Commoditization and consumption, choice and practice

Consuming Consumption by Sophie MaiSonneuve

Issued almost three decades after Alan Warde's first publications on the sociology of consumption, this book is both a reflexive statement on 30 years of scientific production and debate in the field to which the author so decisively contributed, and a program for future research. Indeed, the purpose of this book is, by mapping the main approaches developed in the analysis of consumption, and by highlighting their limits, to establish the relevance of a theory of practice approach and, from there, to suggest new paths towards a nuanced critical agenda for the study of consumption. Hence, whilst it opens as a synthetic handbook on the sociology of consumption, this collection of articles progressively unfolds as a systematic undertaking to build a stimulating and ambitious program -yet deeply grounded in a decades-long reflection on that object, and very modest in its tone -to make sociology a reliable and useful tool for scientific engagement in the field of consumption.

Given the richness of the theoretical insights and the impossibility of developing an exhaustive review of all aspects implied by this publication, I will tackle only a few elements that appear to me -a French sociologist with an interest for history, culture and technologies -as especially stimulating.

Models and complexity

But I shall first discuss the general frame of the book -the representation of the field of the sociology of consumption -as it grounds most discussions about the orientations to be privileged and the lacks to be filled up. Resorting to Abbott's (2001, 26-32) fractal model for the representation of scientific activity, Warde suggests that theory of practice allows sociologists to overcome the traditional opposition between individualism and holism and to resolve some empirical difficulties. Representing the field as structured by a polarity allows the author to present his research as a «third path», the solution to long-lasting and often sterile debates among «schools of sociological thoughts» (Warde 2017, 5 This representation is very efficient to build a clear view of the structuration of the field and to understand the key issues at stake in the book. One could discuss the accuracy of such a model that can lead to some simplifications and to an inclination for binary thought, as a result of an overemphasis on oppositions. This seems to be the case on p. 52 when the three dimensions of consumption (instrumental-calculative, aesthetic-expressive, and practical-mechanical) are presented as alternatives, whereas an interesting perspective could be to reflect about how they can articulate to each other and have a different importance according to situations. Indeed, one can wonder whether people systematically «choose» between emotional dimension and social display when they consume an item (ibidem, 53-54). But such kind of reasoning is an exception in the book; it is strictly circumscribed to the discussion of previous «schools sociological thoughts» and totally disappears in the central chapters dedicated to an in-depth exposition of the author's approach to consumption. Indeed, as Warde puts it, this model's main interest is «heuristic» and should in no way be considered «realistic» -it clarifies dominant debates in the field, and helps understanding the specific contribution of theory of practice approaches to this field. Now, I would like to discuss three of the major contributions of this work to the analysis of consumption. These inputs ensue from three characteristics of consumption as defined by the author: consumption as engagement, consumption as a process, and consumption as an ordinary practice.

Consumption as engagement

The focus on consumption as «use» and «appropriation» has several very stimulating implications. Whereas such a definition is not new (de Certeau 1984;Miller 1987;Campbell 1995), Warde's systematic reasoning and his endeavour to build a critical and constructive synthesis on the ground of previous theories of practice (Giddens 1984;Bourdieu 1990;Schatzki 1996;Reckwitz 2002) make his contribution very fruitful.

Defining consumption as appropriation leads the author to highlighting an overlooked dimension of consumption: engagement. Indeed, as Warde puts it, «an active conversion process is necessary to turn an item into an enjoyment» (Warde 2017, 73), and «it is neither the item per se, not the item alone, but also my orientation (which might be cognitive, practical or emotional) towards it which determines whether an act is, or is not, consumption. That is to say, the manner of appropriation affects the satisfaction derived» (ibidem, 74). Listening to muzak in a lift or a shop is not consuming music, whereas choosing this or that specific piece in this or that specific situation in the purpose of this or that reward or enjoyment, is consumption.

This has two implications that highlight the limits of both the individualist/rationalist/economist and the holist/sociologist approaches: regarding the first, desiring an item is often not the source, but instead the effect, of engaging with it. As (Becker 1963) and later (Hennion et al. 2000;Maisonneuve 2009b) have shown (on different theoretical grounds), it is through repeated practice that technical and body skills arise, as well as the ability of feeling the pleasure or the reward to be taken from the use of either drugs or music. One is not born a consumer (drug user, music lover), but becomes one -«the consumer» does not exist per se. Consuming is not only selecting, and even not only appreciating, but also appropriating -that is, adapting one's utilisation to changing situations and experiences. The second implication relates to the limits of holist approaches to consumption: the lens of practice leads to acknowledging the importance of commitment (and not only of social classes, that can be secondary in this context) as a source of social differentiation (Warde 2017, 87-88). In many everyday situations -not only in competitive or highly specialised ones -is repeated practice the ground for building «internal rewards», specific «know how» as well as commitments and dispositions. For instance, the duration and intensity of engagement in music listening practices determines an agent's approach to consumption -how much time and energy she is ready to spend on discovering music, which tools she will use to discover new music, and whether she will rely on others' recommendations (Maisonneuve 2019).

The empirical consequences are threefold. First, the ground for consumption and its quality are considered as lying not in the item in itself (model of the rationale consumer) nor in the agent's sole intention (cultural turn perspective), but in the articulation of both through appropriation. Consumption is a performance that is enshrined in a series of constraints and frames orienting an agent's relationship to an item: market agencements (Callon 2013;Cochoy et al. 2016), social significations, economic and cultural capital, practical skills, internal rewards (that can be built through experience and routine). Hence, this relationship is not given, but instead it is in perpetual construction and evolves according to changing situations. This does not mean that social structure, symbolic value, price or technological aspects, have no importance, but that each of these is only one aspect of a complex and changing configuration through which consumption happens. Such a perspective allows one to understand the changing status (appeal) of items over time, social groups, or even in an individual's «career» of consumption.

