My view in this article is that there are other approaches that have yet to be engaged with but could be utilised to help locate practice theoretic accounts of consumption in the context of wider political and economic processes. I suggest that material semiotic approaches to economy and politics are a useful place to look. My reasons are as follows. First, because I question the extent to which practice theoretic approaches to consumption deal adequately with materials and objects. While they take seriously the role of the non-human in configuring the practices for which consumption occurs, they say very little, for example, about the materiality of markets, processes of commodity consumption, or the enactment of political and economic realities. Second, because in these approaches, attention to technologies, objects and devices does not necessitate the deletion of cultural considerations such as representations or sentiments. On this point, I note that theories of practice can also be considered material semiotic. In addition to the open question of whether or not they break with cultural theory (cf. Reckwitz, 2002), even the most parsimonious and frequently invoked definition of 'a practice' (see Shove et al., 2012) emphasises meanings or images as a key configurational element. 4 Taken together, then, I suggest that there is significant potential to bring material semiotic approaches to economy and politics together with a material semiotic approach to consumption.

proliferation of accounts that focused more concretely on the process and experience of consumption. Cultural theories of various persuasions established a named sociology of consumption and underpinned many of its foundational accounts (see Featherstone, 2007). More recently, theories of practice have gained momentum (following Warde, 2005) to influence contemporary developments in consumption studies. The appraisal of practice theoretic approaches, specifically their relationship with – and possible mode of succession to – the prevailing orthodoxy of cultural perspectives is now a key concern for the sociology of consumption (see the introduction to this special issue). This article – which was given as a keynote address to the 2018 conference of the European Sociological Association (ESA) Consumption Research Network – joins these debates. It suggests that studies of consumption face a suite of challenges that result, at least in part, from their analytic separation from production. Specifically, it proceeds from the observation that practice theoretic approaches to consumption do not adequately account for the intersection of everyday life and political economy. My core argument is that material semiotic approaches – a family of theories that suggest ‘the social’ is constituted by relational and heterogeneous practices – offer some promising avenues for reconciling contemporary developments in consumption scholarship with understandings of broader economic processes.

sense to label those who engage in some form of consumption as consumers. But—and this is the point that Warde (2005) emphasizes—the consumer as a level of analysis to understand consumption fades into the background in a practice-theoretical approach. Consumption is an element in many practices—not an element within individuals. Consumption takes place in the course of performing practices. It is the practice that consumes; and individuals become carriers of this consumption, because they are carriers of practices. This means that eventually, consumption belongs more to the practice than to the individual performing the practice. This is because practice theory treats the social agent, here ‘the consumer’, never purely as the sole subject of the practices the agent conducts (see Schatzki 2001a; 2002; Schatzki 2005). Consumption emerges as it is accomplished in and through practices. Thus, consumption can be seen as a method for achieving the performance of practice, as indicated in the idea that consumption takes place for the sake of practices (Warde 2005).

Warde's point of view resonates with research that demonstrate how consumption objects are utilized in and for the conduct of a specific practice (Magaudda 2011; Reckwitz 2002; Schatzki 2001; 2002; Shove and Pantzar 2005; Whittington et al., 2006; Watson and Shove 2008). This means not only that the practice requires and necessitates consumption, but also that individuals engage in moments of consumption required by the practice. Consumption in this view becomes an element of practice. This can be illustrated by Shove and Chappells' (2001) study showing how water and electricity is typically consumed in the course of the routines of daily practices; and Watson and Shove (2008) demonstrating how screws, nails, and tools are consumed in the course of DIY practices. Tools, raw materials, water, and electricity are not consumed for their own sake, but their consumption is steered by routine activities of everyday life or specific practices. In other words, engaging in a certain practice necessitates the consumption of certain objects. Thus, the needs for these objects are less 'consumer needs' than practice needs (Warde 2005). In Watson and Shove's (2008) reading of Warde (2005), consumption thus is an outcome of practice.

The notion of consumer culture describes how consumption encompasses almost every aspect of daily life and indicates how many contemporary societies can be thought of as “culture(s) of consumption” (Slater 1997, 24). According to Holt (2002) and Arnould and Thompson (2005), such consumer cultures operate structured by consumption as a dominant practice. This implies the view that consumption can be conceived of as a practice, a point that is also advocated in Bourdieu’s writings (1990; 1984). With the introduction of the idea that consumption itself is not a practice in its own right, but rather that moments of consumption are enjoined within practices, Warde (2005) presents a conception of consumption that portrays consumption as something practices bring about. In this understanding, social life is not primarily organized by consumption, but by practices (Reckwitz 2002; Schatzki 1996; 2001a; 2002) of which consumption is a part.

