Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy: Alternative Practices for Sustainable Consumption 3658401494, 9783658401498

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
About the Authors
Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time
1 Introduction
2 Repair Cafés, Maker Spaces and Social Movements of Do-It-Yourself and Repairing
3 Societal Contexts, Product Life Cycles, Historical Development and the Discussion About the Prosumer
4 Do-It-Yourself and Repair as Components of a Circular Economy?
5 Do-It-Yourself, Repair and Circular Economy – Approaches and Perspectives
References
How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?
1 Prosumption Everywhere! Consumption Nowhere?
2 What Is the Difference Between Consumption and Prosumption? The Ready-Made Status of Goods and Services
3 Is Leisure (‘Muße’) the Real Mystery of Modern Consumption?
References
Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society
1 Introduction
2 Prosuming – A Supply Strategy of the Consumer Age
3 Disciplining and Emancipation
4 Market and Market Avoidance
5 Inclusion and Exclusion
6 Rethinking Consumption – With History
References
About the Way We Deal with Things
1 Introduction and Problem Definition
2 Terminology in Dealing with Things
3 The Handling of Things in the Course of History
4 Forms and Problems of Dealing with Things Today
5 Aspects of a Sustainable Way of Dealing with Things
References
A Norwegian Circular Economy?
1 Introduction
2 From Ethics to Visions and Imaginaries
3 Circular Economy: An Emerging Sociotechnical Imaginary?
4 Background: Norway and Future in Our Hand’s Early Consumption Critique
5 Case Overview
5.1 Case 1: “Reduced Consumption Through Increased Reuse, Repair and Redesign”
5.2 Case 2: ‘Reimagining’ Public Libraries
6 Norwegian Vanguard Visions of Circularity?
References
“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime of Devices
1 The Socio-ecological Relevance of Long Usetimes of Electronic Devices
2 Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Research on Usetime of Electronic Devices
2.2 Usetime from a Practical Theory Perspective
2.3 Conception of Device Valuations
3 Methodological Design
4 The Model “Doing Value”
4.1 Multidimensionality of Usetime
4.2 Characterisation of Value Assignments
4.3 Sequence of the Phases of Use
4.4 Device Replacement
5 Possibilities of Applicability of the Model
5.1 Recommendations for the Promotion of Long Usetimes
5.2 Focus on Mobile Phones
5.3 Focus Washing Machine
6 Conclusion
References
Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote Sustainable Products and Their Support by Consumers
1 Introduction
2 Survey Method and Sample
3 Results
3.1 Approval of Consumer Policy Measures
3.2 Modelling Attitudes Towards Consumption Policies
3.3 Consumption Policy Types
4 Summary and Conclusion
References
Is Sustainable Already “Normal”? Sustainability as a Consumption Compass and Self-Moralisation in Dealing with Consumer Goods
1 Introduction: Sustainability as a Normative Frame work
2 Theoretical Framework: Sustainability as a (Consumption) Compass
3 (Self-)Moralization in Dealing with Goods
4 Research Design: Is Sustainable (Already) “Normal”?
5 Consumption Practices, Sustainable Use of Goods and (Over)Moralisation. A Look at the Study Results
5.1 Sustainable Consumption Practices – Use longer or Throw Away more Often?
5.2 Sustainable Consumption Practices as a Result of Communicative Processes
6 Conclusion: Not Quite “Normal”, But Morally Important
References
Unsettled DIY Urbanism
1 Introduction
2 DIY Urbanism
3 Research Perspective and Context
4 “Look there, free repair”
5 “By malt and hops, darning socks”
6 Publics by Repairing
7 Outlook
References
Repair and Do-It-Yourself Urbanism: Good Practice in London and Berlin
1 Introduction
2 Methodology
3 Examples from London and Berlin
3.1 Repair Initiatives
3.2 Open Workshops
3.3 FabLabs and Makerspaces
3.4 Material Storage and Scrapstores
3.5 Swapping and Lending
4 Repair and DIY Urbanism Between Civil Society, State and Market Economy Influences
5 Sustainability and Resilience Effects of R&DIY Practices
5.1 Conservation of Resources
5.2 Social Aspects
6 Enabling and Constraining Conditions for R&DIY Practices
6.1 Economic Framework Conditions
6.2 Quality and Availability of (Used) Products and Materials
6.3 Laws, Directives and Technical Standards
6.4 Required Knowledge and Practical Skills and Their Dissemination
6.5 Motivations and Values
7 Conclusions
References
Potentials of Alternative Consumption Models for Sustainable Development
1 Introduction
2 Obsolescence and Alternative Consumption Models in the Context of National and International Strategies
3 Practical Applications and Savings Potentials of Alternative Consumption Models
3.1 Sustainable Products and Services
3.2 Clothing and Textiles
3.3 Electronics
4 Perspectives from Practice: Output of the Workshop “Consumption Models in Transition” (18 November 2019)
4.1 Challenges from the Perspective of Providers and Users
4.1.1 Image and Communication
4.1.2 Costs
4.1.3 Premises and Location
4.1.4 Time and Skills
4.2 Recommendations for Action
4.2.1 Introduction of a CO2 Tax
4.2.2 Fiscal Incentives and Storage Possibilities
4.2.3 Legal Standards for the Designation of Products
4.2.4 Using Social Media
4.2.5 Making Use of Digitisation
4.2.6 Product Design
4.2.7 Public Procurement as a Driving Force
5 User Perspectives from the Field for Further Policy Development
References

