its filling has implications for energy and data demand due to services and infrastructures being required to be available throughout the day.
To understand how this spatial and temporal softening in practices links to energy de-mand and everyday life it is important to answer the following questions: how does this softening affect the everyday lives of practitioners (e.g. what are the effects of harriedness);
how does this softening and activation of dead time affect peak demand; and, when does this softening encourage more bundling of practices?