for the purpose of analysing consumption while attributing minor significance to consumer choice. Types and levels of consumption tend to be determined socially and collectively. Practice-theoretical accounts propose that consumption is less a matter of individual personal display or expression of self-identity, and more a corollary of the conventions associated with specific, socially-organized practices felt to be necessary to live a good life. Consumption is more a matter of the use of goods and services than of purchase. Participation in a practice means the requisitioning of familiar items and their regular application to well understood activities. Practice theories thus emphasise habits and routines, based on conventionally shared understandings about appropriate conduct, paying attention to both 'sayings' and 'doings' (Schatzki 1996). In some versions (e.g. Warde 2005), the theory of practice sees consumption as explained by the necessity for people to become competent exponents of the many practices which each necessarily embraces in the course of everyday life and for which particular services and goods are mandatory. Performances, to be recognised as competent, for example in the fields of dress, interior design, motoring, or listening to music, find their orientation in collectively accredited and locally situated conventions associated with specific practices. Hence, behaviour change targeted at influencing individual choice at the point of purchase is unlikely to be sufficient to remedy unsustainable practices.

the field of consumption (e.g. Halkier et al. 2011; Røpke 2009). Perhaps the central contribution of the paper is to reconceptualize consumption as 'not itself a practice but ... rather, a moment in almost every practice' (Warde 2005, p. 137). Thus for Warde, whilst there are practices in which people may understand their behaviour as 'consuming', such as shopping, these are by far the exception amongst practices in which consumption is a moment. The figure of 'the consumer' is decentred from accounts of consumption as 'wants are fulfilled only in practice, their satisfaction attributable to effective practical performances' (Warde 2005, p. 142):

More recent thinking on consumption and practice suggests that consumption is "a moment in almost any practice" (Warde 2005, 137). Drawing on practice theorists Schatzki (1996, 2001) and Reckwitz (2002), Warde (2005) asserts that consumption 'occurs' alongside practices. 3 Warde (2005) situates consumption within practices and suggests that consumption takes place as moments within them. Thus, consumption is not a practice by itself, but rather transpires within practices. His argument develops along the following lines.

sense to label those who engage in some form of consumption as consumers. But—and this is the point that Warde (2005) emphasizes—the consumer as a level of analysis to understand consumption fades into the background in a practice-theoretical approach. Consumption is an element in many practices—not an element within individuals. Consumption takes place in the course of performing practices. It is the practice that consumes; and individuals become carriers of this consumption, because they are carriers of practices. This means that eventually, consumption belongs more to the practice than to the individual performing the practice. This is because practice theory treats the social agent, here ‘the consumer’, never purely as the sole subject of the practices the agent conducts (see Schatzki 2001a; 2002; Schatzki 2005). Consumption emerges as it is accomplished in and through practices. Thus, consumption can be seen as a method for achieving the performance of practice, as indicated in the idea that consumption takes place for the sake of practices (Warde 2005).

this view of consumption as a moment carries connotations of consumption as depletion, using up, and destruction of resources, he portrays at the same time the function that moments of consumption have in relation to practice. Second, he asserts that consumption takes place and is not governed and steered by the practice, adding that consumption takes place not only within, but crucially, for the sake of practices.

artefacts 'script' bodily performance and the types of competence required to produce configurations that work (Akrich, 1992). This is much the same as saying that objects act as vectors or carriers of other elements of practice. Since practices-as-performances are culturally and historically situated, elements are unlikely to be integrated in identical fashion in every setting (Shove and Pantzar, 2005). Even so, we have argued that it is useful to think about how elements travel and to consider the implications and consequences of these trajectories for the chances that relevant sets of meanings, materials and competences might coincide (such that practices might be reproduced), and for how these elements are distributed (and thus for who might qualify as an actual or potential practitioner).

In Chapter 2 we argued that practices like driving develop as links between defining elements are made and broken. In so far as this is true, the potential for practices to spread and take hold depends, at least in part, on the ready availability of requisite elements. If we are to understand how practices are distributed within and between societies, we need to think about how materials, meanings and forms of competence circulate and persist. This requires a shift of emphasis. Whereas Chapter 2 concentrated on connections between elements, this chapter discusses what one might think of as generic features or ‘elemental’ characteristics. In proceeding as if these could be somehow separated out, and in suggesting that materials, meanings and competences travel and endure in distinctly different ways, we seem to go against the grain of the previous chapter, in which we made much of the point that elements constitute each other and change through processes of integration . This is no accident. By moving between analytic frames, some chapters prioritizing links and connections, others concentrating on elements, practitioners or forms of feedback, we examine the dynamics of practice from different angles. At the same time, we try to keep sight of the interdependencies involved.

Practice theory focuses on actions per se . Practice theory is another powerful theoretical framework widely applied, also in consumption studies (Schatzki, 1996; Reckwitz, 2002; Shove and Pantzar, 2005; Shove et al. , 2012; Warde, 2005). Reckwitz (2002, pp. 249) defines practices as a "routinized type of behavior"; as a block or pattern that consists of interdependencies between diverse elements including "forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, "things" and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge" (Shove et al. , 2012, pp. 6–7). Shove et al. (2012) suggest a scheme based on three main elements of practices: materials, meanings and competences. Materials encompass objects, infrastructure, tools, hardware and the body itself (Shove et al. , 2012, p. 23). For this research, among the most important part of the materials is, for instance, the availability of infrastructure for thrifting and recycling or tools for repairing and upcycling clothing. Meanings is a term that represents the social and symbolic significance of participation in practices (Shove et al. , 2012, p. 23). For this study, this means justifications that young consumers give for why and how they follow clothing consumption practices. Competences are multiple forms of understanding and practical knowledgeability (Shove et al. , 2012, p. 23). Competencies would mean knowledge and awareness about sustainable fashion. When the elements combine, the practice is born or, in terms of practice theory, the practice recruits a practitioner. Then, the practices are reproduced in everyday life. A practice can fall apart if a needed element or a link between the elements are missing.