Second, this definition of consumption as appropriation implies a new perspective on the relationship between individual and collective levels that, although it is one of the decisive assets of theory of practice, has rarely been exploited in the field of consumption. Yet, this is a decisive insight to go beyond both the economist or purely cultural approach, and the holist one. Appropriation, as anchored in practice, is both individual -rooted in gestures, manipulation, skills, adaptation to self-oriented purpose, emotions, tastes, memories -and collective, in so far as individual practice rely on shared experiences, conventions, meanings, but also markets and technologies. This gives clues to understand trends (fashion, anti-consumerist movements) in non purely ideological/cultural/rational terms, as well as (for instance) to grasp taste or emotions in terms non reduced to social stratification. It allows one to go beyond a narrow critical perspective whereby the sociologist knows better than the agent herself what «counts» for her (Boltanski 1990), without assuming an atomistic model. Finally, it also gives way to understanding innovation -an issue I shall develop below.

Third, if consumption lies in one's «purposeful engagement» in the relationship to an item (or product, or service or ambience [Warde 2017, 66]) and does not depend on possession, consumption can be analysed as taking part in sustainable development: this perspective allows one to consider the possibility of sustainable consumption, as grounded in sustainable everyday practices. But «engagement» should not be misunderstood, as one more manifestation of the self-conscious, rationale, consumer. How, then, can theory of practice contribute to a reflection on sustainable consumption? If consumption arises through «purposeful engagement» and the pursuit of «goals» (ibidem, 73), how can the argument of ordinary consumption as «not necessarily self-conscious» or «purposive» (ibidem, 90, 203) be understood? Rooted in a critical appropriation of Bourdieu's work on practice and habitus (Bourdieu 1977;1984;, nuanced through Schatzki's (1996) in-depth analysis of practice, and reformulated through the consideration of neuroscience and behavioural economics (Thaler, Sunstein 2008), Warde's argument is that engagement is not a purely value-oriented, self-conscious expression: it arises from everyday practice, social ties and internal rewards. In this sense, «engagement» characterises a form of «attachment» (Gomart, Hennion 1999), a (situated and potentially changing though anchored in routine) strong tie to a product, practice, group, or value, that results from practical, everyday relationship to it and that is deeply rooted in practice as a «coordinated entity» (Schatzki 1996). Hence, «nudging» (Thaler, Sunstein 2008), as a series of incentives articulating technological-practical facilitation, social ties and «cultural conventions», internal rewards, as well as multidimensional valorisation (including self-oriented ones like taste and pleasure), appears as a tool to be considered with attention in the purpose of sustainable development.

More generally, this practice-oriented analysis of consumption as engagement appears to me as offering interesting clues to develop a broader reflection on engagement in its socio-political dimensions. Starting from a discussion of theories of consumption as choice, this practice-theory-oriented development on consumption as engagement indeed progressively builds a much broader perspective that leads to a reflection on the role of the sociologist in society. Whereas some points of the author's thesis can be discussed (as the representation of the sociologist as the «interpreter» who «helps ordinary people to understand better their predicament» [Warde 2017, 169]), the concern that theory be not an end in itself but a foundation for intervention confers this book a supplementary value.

Consumption as a process: the temporal dimension of consumption

The focus on appropriation has another implication: it highlights the developmental dimension of consumption, both on the individual and the collective levels.

On the individual level, the statement that «consumption exists in the process of doing something» (ibidem, 77) implies that the relationship to an item is never given nor determined by only external factors. Hence, this approach allows one to think about a blind spot of Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital. Indeed, as Warde very convincingly demonstrates, the dichotomy between Bourdieu's theory of practice and his developments on consumption and cultural capital leads to the impossibility of considering taste and cultural consumption as something else than the pure expression of a «class habitus». Hence, in a way, consumption is primarily considered as something static, frozen in time -as the expression of class belonging and the reproduction of norms -, in as much as Bourdieu was more interested in class stratification than in class mobility. Although one should acknowledge that Bourdieu introduced some consideration for temporal change with the notion of «quarters of nobility» (i.e. seniority in that class) that was supposed to explain intra-class differentiation (Bourdieu 1984), this remained a tool for accounting for stable differentiations at the time of observation -in other words, the timely dimension of consumption was overlooked.

Whereas Warde (2017, 96) gives few examples of changing practices in the field of consumption, this approach opens very promising perspectives for understanding individual «careers» in as many fields as food, sports or arts -and probably much more. As for this precise notion, a more explicit confrontation with Becker's contribution would be interesting in that, notwithstanding Becker's different theoretical frame, his analysis offers a quite detailed account of the relationship between the incorporation of conventions, the evolution of feelings and a growing enjoyment throughout the development of a practice (Becker 1963).

In continuity with preceding developments (and as a logical consequence of the concept of practice), Warde also envisages the evolution of practices on a collective level: the notion of «trajectory of practices» refers to their transformation as «conditional upon the institutional arrangements characteristic of time, space, and social context» (Warde 2017, 89). He insists on «the social construction of practices, the role of collective learning in the construal of competence, and the importance of the exercise of power in the shaping of definitions of justifiable conduct» (ibidem, 90). Again, Bourdieu's focus on the concept of field (Bourdieu 1996) leads him to think about change on a mainly institutional and ideological basis, thus minoring the role of practical skills and doings. Whereas for Bourdieu, changes occur through the competition for domination, Warde (2017, 91) insists on the importance of practices themselves, as they articulate «understandings, conventions and aspirations» that are not necessarily oriented towards domination and competition, but tied to many other dimensions (e.g. emotional, corporeal, cognitive).

Still, whilst this development opens very stimulating perspectives for examining the relationship between reproduction and innovation, it remains quite general, offering few examples (ibidem, 90-2). This, however, is fully coherent with Warde's definition of theory as «conjectural», and indeed, suggesting new paths for research is a decisive contribution to the field.