Citation preview

Michael Jonas · Sebastian Nessel · Nina Tröger   Editors

Repair, Do-ItYourself and Circular Economy Alternative Practices for Sustainable Consumption

Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy

Michael Jonas  •  Sebastian Nessel Nina Tröger Editors

Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy Alternative Practices for Sustainable Consumption

Editors Michael Jonas European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) Frankfurt (Oder), Germany Nina Tröger Chamber of Labour Vienna, Austria

Sebastian Nessel Institute for Sociology and Social Research Vienna University of Economics and Business Vienna, Austria

The work on this volume was made possible by funding from the Vienna Chamber of Labour, the Federal Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK) and the project Repair & Do-it-yourself Urbanism (R&DIY-U, FFG project 861708). The R&DIY-U project is funded under the City of the Future programme. City of the Future is a research and technology programme of the BMK. It is implemented on behalf of the BMK by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency together with the Austria Wirtschaftsservice Gesellschaft mbH and the Austrian Society for Environment and Technology ÖGUT.

ISBN 978-3-658-40149-8    ISBN 978-3-658-40150-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This book is a translation of the original German edition „Reparieren, Selbermachen und Kreislaufwirtschaften“ by Jonas, Michael, published by Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH in 2021. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Preface

This volume is based on the fourth symposium in the series Rethinking Consumption. The symposium, entitled “Reparieren, Selbermachen und Längernutzen als zukunftsweisende Konsumpraktiken und das Ideal der Kreislaufwirtschaft” (Repairing, Doing It Yourself and Using for a Longer Time as Future-Oriented Consumption Practices and the Ideal of the Circular Economy), took place at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna on 17 and 18 October 2019. Therefore, our thanks go not only to those people who contributed indirectly or directly to this book project, but also to those people who contributed to the success of the symposium. With regard to the symposium, thanks go in particular to Ali Geyer and Simeon Hassemer, who were heavily involved in the organisation and running of the event, to Renate Hübner and Christian Fridrich, who as members of the advisory board and the steering group “Rethinking Consumption” helped to moderate sessions, and of course to all the speakers and participants, whose contributions made the symposium a lively place for discussion and mutual exchange. With regard to this volume, our thanks go above all to Simeon Hassemer for his organisational commitment in the manuscript preparation, to Elisabeth Buxbaum for the editing (of the original German version), and to Katrin Emmerich on behalf of the publisher Springer VS. Of course, we would like to thank all authors who have revised and expanded their symposium contributions for this volume and who have productively dealt with the editors’ comments and suggestions.

v

vi

Preface

Both the symposium and the book would have been difficult to realise without funding. Our thanks therefore go on behalf of the respective institutions to Gabriele Zgubic (Vienna Chamber of Labour), Barbara Schmon (Federal Ministry for ­Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology) and Johannes Bockstefl (Austrian Research Promotion Agency). Frankfurt (Oder), Germany Vienna, Austria 

Michael Jonas Sebastian Nessel Nina Tröger

Contents

 Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time�����������������������������  1 Michael Jonas, Sebastian Nessel, and Nina Tröger 1 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  2 2 Repair Cafés, Maker Spaces and Social Movements of Do-It-­Yourself and Repairing���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  4 3 Societal Contexts, Product Life Cycles, Historical Development and the Discussion About the Prosumer�����������������������������������������������������������  8 4 Do-It-Yourself and Repair as Components of a Circular Economy?��������� 12 5 Do-It-Yourself, Repair and Circular Economy – Approaches and Perspectives����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 References ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19  How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?��������������������������������������� 23 Kai-Uwe Hellmann 1 Prosumption Everywhere! Consumption Nowhere?��������������������������������� 23 2 What Is the Difference Between Consumption and Prosumption? The Ready-Made Status of Goods and Services����������������������������������������������� 24 3 Is Leisure (‘Muße’) the Real Mystery of Modern Consumption?������������� 30 References ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35  Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society ������������������������������� 39 Reinhild Kreis 1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 2 Prosuming – A Supply Strategy of the Consumer Age ����������������������������� 40 3 Disciplining and Emancipation����������������������������������������������������������������� 43 4 Market and Market Avoidance������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 vii

