After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice

Abstract

Multi-disciplinary studies of consumption have proliferated in the last two decades. Heavily influenced by notions of 'the consumer' and tenets of 'the cultural turn', explanations have relied preponderantly upon models of voluntary action contextualised by webs of cultural meanings which constitute symbolic resources for individual choice. Arguably, the cultural turn has run its course and is beginning to unwind, a consequence of internal inconsistencies, misplaced emphases and the cycle of generational succession in theory development in the social sciences. Theories of practice provide a competing alternative approach which contests the colonisation of consumption by models of individual choice and cultural expressivism. To that end, this article explores the use of theories of practice as a lens to magnify aspects of common social processes which generate observable patterns of consumption. It is suggested that theories of practice might provide a general analytic framework for understanding consumption, one whose particular emphases capture important and relevant aspects overlooked by previously dominant approaches to consumption as culture. This article reviews reasons for the emergence of theories of practice and isolates some of their distinctive emphases. Strengths and weaknesses of the theory of practice as an approach to consumption are discussed.

Understanding Ethical Luxury Consumption Through Practice Theories: A Study of Fine Jewellery Purchases

“…However, this dualism has been challenged by an alternative set of understandings of human action in context, which are described as practice theories (Reckwitz 2002;Schatzki 1997). Warde (2014) argues that practice theories have emerged as an attempt to redress the shortcomings of cultural analysis, and Fuentes (2014) suggests there is much to be gained by drawing on such theories to examine ethical and green issues in consumption. Such theories highlight the complexities of cultural, social and economic processes which can impact consumption (Wheeler 2012), but they also bridge the duality between individuality and totality.…”

“…Practices are seen to traverse individuals and structures, with an understanding that society is constituted by social practices which are produced and reproduced across time and space (Giddens 1984). Here the focus of research is the practice, understood as an ontological unit of analysis (Røpke 2009), which can be defined by the actor or the researcher (Warde 2014). While economic models see human action as dependent on individual motives and interests, and other sociological theories might tend to explain action according to the impact of social norms and the need for some consensus, practice theories seek to explain and understand action through the symbolic processes of interconnected meanings (Reckwitz 2002).…”

“…While economic models see human action as dependent on individual motives and interests, and other sociological theories might tend to explain action according to the impact of social norms and the need for some consensus, practice theories seek to explain and understand action through the symbolic processes of interconnected meanings (Reckwitz 2002). However, the proliferation of approaches which undermine dualisms in the social sciences has also meant that there is no unified practice theory approach (Warde 2014). Despite this diversity, there are commonalities between perspectives: ''practice accounts are joined in the belief that such phenomena as knowledge, meaning, human activity, science, power, language, social institutions, and historical transformation occur within and are aspects or components of the field of practices'' (Schatzki 2001a, p. 11).…”

“…However, the most influential research focusing on practices has been done on topics related to consumption (Harvey et al 2001;Warde 2005Warde , 2014Arsel and Bean 2013), and on the role of practice in understanding behaviour change towards sustainability (Evans et al 2012;Røpke 2009;Shove and Walker 2010;Rettie et al 2012). Indeed, this theoretical lens presents opportunities to foster behavioural change through a change in ''the social and material environment of action rather than the beliefs or intentions of individuals'' (Warde 2013), which is a fundamental shift in approach from the ethical consumer studies reviewed in earlier sections of this paper.…”

“…Indeed, this argument for the use of practice theories in the context of luxury consumption is in line with Warde's (2005, p. 137) view of consumption through the perspective of theories of practice in that he defines consumption as ''a process whereby agents engage in appropriation and appreciation, whether for utilitarian, expressive or contemplative purposes, of goods, services, performances, information or ambience, whether purchased or not, over which the agent has some degree of discretion'' (emphasis added). We argue that a practices approach can shed new light on luxury consumption, including the ways in which norms and the consumption environment come into play in fostering specific types of behaviour, which, according to Warde (2014), has been neglected in accounts of practice theories. By analysing consumption through practice theories, we are forced to centre on consumption processes and to explore the ways in which practices are learned, shared, undertaken and advanced in social life, as well as how they might be dependent on complex circumstances (Wheeler 2012), including the consumption place (Everts et al 2011).…”