One can also wonder about the very marginal place of ANT in the discussion on consumption as a process. Whereas ANT and the sociology of innovation are often cited for their contribution to the analysis of the market and practices in the field of production and intermediation, they also gave a decisive impulse to a renewed interest for the role of consumers in socio-technical change. It seems to me that ANT would help develop a more detailed and concrete analysis of both the relationship between production and consumption and processes of innovation. As for the first aspect, I find very interesting the remark that consumption does not automatically derive from production and even from the channel of acquisition (ibidem, 72); I would suggest that resorting to Akrich's concept of «script» (Akrich 1992) would help developing a more comprehensive account of this space for intervention on the part of consumers in the very process of appropriation. As for the second aspect, innovation, its analysis, although general, is nuanced and balances the roles of, respectively, producers and consumers (Warde 2017, 91); Warde also insists on the diversity of consumers' dispositions and on the role of conventions and «the institutional context» (ibidem, 138) -all of which are very stimulating remarks. I would find interesting here to confront these remarks with ANT. Indeed, this theory further bridges the conceptual gap (or opposition) between production and consumption, as it approaches the market as a network (including intermediaries, technological devices and commercial agencements). More specifically, the concept of «translation» (Callon 1986) offers interesting insights to grasp the negotiations occurring during the process of consumption. In addition, it gives an important place to practices and materialities, as they are considered as fully constitutive of the network. In a way, ANT contributes to supporting an analysis of change from inside practices, balancing (although not undermining) the role of rationale decisions and symbolic values and privileging a representation of dynamics in terms of perpetual negotiations instead of either freedom (of the «rationale consumer») or constraints (exerted by «the society», «the class» or «the field of production»).

Consumption as an ordinary practice

As a sociologist and historian interested in amateur practices, I have long felt unsatisfied with Bourdieu's accounts of taste and cultural consumption. Whereas Distinction is a decisive contribution to the sociology of culture, the theory of illusio does not prove sufficient to fill up the gap between amateur declarations and practices on one hand, and the principle of class determination on the other (Boltanski 1990): how can sociologists decide that the concern for distinction prevails over internal rewards, whilst amateurs insist on (and show up, through their activities, the importance of) the latter dimension? How can immediate and internal pleasures such as manipulating objects, resurrecting memories or sharing emotions (Maisonneuve 2001) be accounted for in this frame? Approaching consumption (including cultural consumption) as an ordinary practice offers decisive solutions to such issues.

As Warde (2017, 121-3) very convincingly demonstrates, the concept of habitus does not make enough room for practical dispositions, unconscious conducts and non-instrumental practices. If some of his critics overlook the fact that Bourdieu's approach is statistic and does not imply any systematic nor total class determination («agents are always seen as fitted», ibidem, 121), the series of objections developed by Warde delineate a series of issues that make an account of consumption in terms of field unfit to chart the diverse, innovative, often non-strategic and non-instrumental nature of consumption practices. Bourdieu's focus on field and on habitus as expression of one's position in the field leads him to underestimate people's ordinary practices and their propensity to «adapt, improvise and experiment» (ibidem, 91), that yet any empirical approach leads to unveil. In a way, Bourdieu's frame better fits in with the field of production than with one of consumption (ibidem, 123), in that he insists on «strategic and instrumental action», «conflates competence and power» (ibidem, 121) and overlooks «internal goods (self-esteem, personal development, moral satisfaction, social interaction» (ibidem, 122).

In this critical portrait of strategic consumption, I cannot but see, as a watermark, its contemporary counterpoint as developed by de Certeau (de Certeau 1984). Whereas some aspects of his work, both methodological (abundant use of metaphors and important place given to intuitions) and theoretical (a gap between a holist approach to systems of domination and a sometimes «romantic» individualist approach to practices, with an prevalence given to individual logics), as well as his postmodern-culturalist heritage, can be the ground for a cautious reference to his thought (Maigret 2000), I would like to highlight a few interesting contributions to both a critic of habitus and a practical approach to consumption. Considering habitus as a «mystic reality» crushing «ethnographic singularities» (de Certeau 1984; Maigret 2000, 526), de Certeau decisively contributed to questioning consumption as a homogeneous entity directly emanating from production and to focusing on it as an activity rooted in everyday practices. His study of cooking, living and reading practices sheds an interesting light on consumption as a process of appropriation that implies «poaching», «tricks» and «diversion». More specifically, his concept of «tactic» as a characteristic of everyday practices, by emphasising constant adaption to situations, non-anticipation and the capacity for innovation, offers an interesting basis to discuss Bourdieu's overemphasis on «strategies». This established, I do not want to conflate de Certeau's theory of consumption with the present work. Indeed, not to mention the limits of de Certeau's approach presented above that would make the comparison inappropriate, a major input of this book is that it places such analyses in a broader perspective. First, far from focusing exclusively on everyday practices, it takes into account both social stratification and the institutional framework (Warde 2017, 127, 138) that orient them and confer them potentially changing values. Moreover, and as a consequence, it offers a theoretical basis for accounting for social reproduction and change, and for the transmission of cultural dispositions -an aspect that is absent from de Certeau's work. This is another evidence of its ability to bridge the opposition between a structuralist-bourdieusian approach and an expressive-culturalist one.

Perspectives

Now, as an invitation to discussion, I would like to raise a few questions that emerge from the book.

First, whereas I find very useful the systematic and composed definition of consumption as offered on p. 66 -«(1) a process, (2) whereby agents engage in appropriation, (3) of a good, service, performance, information or ambience, and (4) which is a product of human work» -I feel quite confused about the a priori definition of the third term, as developed on pp. 69-71, where it is stated that «if an item is not in any way diminished, used up or destroyed in the course of an activity, the process involved is not consumption» (ibidem, 70). Although according to its etymology, consumption is associated with the depletion, destruction or diminution of a good, it is unclear to me whether the fact that a good survives after one has experienced it implies that this experience is not consumption. This question is particularly acute in two situations.

The first regards the case of concomitant, concurrent or successive consumption by different agents. In other words, is appropriation necessarily exclusive of other consumers? Economists forged the concept of non-rivalry to insist on the specificity of a series of goods the value of which is not diminished by their consumption by a quantity of agents: when I buy a book, or a CD, or a MP3 file, my experience of it is not diminished by the number of items in circulation -the contrary is often observed (the more people consume a good, the more value -and not only economic, but also symbolic, emotional… -it gains). Even from a sociological perspective, the fact that an item's appropriation is shared can enhance the value of its consumption: this is the case with games and concerts 1 (Frith 1978; Maisonneuve 2009a; Hennion 2015), but also with recorded music that is often listened to together, as well as copied and passed to friends (Hennion et al. 2000;Maisonneuve 2019), and the same could be said of meals, cigarettes, books…

As for the second case, the recording and archiving of performances raise another series of questions: if a concert vanishes, and its attendance can thus be, under certain limits, considered as consumption, what about its appropriation through a video or sound recording? Does recording (hence the possibility of multiple successive appropriations) delete the consumerist nature of listening? In my understanding of the above quoted definition -as in my fieldwork observations -, this is not necessarily the case, but the arguments developed by the author hint to the contrary. This raises very stimulating questions for the understanding of consumption in the digital era, in which obsolescence and rivalry encounter major upheavals.