viii

Contents

5 Inclusion and Exclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 6 Rethinking Consumption – With History��������������������������������������������������� 47 References ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48  About the Way We Deal with Things�������������������������������������������������������������� 51 Thomas Vogel 1 Introduction and Problem Definition��������������������������������������������������������� 52 2 Terminology in Dealing with Things��������������������������������������������������������� 54 3 The Handling of Things in the Course of History������������������������������������� 56 4 Forms and Problems of Dealing with Things Today��������������������������������� 58 5 Aspects of a Sustainable Way of Dealing with Things ����������������������������� 64 References ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68  Norwegian Circular Economy?������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 A Thomas Edward Sutcliffe and Thomas Berker 1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 2 From Ethics to Visions and Imaginaries ��������������������������������������������������� 72 3 Circular Economy: An Emerging Sociotechnical Imaginary?������������������� 74 4 Background: Norway and Future in Our Hand’s Early Consumption Critique������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 75 5 Case Overview������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77 6 Norwegian Vanguard Visions of Circularity?��������������������������������������������� 82 References ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 84 “Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime of Devices��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 87 Tamina Hipp and Melanie Jaeger-Erben 1 The Socio-ecological Relevance of Long Usetimes of Electronic Devices������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 88 2 Theoretical Foundation ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 89 3 Methodological Design ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 4 The Model “Doing Value”������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 5 Possibilities of Applicability of the Model �����������������������������������������������100 6 Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������105 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������106 Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote Sustainable Products and Their Support by Consumers���������������������111 Gerhard Paulinger and Nina Tröger 1 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������112 2 Survey Method and Sample�����������������������������������������������������������������������113

Contents

ix

3 Results�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������115 4 Summary and Conclusion �������������������������������������������������������������������������128 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������130  Sustainable Already “Normal”? Sustainability as a Consumption Compass Is and Self-Moralisation in Dealing with Consumer Goods�����������������������������133 Franzisca Weder, Renate Hübner, and Denise Voci 1 Introduction: Sustainability as a Normative Frame work �������������������������134 2 Theoretical Framework: Sustainability as a (Consumption) Compass �����136 3 (Self-)Moralization in Dealing with Goods�����������������������������������������������137 4 Research Design: Is Sustainable (Already) “Normal”?�����������������������������140 5 Consumption Practices, Sustainable Use of Goods and (Over)Moralisation. A Look at the Study Results ���������������������������������������������������������������������142 6 Conclusion: Not Quite “Normal”, But Morally Important �����������������������148 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������150 Unsettled DIY Urbanism���������������������������������������������������������������������������������155 Simeon Hassemer 1 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������156 2 DIY Urbanism�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������157 3 Research Perspective and Context�������������������������������������������������������������158 4 “Look there, free repair” ���������������������������������������������������������������������������161 5 “By malt and hops, darning socks”�����������������������������������������������������������164 6 Publics by Repairing ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������166 7 Outlook�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������170 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������171 Repair and Do-It-Yourself Urbanism: Good Practice in London and Berlin ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������175 Markus Piringer and Elmar Schwarzlmüller 1 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������176 2 Methodology ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������176 3 Examples from London and Berlin�����������������������������������������������������������177 4 Repair and DIY Urbanism Between Civil Society, State and Market Economy Influences�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������181 5 Sustainability and Resilience Effects of R&DIY Practices�����������������������183 6 Enabling and Constraining Conditions for R&DIY Practices�������������������186 7 Conclusions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������192 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������193

x

Contents

Potentials of Alternative Consumption Models for Sustainable Development �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������195 Anna Rosa Vollmann, Daniela Zanini-Freitag, and Josef Hackl 1 Introduction�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������196 2 Obsolescence and Alternative Consumption Models in the Context of National and International Strategies���������������������������������������������������������197 3 Practical Applications and Savings Potentials of Alternative Consumption Models�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������200 4 Perspectives from Practice: Output of the Workshop “Consumption Models in Transition” (18 November 2019)�����������������������������������������������������������203 5 User Perspectives from the Field for Further Policy Development�����������207 References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������210

About the Authors

Thomas Berker  is professor in Science and Technology Studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Originally trained in the sociology of technology and of work (PhD awarded in 2000), from early on his research has focused on the various ways in which end-users engage with new technologies. He is currently user research coordinator in the FME Research Centre on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities. Josef Hackl,  Dipl.-Ing., MSc, studied Forestry at the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences and Business & Project Mediation at the Alpen Adria University Klagenfurt. Former head of the Sustainable Development Team at the Umweltbundesamt (Environment Agency Austria) until 2022. Expertise: sustainable development, societal transformation, SDGs. Simeon Hassemer  studied in the Master’s program Sociology at the University of Vienna and worked as a research assistant at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) in the research group Techno-Science and Societal Transformation. He is currently working in a project anchored at the Department for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (MedUni Vienna). Research interests: urban/regional research, societal transformation, mental health care, multiprofessionalism, ethnography, mixed-methods. Kai-Uwe Hellmann,  apl. prof. Dr., is lecturer at the Institute of Sociology at the TU Berlin. Main research interests: sociology of consumption and economics. Together with Prof. Dr. Dominik Schrage, founder and director of the AG Konsumsoziologie of the German Sociological Association.

