read the rest of the thesis stuff about this and rewrite this paragraph in a way that fits and makes sense in context

  1. Reading Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop's outline 37 outline rows
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop
    1. 1 Introduction
      1. 1.1 Latvian context and research
      2. 1.2 A note on terms
      3. 1.3 The structure of the thesis
    2. 2 Practice Theory and Consumption Work
      1. 2.1 Theories of Practice
      2. 2.2 Retheorizing Practices
      3. 2.3 Consumption as a Moment of Practices
      4. 2.4 Consumption Work
      5. 2.5 Sites of Interacting Practices
      6. 2.6 Conclusion
    3. 3 Research Methodology: Participating in Practice
      1. 3.1 The site
      2. 3.2 Setting the scene: A day in Brīvbode
      3. 3.3 Ethnography of Practice
      4. 3.4 Participant observation
      5. 3.5 Interviews
      6. 3.6 Data analysis
      7. 3.7 Research ethics
    4. 4 Keep It Moving: the Circulation of Practices
      1. 4.1 Varieties of Divestment
      2. 4.2 Sorting the Shelves
      3. 4.3 Reading the Room
      4. 4.4 "We are not a charity!"
      5. 4.5 Values of Letting Go
      6. 4.6 Taking Things, Seriously
      7. 4.7 Quiet, Sustainability
      8. 4.8 Conclusion
    5. 5 Hold It Together: Consumption Work as Care
      1. 5.1 Time to Give, Time to Live
      2. 5.2 Caring for Priceless Things
      3. 5.3 Informal Modes of Labour
      4. 5.4 Women and the Work of Networks
      5. 5.5 Conclusion
    6. 6 CONCLUSION
    7. 7 LIST OF SOURCES
    8. 8 KOKKUVÕTE
  2. Reading 2 expanded blocks document section paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph document section paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph
    #4V8VH7 doc #4V8VH7 document
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop
    #Q2WXHP doc #4V8VH7 section HEADING_3
    Theories of Practice
    1. #H7MB3H
    2. #A2ACVP
    3. #JCD8P5
    4. #KSLB7G
    5. #8MU8D5
    6. #RG72B3
    7. #QPWYY6
    #H7MB3H doc #4V8VH7 paragraph NORMAL_TEXT
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop / Practice Theory and Consumption Work / Theories of Practice

    The central theoretical grounding for this thesis is practice theory – or rather theories of practice – a heterogeneous cluster of approaches in humanities and social sciences in which practice serves as the primary unit of analysis for understanding human life and sociality. Shifting away from individual motivations and attitudes, behaviours and choices (ABC) based models for change, for example, practice theory rather examines how those doings are organized socially. It enables looking at the interconnectedness of the social and material realms with an emphasis on the role of objects, infrastructures and technology in practice enactment and maintenance. Evolved in a lineage from Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1984) in social sciences, in the past decades theories of practice have been influential and applied across various domains in social sciences and humanities, constituting what has been called a practice turn (Schatzki et al. 2001; Reckwitz 2002; Shove et al. 2012).

    #A2ACVP doc #4V8VH7 paragraph NORMAL_TEXT
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop / Practice Theory and Consumption Work / Theories of Practice

    While varied definitions of social practice exist, Warde suggests a minimal definition: “An organized, and recognizable, socially shared bundle of activities that involves the integration of a complex array of components: material, embodied, ideational and affective. Practices are sets of ‘doings and sayings’; they involve both practical activity and its representations" (Warde, 2005: 134).

    #JCD8P5 doc #4V8VH7 paragraph NORMAL_TEXT
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop / Practice Theory and Consumption Work / Theories of Practice

    Practices as entities can be distinguished from practices as performances: the specific, recurrent enactments through which practices are reproduced or transformed. Transformation and change comes through recombination of the elements of practice (Shove et al. 2012) – a complex process that is constantly evolving and difficult to predict.

    #KSLB7G doc #4V8VH7 paragraph NORMAL_TEXT
    Keeping It Moving and Holding It Together: An Ethnography of Brīvbode, a Riga Swapshop / Practice Theory and Consumption Work / Theories of Practice

    A particularly influential contribution, especially in anthropological approaches to practice, is the work of Elisabeth Shove, Mika Pantzar and Matt Watson (2012) in which the authors offer a deliberately compact three-component framework for analysing practices: practice as entity. Shove and colleagues define a practice element frame consisting of meanings, materials, and competencies. “Meanings” refer to the ideas, aspirations, shared understandings and related values that give practice its purpose and make it intelligible for practitioners and guide how practices are performed. “Materials” refer to objects involved and used in practice, necessary technologies and infrastructure through which practices are enacted. It also refers to bodies and physicality. “Competencies” are the skills (across cognitive and physical realms) and practical knowledge necessary for participation in a practice, including understanding how to use objects, follow rules, and navigate social norms.

    +9 more blocks

Here’s a rewrite of that hooks back to the Shove et al. framework introduced in – and forward to your argument in that Brīvbode is best read as a site where multiple practices overlap rather than a single stabilised routine:

A further challenge for practice theory is delineation: there are no fixed procedural rules for determining where one practice ends and another begins. Nicolini (2017: 26–27) notes that, while practices can be conceived individually for analytical purposes, empirically they are always encountered in arrays and multiplicities. Shove and colleagues (2012) describe these arrangements through the metaphors of “bundles” and “complexes,” distinguished by the density and “stickiness” of their patterns. Bundles are looser associations of practices that share a site or time and shape one another without becoming tightly integrated; complexes are denser configurations whose elements have grown so co-dependent that they can constitute new practice entities. This distinction matters for the present study because Brīvbode is precisely the kind of setting where multiple practices co-occur in close proximity, and the analytical question is not only what freecycling is as a practice in its own right, but how it hangs together with the other practices it gathers around itself.

Two small notes on what changed and why:

  • I cut the closing sentence “I analyse freecycling in Brīvbode as a practice entity and as performed, while recognising the emerging state of freecycling as a practice in Latvia.” It awkwardly compresses three different commitments (entity/performance distinction, the bundles/complexes question, and the emergent status of freecycling in Latvia) and partly contradicts , which argues Brīvbode is not a single stabilised routine. The entity/performance distinction is already made in , and the “emerging in Latvia” point is better placed where you actually develop it.

  • The new closing sentence sets up directly, so the move from “Theories of Practice” into “Retheorizing Practices” reads as a continuation rather than a pivot.

If you want to keep an explicit signal that freecycling is your focal practice, you could append: “I return to this question in the next section, where I argue that Brīvbode is better understood as a site of overlapping practices than as a single, fully stabilised one.” But the current ending already gestures there.