Moreover, regarding the fourth term of the definition («a product of human work») (Warde 2017, 71-3), I wonder whether the distinction between the «natural» vs. «artefactual» nature of an item is relevant to determine whether a practice is, or not, consumption: I can agree that watching an eclipse from my window is not consuming it, but does the selling of a trip to watch an eclipse not transform this experience into a commodity? A commercial agencement (Callon 2013), as it introduces some part of human production and enshrines the natural phenomenon into a commercial setup, appears to me as transforming experience into consumption (it becomes «a process, whereby I engage in appropriation of a service and ambience, and which is a product of human work»). The «great divide» between nature and culture, which is a human representation, is also incessantly challenged by human activity (Latour 1993); and so does, seemingly, in some cases, the divide between consumption and experience.

Finally, notwithstanding the encompassing approach to both the development of theories of consumption and the analysis of consumption practices over the past 30 years -including more recent movements for sustainable consumption (chapter 9), I will finish with a question that expresses my eagerness to see this theoretical edifice further developed: how can recent evolutions of online consumption practices, and more specifically the broad range of consumer activities often grasped by the notion of «digital labor» (Scholz 2013; Cardon, Casilli 2015) be accounted for in this theoretical frame? Do those practices challenge the very definition of consumption developed here as they blur the distinction between production and consumption and as the appropriation process is deeply affected? Conversely, how can theory of practice deepen the understanding and, possibly, be the basis for a critic thereof?

This leads me, in conclusion, to insist on the very stimulating dimension of this strong theoretical work that, far from being thought by its author as a monument or definitive contribution to the sociology of consumption, is incessantly conceived as the basis for further research and inquiry. Relevant with the author's definition of theories as «conjectural» (Warde 2017, 25), the book offers multiple suggestions for further inquiry (ibidem, 100-1), and closes with an interrogation on potential connections with other theories and an agenda for future research in the field (ibidem, 220-4). In a way, Warde engages his readers in an active consumption of his work, and these few questions are just my own «appropriation» of it. Sophie Maisonneuve, Université de Paris, IUT, 143 avenue de Versailles, 75016, Paris. E-mail: sophie.maisonneuve@u-paris.fr.

Commoditization and consumption, choice and practice by roberta SaSSatelli

Notions of «consumer society» or «consumer culture» are widely used in contemporary sociological writing as shortcuts for current forms of capitalism, understood as an economic, social and a cultural phenomenon. They often figure in popular culture with a negative connotation. And they implicitly consider contemporary social formations as irremediably linked to a new anthropology: the «consumer» is a new social persona characterized by the capacity to choose among commodities or fabricate a coherent lifestyle. Alan Warde's book promises to offer a theory of consumption which does without the consumer. The idea is to work with a minimal but precise anthropology that considers individual action embedded in ordinary practices, stressing the habitual, routinized, normalized character of daily life. And considering consumption as a process which happens in the realization of daily practices. Consumption thus appears as both ubiquitous and mundane, patterned and regulated rather than the triumphant realization of a self-governing will. Warde's book expresses brilliantly the current state of the sociology of consumption: being both less preoccupied with a philosophical engagement with modernity or late modernity, and more focused on the empirical, contested and ambivalent unfolding of social practices, studies of consumption ask more detailed questions inherent to the many, creative but patterned, processes and contexts through which consumption takes place.

The book reworks a number of important essays by the author which have contributed decisively to the development of the field. It is beautifully written and yet remarkably lucid analytically, while inviting the reader in a well-structured journey. It starts by surveying the development of the sociological analysis of consumption, proceeds by looking at theories of practice as a way to overcome holistic and individualistic explanations, and concludes with a discussion of the politics of consumption. As Warde suggests, his endeavor is driven by a discontent with the ways of understanding consumption that rely on the sovereign consumer, either as a rational agent in neo-classical economics or as an expressive individual in post-modernist or culturalist accounts of consumer culture. The sociological analysis of consumption, he reckons, has occupied a space largely shaped by economic and cultural theory wherein models of «individual voluntarist action» have featured foremostly painting consumption as rational choice of the sovereign utility-maximizing individual in the marketplace or as personal expression in the creation of lifestyles. The book indeed takes up from the «tension» between the notion that consumption is the «epitome of choice» and «the fundamental mechanics of the social processes that underpin consumption» (Warde 2017, 3). Warde brings us in a journey from choice to practice. The notion of choice is seductive for many reasons, including the possibility of modelling large amounts of data via statistical procedures (ibidem, 206-10). Still, a wealth of empirical studies about consumption have shown that consumption is rarely understandable as individual autonomous choice: as Warde recalls «everyday conduct around consumption matters is heavily influenced, if not entirely determined, by habituation, by unquestioning adherence to social norms and conventions, by friendly pressure and advice from other people, by adaptation to social and practical situations as they unfold sequentially, as well as by mild coercion and commercial persuasion» (ibidem, 24). The model of practice, which Warde explores at length in analytical fashion (ibidem, 79-101), offers a much better grounding to understand consumption. In such model, we focus on embodiment and emotions rather than just cognition, we consider the contradictory objectives and thrusts which characterize individual consumer behavior, we see the subject as «a product of engagement in multiple practices, rather than as a self-styled and self-furnished aesthetic project» (ibidem, 213). With this emphasis on subjectivity as the product of a myriad of local practices, which allows for contradictory demands and postures, Warde stresses that individual wants should not be seen as the deus ex machina of action, as they are generated by practices and their organization. Wants, although felt and enacted by individuals, are thoroughly social and relational, thus consumption chiefly requires sociological investigation of their practical dimension.