xi

xii

About the Authors

Tamina Hipp  (b. Christ), Dr. Mag., studied Sociology and Religious Studies at the University of Potsdam and at the Free University of Berlin. She made her PhD at Brandenburg University of Technology, Department of Sociology of Technology and the Environment. Research interests: sustainable consumption, product lifetime, practice theory, social milieus, environmental awareness. Renate Hübner  studied economics and sports, doctorate at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. After independent work in sustainability consulting and research, since 2005 at the Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt. Current work focus: sustainability concrete: Intervention-oriented sustainability and consumer research, economic education for sustainable development, sustainable management. Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research and Continuing Education. Melanie Jaeger-Erben,  Prof. Dr., studied psychology and sociology at the Universities of Göttingen and Uppsala (Sweden). Head of the Department of Sociology of Technology and the Environment at the Brandenburg University of Technology. Research interests: social science technology research, sustainable consumption and production systems, social innovation and social change. Michael Jonas,  PD Dr., is Privatdozent for Soziology at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt/Oder and teaches at the University of Vienna and the Alpen-AdriaUniversity of Klagenfurt. He was Senior Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies Vienna and coordinator of the consortium project Repair & Do-it-yourself Urbanism until February 2021. Research interests: practice theory, societal transformation, sustainability, production/consumption, city, art in public space, space. Reinhild Kreis,  Prof. Dr., is professor of the History of the Present at the University of Siegen. Main research interests: Consumer history, transatlantic relations, Cold War history, history of emotions. Current research: history of youth competitions during the twentieth century; history of sustainability management at universities since the 1990s. Sebastian Nessel,  Dr. rer. soc.oec, is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Socioeconomics, Institute of Sociology at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. Prior to this he was a post-doc researcher at the research area economic sociology at Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Austria. Main research interests: economic sociology, sociology of consumption, financial markets and sociology of social movements. Current research: comparative economic ­sociology using the example of consumer policy, use of money in private households. Since 2019, Sebastian also serves as a chair of the European Sociological Association’s research network Economic Sociology (RN09).

About the Authors

xiii

Gerhard Paulinger,  Mag. rer. soc. oec., BSc, studied Sociology at the University of Vienna. Data Scientist at the Department General Health Studies, Division Gerontology and Health Research at Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences Krems. Main research interests: social inequality, social change, quantitative research methods and designs, survey methodology and statistical data analysis. Markus Piringer,  DI, Mag.(FH), studied technical chemistry and social work. Project manager with a focus on resource conservation, waste avoidance and repair at DIE UMWELTBERATUNG. Elmar Schwarzlmüller,  Mag., head of the Resources & Waste Department at DIE UMWELTBERATUNG. Focus of work on resource conservation and waste prevention: sustainable products and services, sustainable consumption, reusable systems, repair initiatives and repair culture, waste prevention in the household, at work and at municipal and regional level, implementation of pilot projects on resource conservation, and waste prevention. Thomas Edward Sutcliffe  made his PhD at the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) with a background in Science & Technology Studies (STS). His PhD is about the circular economy and the political efforts of implementing circular-­economic visions in Norway, with a particular focus on local and regional governments; and domestic “circular” consumption and its implications for everyday life. Current research interests involve production/consumption, consumption politics and transformative governance. Nina Tröger,  Mag.a, Bakk.phil., studied Sociology and Cultural Studies in Vienna and Paris. Consumer researcher and consultant at the Vienna Chamber of Labour, Department for Consumer Protection. Main research interests: sociology of consumption especially in the context of sustainability, social justice, competence, prosumption and social development processes. Denise Voci,  Dr., is senior scientist at the Department of Media and Communications at the University of Klagenfurt. Research area: organisational communication and media management. Main research interests: cross-border media management, media sustainability, sustainability and environmental communication, especially related to water scarcity issues, individual consumption choices and institutional formal changes. Thomas Vogel,  Prof. Dr. habil. teaches educational science at the Heidelberg University of Education and is a member of the board of directors of the Heidelberg Center for Education for Sustainable Development. Main research interests:

