Definition
Social practice theory (SPT) examines how shared routines and activities shape our daily lives and societies, focusing on actions within social contexts. Sitting at the intersection of key theoretical debates in the social sciences about what drives social action and behavior, it seeks a middle ground in the long-standing “structure-agency” debate. This debate refers to the tendency of approaches to emphasize either individual agency (the capacity of individuals to act independently) or social structures (such as political economy) as the primary drivers of behavior. In contrast, SPT focuses on how agency and structure interact within social practices and their everyday performances.
While definitions of social practices vary, they are generally understood as consisting of interconnected social, material, and bodily elements, see Box 20.1. These include materials (objects, tools, infrastructures), competencies (skills, knowledge), meanings (understandings, cultural norms, and values), and rules (regulations, procedures).
Box 20.1 Examples of social practices
Social practices are dynamic interactions between individual agency and the social and material structures or contexts that form societies. For example, food shopping involves personal skills (agency) and the infrastructure of stores and supply chains (structure), with each continuously influencing the other. Individuals are considered active “carriers” of practices. Many practices, such as car driving or supermarket shopping exist long before the individual starts to perform it. However, individuals transform existing practices through their participation. For instance, the practice of car driving exists in society, and individuals learn and adopt it. However, as more diverse groups take up driving, the practice itself evolves.
Practices themselves are interconnected and form bundles or complexes that make up the rhythm of everyday and social life. They hold key implications for sustainable consumption and lifestyles. For instance, travel, work, food shopping, cooking, and eating are interrelated practices that together shape how we use resources (see Choice Editing and Stocks Versus Flows). Changes in one practice can lead to shifts in related ones. For example, adopting zero-waste grocery shopping can alter shopping routines, food storage at home, and waste disposal methods.
Social practices are shared within groups and communities and can change over time due to new technologies, cultural shifts, or policy changes. For instance, home heating has often evolved from using hearth fires to central heating systems, leading to higher indoor temperature standards and increased resource use. This practice continues to change with renewable energy sources, better insulation, and cultural movements for energy conservation (see Sustainable Housing and Energy Overshoot). Social practices also vary across cultures, reflecting different material contexts, norms, and values (see Social Norms and Values and Consumption). For example, commuting in some cultures involves mainly driving cars, while in others, bicycles or public transportation are more common, highlighting diverse infrastructures, histories, and cultural norms surrounding transportation (see Sustainable Mobility).
History
The roots of SPT can be traced back to 19th- and 20th-century sociology and philosophy and the works of scholars such as Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger. Marx emphasized that human actions are inherently social. He argued that to grasp their meaning and intelligibility we must consider the social and historical contexts in which they occur. Heidegger explored the nature of human existence and how our being-in-the-world is shaped by everyday practices. Such insights laid the groundwork for understanding human actions as deeply embedded in social and material contexts.
In the mid-20th century, scholars like Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens expanded on these ideas. Bourdieu introduced “habitus”, the ingrained habits and skills developed from life experiences, highlighting that actions are deeply embedded in social and cultural contexts. Giddens’ theory of structuration emphasized that social practices shape and are shaped by the social contexts and structures in which they occur.
In the late 20th century and early 21st century, SPT became more defined and prominent with the work of scholars like Elizabeth Shove, Andreas Reckwitz, and Theodore Schatzki. Shove applied SPT to sustainable consumption, showing how practices like showering and heating are influenced by materials, competencies, and meanings. Reckwitz distinguished between practices as abstract entities and their actual performance. Schatzki explored the ontology of social practices and their role in social life, emphasizing their interconnectedness and embeddedness in broader contexts. Recent work by Shove and others has further developed the idea of interconnected practices, demonstrating how SPT can be used to study and change larger social phenomena such as economic systems and cultural trends (see Generational Consumption Differences (in China)).
With the application of SPT to contemporary challenges such as sustainable consumption and public health, researchers are exploring how practices can be changed to promote more sustainable lifestyles and how policies can support these changes. This has made SPT a potentially valuable tool for understanding and promoting sustainable practices in various areas of life.
Different Perspectives
SPT is not a single framework but a collection of diverse approaches. Scholars differ, for instance, in how much they emphasize material versus non-material elements in shaping social practices. Some focus on more tangible components like technologies and infrastructures, arguing that these are crucial in structuring practices (see Urban Planning and Spatial Allocation and Information and Communication Technology). Others emphasize cultural and bodily factors like dispositions, meanings, skills, and social norms, suggesting that these are equally important in shaping actions.
A key debate within SPT is how practices evolve. Some scholars, like Bourdieu, primarily focus on the stability of practices and how established routines resist change. Others, like Shove, focus on how practices adapt due to policy interventions, technological innovations, and cultural shifts. Contrary to the misconception that SPT ignores change, many scholars are interested in how practices evolve, which is essential for designing policies that support sustainable change.