Although the book contains many observations on contemporary forms of consumption, it does not focus as such on increasing commoditization as characterizing the current variety of capitalism. Yet, it suggests ways of addressing commoditization by offering a definition which encompasses it while going beyond the commodity form. The thrust of Warde's book is indeed to deliver an analytical characterization of consumption. Perhaps most usefully among the many useful observations in this book, Warde provides a definition of consumption which he systematically illustrates in one of the central chapters. Consumption is defined as a «process whereby agents engage in appropriation of a good, service, performance, information or ambience and which is a product of human work» (ibidem, 66). This definition makes a standard move of the sociology of consumption being obviously geared against the reduction of consumption to the cash nexus: even though consumption also entails acquisition, it goes well beyond that. Still, the emphasis on the processual nature of consumption is very important and consequential in its implications. Consumption, Warde stresses, requires time and is conducted through time: «time is both a resource and a medium of consumption» (ibidem, 66). It is not an instantaneous act -similar to the click on a mouse of online purchases. Consumption is an ongoing activity which unfolds in time and, we must remember, space, and which happens in typically well-organized contexts which it contributes to organize. The fact that it uses up time is something that we should be considering especially today, in societies characterized by the growth and diversification of material culture and the expansion of the commodity frontier. In our societies, we are often left with objects that we have bought, but do not have the time to use and which we consume only as items of fantasy and daydreaming (Sullivan, Gershuny 2004). Conversely, «tertiary goods» -that is those goods and services which allow to save time in daily life -are particularly sought after, and indeed needed, to keep up with ever more complex daily rounds (Douglas, Isherwood 1979). Arguably, the more we use tertiary goods the more we increase our knowledge as consumers while we may even decrease our capacities -and satisfaction -as doers of the various practices. A similar trade-off, which we may place close to that between pleasure as creative engagement and comfort as satiation of a prepackaged want proposed by Scitovsky (1992), is certainly to be explored in a critical sociology of consumption. To this end, a practice approach as proposed by Warde does offer a fertile entry to the conundrum of commoditization. It does so by bearing in mind the context of consumption and inscribing the modes of provision in the definition of consumption. Indeed, Warde's definition allows for consideration of different channels of provision of goods and services, within or without the market, but always «product of human work». The latter allows to link theories of consumption with theories of value and labour and this opens interesting theoretical venues. Above all, the different channels through which an item is provided affect, he notices, the experience of consumption, and in particular the enjoyment experience. This deserves attention. In fact, different modes of provision could be associated with circuits of practice that deliver different opportunities for different people. Likewise, corresponding with the inexhaustible commoditization of goods and services typical of contemporary capitalism, the specificity of practice may provide ways of preserving personal identities and relations from the logic of the market and price, as well as specific modalities through which adjust the second to the first. Conversely the logic of the market, which contains the possibility of diversification as well as standardization, may afford some practices -which may be uneven and limited in their reach -the possibility to attract new social groups and be modified in the process. The focal point for a critical sociology of consumption would be to consider the capacity of each practice to offer personal enjoyment and social harmony. Here, as Warde himself implies, we need to build a sociology of consumption that moves from the micro to the macro and considers the systemic effects of consumption across different practices.

Understanding consumption through the notion of appropriation stresses a practical process which involves the body and the soul of the actor consumer: «contra the illusion of mind, practice theories pit embodiment and emotion, detecting a mentalist bias in models of consumer choice» (Warde 2017, 213). Although not necessarily reflexive, and in fact quite often habitual and routine, appropriation is imbued of the subjectivity of the consumer through various levels of engagement. Engagement is a necessary component of appropriation in Warde's view. Perhaps even more interestingly, the «purposeful engagement» which appropriation is associated with entails some «process of conversion». Much recent research has placed emphasis on the necessary translation or transformation that the process of consumption entails. Here we are invited to think that «consumption serves plural and multiple goals. The manner of utilization is not directly, or sometimes even distantly, prescribed by the fact of acquisition» (ibidem, 69). The actor consumer extracts the good or the service from the commercial circuit to adapt it, deploy it, realize it in the context of practice. This is a process which may be conceptualized, following Goffman, as one of «re-framing» (Sassatelli 2007). Re-framing is not a purely cognitive act. It is a practical accomplishment, carried out through shared activities and meanings, which requires the body and soul of the consumer and works in well-organized contexts which it contributes to develop and alter. Re-framing governs participants' engagement and allows for meaning. And should be explored with reference to the process of recruitment in the practice -a point which is central to understand both the practice, its internal laminations and external reverberations. Re-framing in fact reverberates outsides framed activities and may account for their economic, social and cultural attractiveness. Such posture means that we need to look at the local, practical organization of activities, in all their variety, to grasp the meanings of consumption processes and their structural position. As suggested, Warde stresses this by suggesting that even wants and taste are dependent on practice «the content of what is acquired is conditional upon how people are positioned in relation to practices in which they engage… taste is itself a performance, rather than an instantiation of innate, universal and formalized standards, and is part of collective processes of judgement» (ibidem, 217-8). Now, practices are indeed best conceptualized as framed activities, and what happens within a practice responds firstly and foremostly to the practice itself and its organization. Key questions for research and theorizing are thereby the degree of involvement in the practice and the career a consumer may develop within a practice, the specific consumer capital that the subject develops as he or she carries out the practice and the way his or her competences, meanings, feelings may or may not be transferable to other spheres of life. Identity specifications external to the practices -such as class, gender, ethnicity -are obviously very important, but in actual fact they get translated by the practice itself. Indeed, this is how Warde (ibidem, characteristically position himself with respect to Bourdieu. Bourdieu's relevance for the study of consumption is acknowledged and yet Warde stresses the need to sensitize his theory to the specificity of practice, its internal functioning, the internal careers and rewards which contain many possibilities for creativity and innovation. The issue is to explore whether and how this creativity translates outside the specific local practices, becomes relevant and consequential for larger social circles and, ultimately, may be appropriated, in a dialectical fashion, by the culture industry itself. Thus again, we reach the macro level, and need to build, starting from the specificity of practice, ways of considering the consequences, both local and systemic, of practice.