xiv

About the Authors

philosophical and educational theoretical issues in the context of the societal crisis of nature. Further information at www.lernenundberuf.de. Anna Rosa Vollmann,  Mag. a, Bachelor of Arts, studied international development and social and human ecology in Vienna and Japan. Former Sustainability expert in the Sustainable Development Team at the Umweltbundesamt (Environment Agency Austria) until 2022. Main topics: obsolescence and consumption; sustainable reporting, SDGs and societal transformation, and stakeholder dialogues. Franzisca Weder,  Assoc. Prof. Dr. habil., is senior lecturer at the University of Queensland, Brisbane (Australia). She is researching, writing and teaching in the areas of organisational communication and public relations with a specific focus on sustainability communication and corporate social responsibility. She worked as guest professor at University of Alabama (USA), University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (GER), University of Waikato (NZ), RMIT (Melbourne, AUS) and University of Ilmenau (GER). Franzisca Weder is chair of the International Environmental Communication Association (IECA). Daniela Zanini-Freitag,  Dr.in, studied Sociology at the University of Vienna & Karl-Franzens-University Graz. Research and teaching on technology and science studies (STS), methods of social sciences, citizen participation, democracy in Austria and Thailand. Expert in the team on Social Change at the Umweltbundesamt (Environment Agency Austria). Main focus: dialogue, participation and stakeholder involvement, obsolescence and consumption, natural space use, societal transformation.

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time Circular Economies as an Alternative to Resource-­ Intensive, Linear Mass Consumption? Michael Jonas, Sebastian Nessel, and Nina Tröger

Abstract

Repair, do-it-yourself, long-term use and circular economies are often interpreted as forward-looking alternatives to the production and consumption methods of today’s throwaway societies. The contributions in this volume are thematically situated against this background. The aforementioned practices of repair, do-it-yourself, and extended use are interpreted as phenomena of bottom-­up initiatives that are primarily based in the public sphere and benefit from civil society engagement. Their current comparatively marginal importance is historically conditioned by the enforcement of Fordist production regimes and the associated resource-wasting modes of consumption. Current circular economy initiatives, on the contrary, represent top-down strategies in which actors,

M. Jonas () European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Frankfurt/Oder, Germany e-mail: [email protected] S. Nessel Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] N. Tröger Consumer Policy, Chamber of Labour, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_1

1

2

M. Jonas et al.

especially from politics and business, promote the sustainable use of resources with the help of commodification strategies. The extent to which the aforementioned bottom-up and top-down processes can be well linked and the extent to which the aforementioned practices as well as the circular economy strategies can be effective alternatives to the regimes of mass production and consumption cannot yet be conclusively assessed.

1 Introduction For some years now, practices of repair, do-it-yourself, extended use and circular economy have been regarded as phenomena that are interpreted as alternatives to the resource-wasting, linear production and consumption regimes of affluent or throwaway societies. Especially their enactments in public or semi-public spaces are understood by some of their representatives as forms of expression of bottom­up movements, which are directed against the structures of the existing throwaway societies and at the same time want to offer solutions to problems. If we disregard the undoubted success and growth of the urban gardening movement, the very successful repair café initiatives or restart parties in some European countries such as the Netherlands, Germany or Great Britain stand as prominent examples of these interpretations. Their relevance is interpreted by some as confirmation of this development through the increased emergence of so-called Maker Spaces and open workshops in major cities such as London, Berlin or Vienna. At the same time, however, it can also be observed at various levels of politics that concepts and measures to promote the Circular Economy are increasingly being included in the relevant agendas. The constellations of actors are therefore by no means homogeneous, but highly heterogeneous. Actors from very different social spheres, such as the economy, politics (& administration), the public or private lifestyles, are involved in the practices of repairing, DIY, long-term use and circular economy. Neither they nor the practices in question can be rashly subordinated to a coherent interpretative scheme. Rather, they are evidence of a diversity whose social significance can be adequately grasped and analysed above all with the help of appropriately differentiated and diverse perspectives. The contributions contained in this book are based on the 4th symposium “Konsum Neu Denken”, which took place in October 2019 at the Institute for

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

3

Advanced Studies in Vienna.1 The contributions take the above-mentioned observations into account and address the phenomena in question not only against the background of different scientific disciplines, but also against the background of the heterogeneity of the existing actors and actor constellations. Basic research based and theoretical articles are followed by scientific analyses that address specific phenomena of repairing, do-it-yourself, long-term use and circular economy with reference to empirical surveys. In their essays, practitioners discuss selected aspects of the field on the basis of implementation-oriented questions. The aforementioned basic-oriented contributions, which are bundled in the first thematic block, focus from different perspectives on selected basic concepts such as the prosumer (Hellmann in this volume) and moderation (Vogel in this volume) or address the phenomena in question from a historical perspective (Kreis in this volume). They demonstrate the complexity of the phenomena in question, which appear in a different light depending on the perspective chosen. The empirically oriented articles of the following thematic block are based on research projects of the respective authors, which were conducted with the help of different methodologies and methods of qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative research data is the starting point for an analysis of Circular Economy strategies in the Norwegian region of Trøndelag (Sutcliffe and Berker in this volume). A grounded theory based research project is used to present a multidimensional valuation approach of consumer durables (Hipp and Jaeger-Erben in this volume). Moreover, based on a quantitative survey, it is analysed which consumption policy measures the Austrian population supports (Paulinger and Tröger in this volume). With the help of a mixed method approach, another contribution addresses the question of the extent to which the concept of sustainability has been effectively anchored in people’s everyday consumption behaviour (Weder et al. in this volume). And finally, an ethnographic study takes a look at two repair events that were carried out in the context of district festivals in public space (Hassemer in this volume). Finally, a third thematic block includes two essays from the field. Based on the results of a workshop, one article elaborates practical and political requirements and recommendations for action with regard to the further development of alternative, i.e. sustainable, consumption models (Vollmann, Zanini-Freitag and Hackl in this volume),