Critics often argue that SPT neglects individual agency by focusing too much on social structures. However, SPT acknowledges that individuals are active participants who can drive innovation and transformation within practices, despite the emphasis on broader social and material contexts.
Another critique is that SPT oversimplifies the complexity of social practices by breaking them into distinct elements. Proponents, however, argue this analytical approach helps to better understand and intervene in practices by identifying key components and their interactions.
SPT has also been critiqued for not sufficiently addressing power, inequality, and justice within practices. Critics say it often overlooks how practices can exclude certain groups. Advocates counter that these issues can and should be integrated into SPT analyses, as examining who participates in practices and why can provide insights into social inclusion and exclusion.
Finally, some argue that SPT focuses too much on everyday life and isn’t suited for larger systems or political economy dynamics (see Political Economy of Consumerism). However, as Schatzki and Shove have recently sought to demonstrate, SPT offers valuable perspectives on understanding large systems by examining how everyday practices aggregate and accumulate over time to influence broader social, economic, and political dynamics. There’s also growing recognition of the need to apply SPT beyond Western contexts to understand diverse practices across cultures and societies.
Applications
Applying SPT in sustainability governance offers new strategies for promoting sustainable lifestyles by understanding behavior holistically and identifying effective intervention points. SPT moves beyond individual choices or technology-centric solutions to consider interacting social, material, and cultural factors, explaining why certain practices are resistant to change and why individual-focused approaches frequently fail (see Attitude-Behavior Gap). Analyzing these elements helps identify leverage points for impactful policies (see Social Tipping Points). These leverage points have the potential to support systems change from the bottom up.
Shifting the focus from individual behaviors to social practices has significant policy implications and researchers are developing governance approaches based on SPT. Interventions should aim to transform practices themselves rather than just changing purchasing decisions. Box 20.2 provides information on two such approaches – the practice intervention framework and the “Change Point” toolkit.
Box 20.2 Two approaches to change practices – the practice intervention framework and the “Change Point” toolkit
The practice intervention framework developed by Spurling and colleagues provides a practical lens for societal and policy applications of SPT. It shifts focus from individual behavior change to the underlying elements that sustain practices, identifying three key avenues for promoting sustainable lifestyles: recrafting elements, substituting practices, and changing how practices interlock (see Spurling and Blue’s edited volume in the Further Reading for details).
Recrafting elements involves modifying the materials, competencies, and meanings within a practice to make it more sustainable. For example, in household energy use, this might involve introducing energy-efficient appliances, promoting conservation norms, and developing new skills (see Energy Consumption Behavior). Recrafting practices involve not just providing new technologies but ensuring that these are integrated into everyday routines and supported by cultural shifts and new knowledge.
Substituting practices replaces less sustainable practices with more sustainable alternatives. Encouraging cycling or public transport, for instance, requires not just promoting alternatives but creating infrastructure and cultural acceptance, making the sustainable version the most convenient and attractive option.
Changing how practices interlock recognizes that practices are interconnected. For example, commuting is linked to work, food shopping, and time management. Sustainable change might involve rethinking work policies and urban planning to promote sustainable commuting and reduce car travel (see Urban Planning and Spatial Allocation).
The “Change Points” toolkit (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020) is another notable example of how SPT can be operationalized to design interventions. This toolkit offers a structured method for collaboratively planning interventions with policy, industry, and societal stakeholders by examining the social, material, and institutional elements that shape everyday practices. It guides users through a series of steps to identify and target key points within practices where interventions can be most effective.
Integrating SPT into policies allows stakeholders to design flexible, long-term strategies targeting underlying systems and structures for sustainable change. Concrete steps can include collaborative practice-based research to map existing practices, developing multi-element practice-focused interventions, engaging stakeholders in the design and implementation of these, and continuously monitoring and adapting strategies to achieve desired outcomes (see Living Labs). In this way, leveraging SPT has the potential to lead to more effective, context-sensitive, and enduring solutions to unsustainable lifestyles. This makes SPT a useful, systematic, tool for anyone looking to promote sustainable living, including policymakers, activists, and educators.
Further Reading
Hoolohan, C., & Browne, A.L. (2020). Designing design thinking for practice-based intervention: Co-producing the change points toolkit to unlock (un)sustainable practices. Sustainability, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.12.002.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v1i1.2125.
Spaargaren, G., Weenink, D., & Lamers, M. (Eds.). (2016). Practice theory and research: Exploring the dynamics of social life. London: Routledge.
Spurling, N., & Blue, S. (Eds.). (2016). Social practices, interventions and sustainability: Beyond behaviour change. London: Routledge.
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090.