One of the most promising observation in Warde's book is that there is an element of «acquiescence» in appropriation. It is in fact important not to paint a heroic picture of consumption: «to acquiesce without enthusiasm to engagement with items is a chronic feature of modern consumption and probably a very common occurrence. Some form of appropriation, and also consumption therefore, are effectively compulsory» (ibidem, 69). We may re-frame goods and services to fit our practices, thereby appropriating them, but quite often these goods and services come together with aspects we have little control upon. We just accommodate to these aspects, comply with them, go around them or ignore them. So, to recall an example offered by Warde, quite often we simply put up with plastic food packaging. Yet, sometimes we don't. And we try to organize our consumption in different, more sustainable ways. I sense that one of the reasons for the development of critical consumer initiatives, including sustainable consumption initiatives, is precisely that of addressing the unwanted features of consumption. Still, as Warde points out, to shift consumption towards sustainability we need to alter the context of consumption, that is to modify the practices through which consumption is channeled: «to reform behavior requires altering the environment of action rather than changing people's mind» (ibidem, 197). So, he contends, we should place less emphasis on personal education or ethical conversion and more on reforming the social organization of particular practices as the success of domestic waste recycling across many countries demonstrates. The assumption of greater personal responsibility in consumption, something which has been detected in political consumerism (Micheletti 2003) may indeed rely too heavily on some form of consumer sovereignty: «(P)olitical solution are strongly rooted in the perception that the figure to be dealt with, arguably an ideological and imaginary figure, is the «sovereign consumer», who, relatively autonomously, reflects on his/her lifestyle in light of available money and time and selects good and services entirely voluntarily to match preferences and values. Most would say that these policy approaches have been ineffective» (Warde 2017, 183-4). Responsible forms of sovereignty may work well as a political slogan and they have effectively mobilized people around critical consumption, but Warde suggest they may be not enough for the rapid and decisive social change which sustainability issues today demand. The importance of a «choice architecture», which nudges individuals towards sustainable behaviours and prescribes incentives for firms, is stressed. However, the development of critical, responsible and alternative notions of sovereignty, which stress precisely the rooting of choice in interaction and relations and are attuned to the practical manners of choice, is part of critical consumption and may contribute to altering the conditions of choice. Critical consumption unpacks consumer goods and services, it considers how we can organize practices in ways which are conducive to less external damages to ourselves, people and the environment. It emphasizes our role as consumers to reappraise the organization of practices. Consumption -which as Warde stresses is not a practice in itself but a moment, a process within practices -therefore becomes reflexive. And doing so it contributes to qualify the vision of individual choice and the notion of consumer sovereignty which is available in our highly commoditized societies (Sassatelli 2006).

The emphasis on practice is timely and important. It corresponds with much research carried out in sociology in the new millennium, which, as Warde notices, is moving away from culturalist analyses and their emphasis on the communicative function of consumption. Yet, I wonder if we still need to allow for a consideration of the notion of choice within the sociology of consumption. For while choice dissolves in practice, it remains an important normative injunction which concretely faces social actors as they go about their ordinary practices of commodity appropriation. As I have suggested elsewhere (Sassatelli 2001;2007), rather than describing how consumption takes place in practice, the notion of autonomous choice works as a hegemonic normative frame which has both been sustained by expert knowledge and deployed through a myriad of local norms and particularities to evaluate consumer practices, their worth, moral adequacy and normality. Warde himself notices that as consumers actors are invited to think of themselves as choosers. The frontier of the commodity is enlarging. As consumers people use goods and services to go about their daily rounds, as people they interrogate their actions qua consumers and often find that the model of autonomous choice offers a strong justification for action. The process of consumption, conceptualized by Warde just like much anthropological writing as appropriation, is normalized not only in relation to the practices it pertains, but also vis à vis notions of the subject-consumer as a chooser. While the qualities and capacities attributed to the consumer are contested, we may try to pin down some of its dominant features in the Global West. As suggested by Miller (1987), in everyday life people spend much energy trying to live up to the expectation that they are able to govern the world of things and avert the doubt that they are slaves to mass-produced objects and their rhythms. This surely has consequences. For it means that individuals are asked to promote their desires and pleasures as the ultimate source of value while keeping mastery over them. The normative view of consumption is thus quite peculiar: consumers are sovereigns of the market in so far as they are sovereigns of themselves. Attention to the normative character of choice helps considering that precisely because consumption must be constituted as a place for the expression of individual free will, preoccupation grows regarding the effective capacity of all consumers to exercise their will in all circumstances. The search for pleasure must be tempered by forms of detachment which stress the subject's capacity to guide that search, dose pleasures and avoid addiction, namely to be identifiable as someone who autonomously chooses. Still, the universal character attributed to individual autonomous choice is only apparent. The cult of individual autonomy and the theme of the control of desires are clearly coded by gender, class and race, in so far as certain categories of people (women, the poor and racial minorities) are perceived as closer to bodily desires and they may appear as susceptible to addiction, the «other» of choice, which provides a dystopic image of the consumer (Reith 2004;Sedgewick 1992). Attention to the normative character of choice, to how such notion is deployed, evolves and changes in the normalization of consumer practices is certainly important to understand processes of practical action themselves. Especially so when, as suggested, competitive visions of sovereignty are emerging from the practices themselves and the precise contours of what is relevant in choice may be shifting under the pressure of alternative ways of considering our roles as consumers. This would help to keep some important aspects of cultural analysis in the picture. We shall make an effort to find ways of linking analysises of practice as situated, embodied action and normative frames as ways of understanding, classifying, and feeling that impinge on and emerge from the practice.

All in all, the book offers a lucid discussion of the way consumption may best be studied today. It is full of indications as to possible venues and questions of empirical research and could be used effectively as a reference to sharpen one's own analytical tools when designing fieldwork and going in the field. After this book it will be more difficult to use the «consumer» naively, and we can start investigate the emergence of consumer identities from practice. Roberta Sassatelli, Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali e Politiche, Università di Milano, Via Conservatorio, 7, 20122, Milano. E-mail: roberta. sassatelli@unimi.it. Extending the sociology of consumption by alan Warde I am very grateful to Margit Keller, Sophie Maisonneuve and Roberta Sassatelli for their gracious and generous comments on my sociological account of consumption. Consumption: a sociological analysis is primarily a volume of essays -some written earlier and revised, some new -addressing aspects of processes of consumption. The contents and direction of the book are well described in the three commentaries and there is little I would quibble with regarding their representation of my arguments and positions. Occasionally it might be helpful to note the academic contexts in which particular arguments were developed and the overarching objective of emphasising their sociological character. The book covers only a portion of the ground that a comprehensive analysis of consumption might address, but hopefully includes sufficient threads upon which to found distinctively sociological approach to the varied empirical phenomena which might be deemed consumption.