 The authorship of Michael Jonas is part of the project R&DIY-U (FFG project 861,708), which is funded in the program “City of Tomorrow”. City of the Future is a research and technology programme of the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK). It is managed on behalf of the BMK by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency together with Austria Wirtschaftsservice Gesellschaft mbH and the Austrian Society for Environment and Technology ÖGUT. 1

4

M. Jonas et al.

while the other article provides an overview of various economic and civil society actors and DIY initiatives in London and Berlin on the basis of empirical investigations (Piringer and Schwarzlmüller in this volume). In this introduction, we introduce different topics that are in the foreground in the aforementioned essays of this volume and additionally place them in a context with those strategies and measures that are increasingly gaining importance on very different social levels under the label of the Circular Economy. We first focus on the central actors who stand in the public discourses as protagonists of the practices of repair, reuse and do-it-yourself (2). Subsequently, we place the phenomena of DIY and repair in the context of their social embedding and deal with the concept of the prosumer (3). In a further step, we discuss and criticize currently prominent development strategies for the economic sphere, which are subsumed under the approach of the Circular Economy (4), and finally draw a conclusion (5).

2 Repair Cafés, Maker Spaces and Social Movements of Do-It-Yourself and Repairing Do-it-yourself and repair are part of everyday life, at least according to the self-­ assessments of consumers. Almost two-thirds of European consumers say they repair their possessions,2 as shown, for example, in a survey commissioned by the European Commission, in which around 12,000 people in 12 EU countries were questioned (European Commission, 2018). Even if it is by no means possible to draw firm conclusions about the everyday practices of consumers on the basis of pure opinions and self-assessments, these survey results undoubtedly point to the increasing attention that has been paid to the phenomena of repairing and DIY in the public sphere, the media and politics for some time now. In this context, it is true that the phenomena in question are very diverse and by no means refer only to repairing. In addition to the practices of repairing, it is fundamentally a matter of practices of reusing, of long-term use, of swapping and sharing, of upcycling and of creative creation, which play a role in different social spheres, for example and above all in private lifestyles, the public sphere and the economy. The Europe-wide development of repair cafés, repair initiatives and repair networks in particular is an indication of the increased public relevance of repair practices in European societies. A closer look at the predominantly civil society actors who are in the foreground in the public discourse here makes it possible to contour  On the item “I always repair my possessions if they break”, 10.8% “fully agreed” and 52.7% “somewhat agreed”. 2

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

5

the field in question more precisely. Two surveys3 show that the surveyed volunteer actors in repair cafés are mostly male (60% in 2014, 58% in 2016), over 55 years old (56% in 2014, 54% in 2016) and academically educated (about 70% in 2014, 75% in 2016). Altruistic motives (such as encouraging others to live more sustainably, making a valuable contribution to the common good, and being part of a movement that promotes repairing) emerge as primary for volunteering. In terms of activities in repair cafés and the products that are brought in for repair, it is clear that the proportion of electronic and electrical products is steadily increasing, while the proportion of other artefacts is decreasing (Charter & Keiller, 2016a, p. 7). The repair rate is generally assessed by the actors as a significant result “that demonstrates the very real contribution that repair cafés can make in extending the useful life of consumer products and helping communities to reduce waste” (ibid.). Rarely are studies conducted that also provide information about the visitors of repair cafés (cf. Charter & Keiller, 2016b). Corresponding to the (relatively high) age of the volunteers (see above), the average age of the visitors is also around 50. In the UK, so-called Restart Parties have been offered for several years, which can overcome the disadvantages of repair cafés, namely the aforementioned focus on older volunteers and predominantly older visitors. These Restart Parties are supported on the one hand by specially trained professional or semi-professional repairers and on the other hand by very different organisations such as libraries, district centres or open workshops, which make their premises available for such repair events on a case-by-case and temporary basis. Restart Parties and Repair Cafés differ both in terms of the composition of the volunteer repairers and in terms of the visitors to these events. Restart Parties address a much broader spectrum of the population than Repair Cafés (Cole & Gnanapragasam, 2017). Like the visitors of Repair Cafés, however, the participants of Restart Parties also state that they value the events in question as spaces of opportunity in which they cannot only expand their own DIY and repair skills, but also benefit from community processes between the participants. Repair Cafés have an urban focus, but, as in Germany, some are also widespread in rural areas. Maker Spaces and open workshops, on the other hand, are primarily urban phenomena (cf. Piringer and Schwarzlmüller in this volume). In London, for example, there is an Internet platform on which around 40 Maker Spaces are spa-