Even if the focus of the research is the consumer, called a practitioner of the practice theories (Shove & Pantzar, 2005), the analysis of the practice has to submit to the context, involving the practices, the providers, and practitioners, and how the practices are carried out (Jarzabkowski et al., 2015). Through the context, it is possible to identify the three elements that make up the practice located (Shove et al., 2012): materials (objects, tools and infrastructure), competences (embedded knowledge and skills) and meanings (cultural conventions, expectations, and socially shared meanings) (Shove et al., 2012; Spurling et al., 2013).

Elements of practices represent the basic link within and between practices as entities, and it is through the association and combinations of a variety of elements and repeated performances that practice entities evolve over time (Shove et al., 2015; Shove & Pantzar, 2007; Warde, 2005). Although the SPT identifies no single typology to refer to the elements that compose practices, theorists have applied a variety of terms to such classifications. For Schatzki (2002), these elements encompass practical understanding, rules and teleaffective structures. Warde (2005) used the terms understandings, procedures, engagements and items of consumption, while Shove and Pantzar (2005) referred to competences (skills), meanings/conventions (images) and products/material artefacts (stuff). Other slightly different typologies of practice elements exist as well (cf. Gram-Hanssen, 2011; Reckwitz,

This distinction between elements – which can and do travel – and practices, viewed as necessarily localized, necessarily situated instances of integration (which do not travel) is useful in making sense of the roles consumers, producers and governments play in the reproduction and diffusion of different ways of life (Shove and Pantzar, 2005: 62). We return to this topic in Chapter 8, ‘Promoting transitions in practice’, but for the time being, it is enough to notice that institutions involved in developing or circulating the elements of which practices are made rarely control the manner in which they are combined.

This is a tricky course to steer, but as mentioned in Chapter 2, elements do seem to travel in ways that practices do not. As structured and situated arrangements, practices are always in the process of formation, re-formation and de-formation. By contrast, elements are comparatively stable and are, as such, capable of circulating between places and enduring over time. We are consequently surrounded by things that have outlived the practices of which they were once a vital part (Shove and Pantzar, 2006). Abandoned biscuit presses, outdated computer equipment and tools for tasks no longer undertaken are obvious examples, but understandings, meanings and types of expertise are also discarded as practices evolve. Changing systems of provision have clearly undermined the importance of knowing how to darn socks, maintain a car or bake fancy biscuits at home. But as some of these examples demonstrate, seemingly defunct skills are occasionally resurrected: in some circles baking is a newly popular thing to do. At the same time, the meaning of home baking as a daily duty has probably changed for good. As hinted at here and discussed in greater detail at the end of this chapter, elements seem to 'last' in different ways.

Any brief summary of the field would be incomplete without acknowledging the important recent book by Shove, Pantzar and Watson, The Dynamics of Social Practice (Shove et al. 2012), which is both an important general contribution to the application of practice theory and explicitly orientated to promoting transitions in practice. It presents an avowedly 'radically simplified' account of practice theory, the better to elucidate complex dynamics. Central to this project is to model practices as composed as three generic elements: meaning, competence and material. It stresses the relative independence of the trajectories of these elements of practices from practices themselves. Practices come into being and are transformed through the circulation and recombination of elements. Shove et al. (2012) elaborate Giddens's (1984) notion of the 'reproduction circuit' or feedback between the self-monitoring of actors and social structure. 'Circuits of reproduction' include: the reproduction of practice through the integration of elements; cross-practice configurations of elements that affect the former; and inter-practice circuits (Shove et al. 2012, p. 114).

These practices can encompass common constitutive elements, such as materials, meanings and competencies (Shove et al., 2012). Therefore, the elements can be shared across practices when the meaning of being healthy, for example, becomes part of practices like shopping,

Drawing on this general idea, Shove, Pantzar and Watson identify three broad kinds of elements (material, competence and meaning), which constitute practices when actively integrated by practitioners (Shove and Pantzar, 2005a; Watson and Shove, 2008; Pantzar and Shove, 2010b; culminating in Shove et al. , 2012). These elements define the practice as an entity distinct from other activities, act as a set of 'resources' that organise the practice and are themselves constituted through instances of engagement in the practice (performances). Through this recursive interplay, practices come into being as links between elements are established through performances, evolve as new elements and/or new interlinkages are (per)formed and disappear as links are broken. That is, practices change as the elements of which they are composed change or as relations between these elements are reconfigured.