My rapporteurs identify a handful of limitations and problems in the text, the definition of consumption being first among them. It is a moot question whether trying to define consumption or to produce any general theory of consumption is worthwhile. On any account, consumption is a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon; it is hard to envisage a synthesis across the various disciplines which take an interest. Nevertheless, use of the term makes explicit definition unavoidable. Two senses of the term are in permanent tension, consumption as purchase and consumption as use (Williams 1975;Warde 2015). In chapter 4 I attempted to formulate a definition which would sufficiently represent the second. I sought to recognise the importance of appropriation and distinguish it clearly from acquisition. Appropriation had been recognised by social anthropologists, notably by Appadurai (1986) and Kopytoff (1986), and developed by Miller (1987), yet the idea has made slow headway in the face of the dominant disciplines of economics and psychology. My most insistent message is the need to escape from the clutches of explanations premised on the actions of sovereign individuals exercising free choice during their excursions into market-places. Appropriation suggests use after acquisition, hence my initial and slightly clumsy generic definition, with which my critics are generally content: «Consumption [i]s (1) a process, (2) whereby agents engage in appropriation, (3) of a good, service, performance, information or ambience, (4) which is a product of human work, and (5) over which the agent has some degree of discretion» (Warde 2017, 66) The point is to emphasise what people do with the items which they have acquired by whatever means, avoiding reducing consumption to the demand for commodities while not falling foul of the criticism that it would then apply to almost all activities other than work (Graeber 2011).

Definition is, of course, often not given, but a formative step in an argument. As Maisonneuve detects, some of the illustrations supporting the definition are tendentious, a consequence of following too closely the etymological association of use with using things up. Although at the same time we should recognise that one reason for the importance of the sociology of consumption is its relevance to the unsustainability of contemporary patterns of consumption and the depletion of the earth's natural resources. If I picked some slightly odd examples it was in order to make a still tricky distinction between actors' consumption and actors' experience. Arguably actor experience has been accorded too great a priority in interpretive social science; describing how people feel and think is an ineradicable element in sociological explanation but not the sole route to explaining the social world.

For empirical research purposes my subsequent promotion of the trio of concepts -acquisition, appropriation and appreciation (Warde 2010; Warde 2017, chapter 10) -and the contention that consumption is a moment in a practice complement the definition.

Aligning appropriation with the pursuit of practices solves many difficulties. It puts consumption in place as a necessary component of many activities, but rarely the dominant component. It is crucial to recognise that much consumption is ordinary and unremarkable, rather than symbolically or socially significant. Commodities sold, public services and gifts are incorporated into the activities of daily life -pragmatically, routinely and without deliberation -facilitating competent performances rather than determining practice. The idea might be further developed along the lines of whether the moment of consumption is of greater or lesser importance to acceptable conduct, of higher or lower symbolic significance, of being more or less determinant in the shaping of the activity, and whether it marks social distinctions or remains largely unmarked.

Perhaps, as Keller anticipates and Sassatelli implies, I pursue too thoroughly the logic of use at the expense of communication. Perhaps the aspect of consumption as communication of identity, display and distinction is given too small a role. Yet to minimise the cultural and symbolic aspects of consumption is not necessarily indefensible -for theoretical development often depends on a degree of exaggeration or overstatement by contrast with orthodoxy -although on reflection it might have been better when formulating a definition to replace the single term «appropriation» with the phrase «acquisition, appropriation and appreciation».

Excessive emphasis on appropriation is the source of one of Sassatelli's main objections. She observes that in a world characterised by a «cult of individual autonomy» it is a little perverse to ignore the mechanism and analysis of choice. I absolutely agree that a «hegemonic normative frame» exists, the effect of which is that people «interrogate their actions qua consumers and often find that the model of autonomous choice offers a strong justification for action». The impression that autonomous individuals exercise free choices not least in the guise of the sovereign consumer is ubiquitous. How the term choice is used, what actions it justifies and how it is used to judge other people should be a major focus of research because it underpins the dominant ideology and legitimises liberal capitalist formations. To confront that is the raison d'etre for the book and the central argument of final chapter, Illusions of sovereignty and choice, which offers an extended synopsis of the case that the dominant ideology and most theory overemphasise the role of individual free will. The prevalence of the concept of choice does not entail its validity as an analytic concept for sociology and nor should it compel social scientists to analyse social activity through its lens. Indeed, the book proposes alternative analytic approaches to capture other steering devices driving processes of consumption.

To that end I explore the application of theories of practice. The book is not about practices per se, but it reflects my own gradual drift toward exploring in more detail theories of practice (for an extended application see Warde 2016). In developing my theoretical account, I moved from an approach which emphasised multiple contextual constraints on action to one which considers practices to be the unit of analysis or scientific object (Warde, Martens 1998; see also Warde 2017, chapter 5). I do not assert the correctness, or even unconditional superiority, of theories of practice; different theories emphasise different aspects of phenomena and often are not practically inconsistent with one another. My trajectory did not take in Actor Network Theory -for which Maisonneuve mildly upbraids me -although practice theory has borrowed and absorbed some of the key axioms, especially taking full account of the role of non-human actants in making social life possible. Its ontological premises and specialised terminology never seemed to provide answers to my questions, although it is worth recognising Nicolini's (2012, 231) remark, in his extended summary of current variants of practice theory, that while ANT is not a form of practice theory, «practice theory and actor-network theory share a number of family resemblances» which give a similar approach to investigating «the connectedness of practices».

My account is more indebted to the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who no doubt remains a major irritant for scholars of other theoretical persuasions (especially in France) but whose sociological legacy continues to have unexploited potential. Chapter 6 is very critical of Bourdieu, but in a constructive manner insofar as I accuse him of retiring the practice theoretical aspects of his account in favour of pre-eminent use of the concept of field. In this I share with Maisonneuve a wish to distinguish between the internal and external benefits and functions of cultural practices.

