Social Practice Theory Analysis

It means treating a shared, routinized activity, such as showering, commuting, or cooking, as the thing to be explained, rather than the preferences or decisions of any one person. Reckwitz defines a practice as a recognizable block of interconnected doings and sayings that exists across many performers and over time. Individuals figure as carriers who reproduce the practice by performing it, not as sovereign choosers. This shift directs attention to how practices are constituted and change, which is where the leverage over routine consumption lies.

In Shove, Pantzar, and Watson's model they are the three elements that constitute a practice: materials are the objects, infrastructures, and the body involved; competences are the skills and know-how; and meanings are the cultural conventions and significance attached to it. A practice exists only when these are actively linked in performance, and it changes when the links change. They matter because they identify concrete levers: to reconfigure an unsustainable practice you can alter its materials, reshape its competences, or shift its meanings, rather than merely trying to change attitudes.

Behavior-change models locate the cause of behavior inside the individual, in attitudes, norms, and intentions, and intervene by changing those mental states. Practice theory argues that much consumption is routine, infrastructure-dependent, and socially shared, so it is better explained by how practices are organized than by individual cognition. It therefore intervenes on practices and their elements rather than on attitudes. The two are largely incommensurable in their assumptions, and practice theory is usually invoked precisely where attitude-based interventions have failed to change habitual, resource-intensive behavior.