Our growing Sociology list has a global outlook featuring high-quality research across emerging and established areas in the field, such as digital sociology, migration, gender, race and ethnicity, public sociology, and children and families.
Our series include Gender and Sociology, Global Migration and Social Change, Sociology of Children and Families, Sociology of Diversity and Public Sociology.
We publish leading journals in the field, including Emotions and Society in association with the European Sociological Association's (ESA) Research Network on Sociology of Emotions (RN11) as well as Families, Relationships and Societies and the Journal of Gender-Based Violence.
Sociology
Scientific evidence highlights the pivotal role for structural change in pursuit of the sustainability transformation. A particular challenge for research on structural aspects of sustainable consumption and lifestyles, however, is the assessment of their impact. Especially quantifying the impact of structural change remains a serious problem. While some forms of structural change can be quantified, like the rate of building renovations, changes in the energy mix at the production level, or trends in access to health care or education, the impact of other changes such as societal narratives about wellbeing, political campaigns on energy technologies or policies, or the abandonment of the growth paradigm defy easy quantification. This article aims to shed light on potential avenues for quantitatively assessing the impact of structural change drawing on insights gained by a group of international and interdisciplinary research consortia funded by the European Union in the area of sustainable consumption, citizenship, and lifestyles research. It delineates strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, foci and blindspots of associated data types. Thereby, it highlights fundamental decisions that need to be made in research designs, but also important aspects to consider in the interpretation of results. Finally, the article highlights the particular challenges related to assessing the impact of deep political and ideational structures.
Plastic consumption is posing a critical challenge to global sustainability. Yet our understanding of the social and everyday dynamics of how and why people use plastics remains limited. Particularly, significant gaps in understanding exist concerning how plastics are embedded in households’ daily routines and practices and how this varies across different daily life settings. This article aims to bridge this gap by offering an in-depth exploration of the social and material dimensions of plastic consumption in varied Dutch households. Employing a theoretically and methodologically innovative approach, the article advances understanding of the connectivity of daily practices influencing household plastic use. Combining a social practice theoretical framework with a future-oriented, multi-modal imaginary methodology, we explore practice dynamics across diverse households of distinct life stages and compositions. Our analysis uncovers the complex interplay between daily practice arrangements and their systemic integration, revealing how daily life’s material, spatial and temporal dimensions are shaped and enabled by plastics. The study highlights the nuanced ways in which social variations in the organisation and institutional structures of daily life and engagement with socio-technical systems lock people into plastic consumption or enable transformative possibilities for sustainable change. By shedding light on the often overlooked social and everyday dynamics of plastic consumption, the article deepens theoretical understanding of practice connectivity while also opening new avenues for envisioning and facilitating transformation towards circular plastic consumption.
To combat the global problem of unsustainability, absolute reductions in energy use are needed, particularly in the Global North. There is an urgent need for a better understanding of the possible routes for reduction that go beyond abstracted technological solutions or efficiency improvements, as well as a need for a deeper insight into how the potential for reduction is currently framed. We use a citizen survey on perceptions of energy-use reduction as a means of exploring the perceived possibilities for reduction. Four ‘narratives of energy-use reduction’ that circulate among the public are identified: no reduction; price-enabled reduction; technology-enabled reduction; and competence-enabled reduction. We argue that these interlinking narratives are informative in understanding how change is understood amidst the bundle of practices related to energy-use reduction. They highlight the meanings related to energy use and allow us to explore the understandings of how the potential for energy-use reduction is positioned in society, particularly in regard to the notion of minimum consumption. Our findings are useful in providing a more nuanced understanding of the (de)constitution of energy use, and they contribute to identifying possibilities for steering energy use by providing insight into the general understandings of the current levels of energy use.
Sufficiency has gained increased attention within sustainable consumption research in recent years. Often presented in opposition to guiding principles like efficiency, which discuss sustainability issues alongside ideas of economic growth, sufficiency offers alternative sustainability pathways that highlight the need to reduce consumption. This paper discusses the interrelation between sufficiency principles and consumption patterns of low-income groups, exploring how sufficiency could support the needs of vulnerable groups in society. Low-income groups use fewer material resources than high-income groups due to their comparatively limited economic resources. However, low-income groups at risk of relative poverty are also vulnerable to various factors that can significantly impact their health and wellbeing. Studying low-income groups offers possibilities for understanding the work that goes into establishing sufficiency-oriented practices and the potential pitfalls of the sufficiency discourse. Through our qualitative study of low-income groups in Norway based on focus groups and interviews, we identify three different characteristics relating to sufficiency. First, sufficiency as a necessity, pointing to situations where lack of economic resources forces low-income groups to consume frugally; second, sufficiency as opposition, where low-income groups pursue sufficiency goals because they do not identify themselves with mainstream growth narratives and consumption patterns; and, third, sufficiency as reframing sustainability, where sufficiency arguments give value to low-consumption patterns positioned against technology-centred and green consumerist narratives about sustainability.