Her concern is expressed in the context of the reception of music. Engagement in a practice which captures the imagination sufficiently to generate enthusiasm, commitment and intensive participation is often personally fulfilling and a source of congratulation from others. Satisfaction may occur irrespective of any consideration of consolidating social position or exhibiting cultural capital. Bourdieu does not account for this effectively. However, these orientations are not mutually exclusive and may be mutually reinforcing, attaining internal goods -by acquiring sufficient expertise to exhibit familiarity, ease and good judgment -helps convey the impression of possession of valuable cultural capital. Enthusiasts, even when not angling for social recognition and social approbation, may well be so accomplished that they are accorded cultural capital by observers. The key point is that people can do more than one thing at a time, attaining potentially both excellence and distinction. This relationship nevertheless remains an important point of controversy for the sociology of culture, and pertains not solely to matters of class identity.

Inquiries in the last 25 years have produced an enormous wealth of information and a hugely enhanced understanding of consumption. Many investigations have isolated consumption, treating it as a quasi-autonomous domain lest we succumb to the economistic fallacy which had plagued earlier studies. It was imperative to view consumption neither as the epiphenomenon of industrial production (which was typical of political economy) nor as the sum of individual choices masquerading as consumer demand via markets. Navigating away from those polarized positions was very beneficial; neither corporations nor consumers are all-powerful in forging patterns of consumption. The cost, however, was to dissociate consumption from economic processes. Institutional economic forces were relegated to the background while attention was paid to «consumer agency»; no longer the dupes of an economic system, consumers made their own lives with the stuff that corporations sold. Current scholarship is beginning to re-evaluate that stance and to return to concerns with the relationship between production and consumption, an issue which drove the initial emergence of European sociology of consumption (Warde 1992). Any account of consumption must attend to modes of provision and alternative ways to acquire goods and services.

Sassatelli's second major reservation is that I pay insufficient attention to both personal and collective action aimed at eliminating existing poor behaviour in order to transform individual appropriation of goods and services. I don't disagree. I could have said more about how populations express their reservations (of which they have many) about «unwanted features of consumption». To that end, political consumerism and the tactic of donning the mantle of the ideal consumer in order to demand rights or restitution or recompense against the purveyors of goods and services are tools of resistance (Sassatelli 2006). Movements mobilise adherents on the grounds that they are personally free to choose and therefore can refuse to buy symbolically evil goods and allocate their money to better ends. Boycotts unsettle producer firms and sometimes publicise very widely fraud and injustice or identify more worthy products. Nevertheless, the basic motivations of self-consciously active consumers seem more often expressions of focused grievances than visions of an alternative political future. My concern (see my chapter 8) is that these tactics may have limited practical or political efficacy and may even reinforce dominant understandings of consumption. I have limited faith in the power of critical consumption because of the entanglement of conventional modes of conduct. The practices of everyday life, so often a function of habit and routine rather than deliberation, are each dependent upon established procedures and prescribed equipment which prove resistant to interventions reliant primarily on altering terms of economic exchange.

My book addresses only some of the issues which might form a future research agenda. Much is omitted. An analysis of the process of provisioning is one such absence. Maisonneuve raises another, inviting speculation about how my approach might explain the effects of the digital revolution. I am uncertain. Generally, new technologies, when widely adopted, re-shape practices. Technological revolutions have consequences for the organisation of everyday life, social arrangements and practices. Sometimes the effect is huge, even if mostly slow to take effect. The digital revolution affects extensively interpersonal communication, work and employment, access to information, and probably social rhythms and the allocation of time. Whenever the moment of consumption changes I anticipate the adjustment and re-arrangement of practices, although reformulations are unlikely to be homogeneous or unidirectional. The consequences of digitalisation for acquisition, appropriation and appreciation in popular practices are unpredictable, although it is worth remarking that in the past new materials and routines have added to rather than substituted for previous ways.

The sociology of consumption is now a well-established sub-discipline supported by a substantial community of scholars intent on its further advancement. Consumption documents the current state of my own understanding but much is left to do. Key elements of a future agenda are implicitly proposed by my insightful critics. All are especially concerned that our knowledge be applied to reshaping social institutions with a view to consumption becoming sustainable, socially and environmentally. The difficulties are considerable, as Part 4 of the book intimates. Keller and colleagues (Vihalemm et al. 2015) are among those formulating ways to re-fashion the future in light of understandings of practice. Given the fateful prognoses of climate scientists, sustainability is not an issue about which to demand theoretical purity; all imaginable relevant perspectives need to be thoroughly articulated and their practical consequences critically evaluated. Changing minds and changing behaviours are inseparable. If scripts, agencing, frames or careers can be shown to add to understanding they should be welcomed. At the same time the importance of consumption should not be over-emphasised. If it is a moment in practices then change requires transformations in ways of doing things. It is not simply a matter of inventing more environmentally efficient technology to sustain current activities and standards, but of transforming current visions of a good life. Sociology has no special facility for utopian thinking and its track record in forecasting the future is feeble. However, it has exceptional promise for understanding the foundations and consequences of contemporary patterns of consumption and thus is a precursor to the design of alternative ways of achieving personal fulfilment, collective well-being, protection of the environment and social justice. Perhaps the digital revolution might increase sharing, reduce overall use of material resources, promote sharing rather than ownership, and diminish levels of inequality. Expanding alternatives to market exchange and circulation might restrain commoditisation and redress that differential distribution of freedom which Sassatelli identifies as a central contradiction of the ideology of consumer sovereignty. Promotion of practices, like listening to music, which offer relatively more contemplative pleasures in a less resource-intensive way than many other recreational or cultural pursuits is another possibility emerging from Maisonneuve's reflections on experience. And perhaps the reminder in theories of practice that the benefits of consump-tion emanate from and accrue through competent participation in collective practices might both challenge the dominance of possessive individualism and associated misconceptions regarding the capacity of individual action to act as the primary lever of change.

Alan Warde, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. E.mail: alan.warde@manchester.ac.uk.