What Is Energy For? Social Practice and Energy Demand

Abstract

Energy has an ambivalent status in social theory, variously figuring as a driver or an outcome of social and institutional change, or as something that is woven into the fabric of society itself. In this article the authors consider the underlying models on which different approaches depend. One common strategy is to view energy as a resource base, the management and organization of which depends on various intersecting systems: political, economic and technological. This is not the only route to take. The authors develop an alternative approach, viewing energy supply and energy demand as part of the ongoing reproduction of bundles and complexes of social practice. In articulating and comparing these two positions they show how social-theoretical commitments influence the ways in which problems like those of reducing carbon emissions are framed and addressed. Whereas theories of practice highlight basic questions about what energy is for, these issues are routinely and perhaps necessarily obscured by those who see energy as an abstract resource that structures or that is structured by a range of interlocking social systems.

Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems

“…Yet from a sociological perspective, behaviour is not viewed as driven by conscious deliberation or 'choice'. In contrast to commonly used theories in social psychology (e.g., the Theory of Planned Behaviour [65]), behaviour is not viewed as preceded by intention, but as the product of habit, 'routines' or practices that structure society [66] [22]. Given this variety, of which there is more than we list here, it should not be difficult to see why our efforts at integration are targeted at the limited purpose of aiding comprehension through a categorisation based on the contexts of acceptance.…”

“…This call for a revisiting of definitions of public acceptance of technologies in general is not new [20]: the latter is from 1987, refers to the "significant definitional problems attached to each of the concepts 'public', 'acceptance' and 'new technologies' and the need to provide working definitions of these. Secondly, though, we also aim to set out a simple framework intended to bridge perspectives through its generality, while recognizing that at specific levels of attributed causality and conception, sociological, psychological and technical accounts have marked and ultimately irreconcilable differences [21] [22]. Yet despite these differences, there are points of contextual connection in sociological and psychological accounts of energyrelated behavior [23] [24] [25].…”

“…Thirdly, we also discuss the differing policy implications of alternative perspectives. For example, while sociological perspectives arguably have considerable explanatory value, they also pose significant policy challenges, ultimately implying wholesale changes to deep social structures [22]. The psychological focus on changing attitudes and behavior through messaging may be viewed by contrast as insufficiently attentive to structural context, but it is not difficult to see why this may be a more attractive option for those responsible for policy budgets in this context.…”

Communities and urban energy landscapes in Maputo, Mozambique

“…Our analysis focuses on how communities relate to a landscape in which certain energy practices are conceived and generated. How people understand and live with energy relates to practices of energy use and these practices emerge within a given bundle of meanings and materials, which cannot be reduced to the actual uses of energy or to the provision of an abstract resource (Shove and Walker, 2014). Rather, practices emerge in relation to a variety of the networks that provide energy, the characteristics of the built environment that predefine its use and the management and consumer cultures that define how energy is used.…”

Energy efficiency in Swedish SMEs: Exploring barriers, knowledge creation and the role of municipal energy efficiency programs

“…Therefore, if climate change policies are to make a difference, we must cause improving energy efficiency with the aid of technological solutions to be a part of the messy world of different practices that determine energy demand (Shove and Walker, 2014). Since human actors are not only involved in the end-use phase of energy use, but also in the design, construction, introduction, and installation of new technologies, policy programs should consider alternative ways to work with the material and social aspects of different operations, and alternative ways to provide guidance and support to the involved actors (Gram-Hanssen and Georg, 2018).…”