When it comes to grappling with both the environmental and social dimensions of energy transitions, sustainable wellbeing can be seen as a normative aim to be achieved through the satisfaction of human needs. This article exposes an engaging conceptual framework that describes the reduction of consumption through social practice theory, combined with a eudaimonic approach to wellbeing. Drawing on individual interviews with people who declare themselves as ‘living degrowth’ in French-speaking Switzerland, the article discusses everyday practices of consumption reduction that inform the actualisation of fundamental needs. The article proposes an operationalisation of Max-Neef’s approach of needs satisfaction, showing that an emphasis can be placed on sustainable practices representing synergic satisfiers. To support social change towards sufficiency, the article discusses that synergic satisfiers must be planned for collectively. Synergic collective changes are discussed in relation to synergic configurations of practices towards consumption reduction and needs satisfaction – or sufficiency.
This article draws on social practice theory and wellbeing perspectives to outline a research framework for the study of flight-intensive practices. The framework is then used to discuss, through a non-systematic review, the social science air travel literature and to propose avenues for future research. We study both the work and leisure domains, with sub-cases for travel in academia and visiting family and friends. We find insights of a complex relationship between flight-intensive practices and wellbeing. On one hand, currently flight-intensive practices are linked to human need fulfilment, particularly in the family and social domains. Leisure-related air travel often enhances subjective wellbeing, as it contributes to positive moods and life satisfaction, but may not be sustained in the long term. On the other hand, flying, particularly frequent flying, hinders wellbeing by increasing levels of stress and health-related issues, and by straining work/life balance. Overall, the study suggests that policies to reduce the demand for air travel may not significantly compromise wellbeing if accompanied by infrastructural and sociocultural changes that support specific groups to still meet their needs for relatedness, participation, or understanding through low carbon transport, videoconferencing, or reducing the total amount of travel. We identify avenues for future research, both to consolidate our understanding of the practice elements that will support a shift away from flight-intensive practices, and to understand their direct effects on wellbeing.
As production and supply chains rely on exploitative extraction of nature and labour, consumption levels (resource use) remain one of the main indicators of inequality, across and within national contexts. In times of ongoing climate crisis and rising levels of inequalities, welfare systems face the dual challenge of transforming economies to reduce their reliance on unsustainable industries as well as maintain and expand equitable distribution of public provision. In this keyword essay, we address three overlapping concerns to consider while envisioning sustainable welfare within the Nordic context: growth and its paradoxical relation with welfare; inequalities and notions of wellbeing; and possible alternatives to arrange provision systems.
The uptake of homeowner energy retrofits and related policy instruments are lagging behind targets. The Finnish government has decided on the phasing out of oil heating by 2035, but despite financial and other support for homeowners, only 14 per cent of homeowners with oil heating reported planning to switch their heating systems. Homeowner decision-making on energy investments is typically seen as an outcome of rational evaluation based on calculations about costs, payback times, and savings in energy and money. However, informal, experience-based knowledge contributes centrally to situations where people end up keeping their current heating system, yet there is little research on practical knowledge when households consider energy investments. This article presents findings from interviews with Finnish homeowners (N=29) living in detached houses with oil heating systems and argues that homeowners’ embodied heating habits and practical knowledge are important in understanding homeowner willingness to keep existing heating systems. In the in-depth interviews conducted in spring 2022, homeowners discussed their energy use practices, past renovations and future renovation needs, as well as concerns related to switching oil heating to a low carbon heating system. The findings suggest that homeowners’ practical knowledge on heating with their existing system and the lack of such knowledge in relation to alternative heating systems may be one reason why homeowners are reluctant to switch their heating systems. The study contributes to a growing body of research which highlights the relevance of everyday practices in homeowner energy renovations.