 These surveys were conducted as part of EU projects in cooperation with the Dutch Repaircafé Foundation (cf. https://repaircafe.org/en/about/, accessed 23.10.2018) and are international in scope (cf. Charter & Keiller, 2014, 2016a). Most of the data in both surveys comes from the Netherlands and Germany, followed by data from Belgium and the UK. 3

6

M. Jonas et al.

tially and thematically located and which provides information about this scene.4 This digital platform “maps the open workshops in London. From printmaking to welding, 3D scanning to plaster casting, the OWN [Open Workshops Network] digital platform provides a place for people to learn about and connect with the many London-based organisations that are dedicating themselves to providing publicly accessible means for making.”5 Here, the Open Workshop Network’s maker movement is not understood a priori as an expression of some kind of industrial revolution. Rather, it is seen as a component of new cultures of creative interaction with things, in which very different practices of making, i.e. of producing or generating, come into play. In these practices, making things oneself is central; repairing, on the other hand, may or may not be a component. A similar picture emerges for the German-speaking world. Here, empirical studies (Lange et  al., 2016; Simons et al., 2016) show just as much thematic diversity in the orientation of such open workshops as in London. The quantitative survey of several hundred open workshops in Germany showed that most users have an academic education, but tend to have an income below the average income. They can also be assigned to specific age cohorts, namely those between 25 and 30 years and those between 40 and 45 years as well as the group of those over 60 years. Consequently, these cohorts “can be stereotypically assigned to the life phases of career orientation, co-living crisis, and a life stage in which the issue of retirement becomes acute” (Lange et al., 2016, p. 29). Open workshops consequently represent experimental spaces that often attract people in orientation phases and with academic backgrounds. However, sustainability aspects predominantly play a subordinate role in procurement in the open workshops studied, and the majority of repaired or manufactured products remain in or come into private ownership. Therefore, “at the product level in the context of procurement, processing and distribution, the picture of the open workshops is one that challenges conventional economic practices only to a limited extent” (Lange et al., 2016, p. 39). It should have become clear that the research discussed here evaluates the do-it-­ yourself and repair activities in question primarily as an expression of different communities or even social movements that have emerged through bottom-up processes and are reproduced through the activities and practices of the people involved. Although these activities can also take place in the private economy or in

  The link to the relevant website is: https://openworkshopnetwork.com/, accessed 24/10/2018. 5  https://www.instituteofmaking.org.uk/research/the-open-workshop-network. Institute of Making. Accessed October 24, 2018. 4

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

7

private economy oriented organisations, they are nevertheless considered to be an expression of specific civil society practices that are primarily anchored in the public sphere, even if they can be a secondary component of the economic sphere. The repair initiatives and the maker movement in question are often described as grassroots movements that have their own specific and factual orientation (repairing everyday products on the one hand or creating new things themselves on the other) and are very much driven by volunteer and unsolicited activities (Dewberry et al., 2016). The relevant research (see above) agrees that these activities lead to an empowerment of the actors involved. Visitors to repair cafés, those involved in the maker space movement, but also participants in commercial or non-commercial DIY courses can learn and acquire skills. This not only enables them to repair or create everyday products, but also to handle the objects in question more responsibly (Baier, Hansing, & Müller, 2015a). As an empirical study of practices of Repair & Do-It-Yourself Urbanism in Vienna (Jonas & Segert, 2019) illustrates, it is not only the aforementioned actors who are commonly involved in this field, but also individuals, citizens’ initiatives for urban development, and a number of intermediary organizations, in addition to small retail shops and handicraft businesses, who, for example, in girls’ cafés, upcycling projects, charitable neighbourhood centres, urban-supported area support or at public festivals (Hassemer in this volume), develop corresponding practices of do-it-yourself, re-use, upcycling or simply being creative. Especially common welfare-oriented and low-threshold offers succeed in addressing people from very different social milieus and thus in overcoming the invisible boundaries of primarily educated middle-class-oriented activities of repairing and DIY. In general, the assessment is shared that in this case it is not only about processes of empowerment. Rather, these represent components of new or revived cultural everyday practices of making. The extent to which these everyday practices are cited by their protagonists or observers as examples of initiating and implementing fundamental processes of social change, for example with regard to more social integration or the development and implementation of sustainable production and consumption practices, is not answered uniformly and differs depending on the perspective. According to one perspective, maker spaces, for example, are primarily geared towards offering openly accessible spaces for making, but not primarily towards initiating socio-ecological processes of change in the economic sphere. According to a long-time observer of the maker movement in London, “they have never said that they are there to see the next maker revolution. […] they have just said: ‘We are spaces that are open to the public and support people to

8

M. Jonas et al.

make things, whether that is for pleasure or as a business.’” (L24, 530–533).6 In contrast, other actors in the field (and in the relevant research) take the position that a fundamental goal of the maker movement (or the repair café movement) is to initiate processes of change that can lead to the development of sustainable cities, for example. Sometimes it is also argued that an associated convivialist way of life of repairing and DIY is characterized by the potential to undo and overcome “capitalism” by “setting out to do it practically” (Baier, Hansing, Müller, & Werner, 2015b, p. 34). In this reading, the world is experienced and used as commons, as common property, in which comprehensive sharing and making together is central. However, the extent to which the maker movement, the repair café movement or the urban gardening movement can actually initiate or enforce a comprehensive socio-ecological transformation (Jonas, 2017) that leads to the development and implementation of sustainable everyday practices, the extent to which such a way of life is already beginning to establish itself on a broad scale and the extent to which it makes sense to focus much more on actors from other social spheres, such as the economy or politics, is answered differently in each case. While from one perspective the integration of actors from the private sector or politics is seen as a threat to further development, from another perspective an expansion of activities is considered desirable, if only because the potential for change of, for example, repair initiatives is considered too low. In this case, the activities in question are seen as part of an economic transformation process. This could lead to the implementation of more sustainable modes of production and consumption, which are primarily characterised by “local peer production and the development of innovative products and services that are fit for purpose and longer-lasting” (Charter & Keiller, 2014, p. 3).

3 Societal Contexts, Product Life Cycles, Historical Development and the Discussion About the Prosumer Regardless of whether one sees these and other related phenomena, such as do-it-­ yourself urbanism, as having considerable potential for emancipative development and change, or whether one sees them more (or also) as performative enactments, primarily by members of academic milieus, it is advisable to take a look at their contexts and historical lines of development. It then becomes clear that the places  The statement in question stems from a conversation Michael Jonas had with the individual in question in the spring of 2018. 6

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

9

of repair and do-it-yourself that can be attributed to the public sphere, such as the repair cafés or the maker spaces, are always accompanied by related practices that are usually practiced on a larger scale in the sphere of private life, i.e. in households. They also always have strong connections to the sphere of the economy, without which they could not exist, and often they are even primarily anchored in the economic sphere. A look back at the past makes it clear that as late as the 1950s, for example, many European societies still had pronounced small business-­ dominated economic sectors that exhibited close overlaps with everyday practices such as sewing and repairing clothes. These historically developed areas existed alongside the sectors of the Fordist production regime before they were absorbed by the triumph of Fordist-dominated, large-scale enterprises and production lines (Brunner et al., 2022) and the corresponding everyday practices of do-it-yourself sewing and repairing were pushed into the realm of hobbies. The concomitant shortening of product life cycles as well as the rapid multiplication of everyday objects and goods that are understood as essential to life by no means lead to the disappearance of do-it-yourself and repair practices in all areas. This is illustrated, for example, by the unstoppable rise of DIY stores and the associated petty-bourgeois home craftsmanship, as well as the success of IKEA goods in recent years (or decades). Whereas at the end of the 1970s Gershuny (1979) saw this as an unmistakable sign of a fundamental change towards an ­economy of do-it-yourself (informal economy) that would soon dominate, the globalisation of more and more value-added processes and chains, which has continued almost unabated to date, is rather the opposite of this optimistic interpretation. In the industrialised societies of Europe, this globalisation has been accompanied by an outsourcing of more and more resource-wasting production processes, such as textiles or electronic and electrical consumer goods, as a result of the crisis of the Fordist production and consumption regime. The rapidly growing consumption needs of the emerging middle-class societies and the logic of profit accumulation inherent in the capitalist economy led to short usage cycles (Prakash et al., 2016) and to ever new product offerings, some with a low degree of innovation and thus less durable and repairable products, which in turn resulted in a steady increase in waste volumes and average per capita consumption. In the socio-ecological discourse, this development is widely discussed and solutions are sought to promote the emergence and widespread implementation of sustainable practices (Jonas & Littig, 2015). From an ecological perspective, for example, longer service lives are an important factor in reducing CO2 emissions (Baton & Scholand, 2016). Extending the use of all existing washing machines, notebooks, vacuum cleaners and smartphones in the EU by just one year would save around four million tonnes of CO2 annually – equivalent to the annual emis-

10

M. Jonas et al.

sions of two million cars (European Environmental Bureau, 2019). Defects are the main reason for replacing consumer goods, and tend to be more prevalent for household appliances than for entertainment devices (Tröger et al., 2017). In this context, the useful life of appliances depends not only on product-specific factors such as durability and reparability, but also on individual, socially constructed expectations and attributions of meaning to the respective goods (cf. Hipp and Jaeger-­ Erben in this volume). They also depend on the corresponding repair-friendly framework conditions that enable the practice of repairing as a cost-effective and/ or more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative to new purchases and promote its dissemination. The fit of required competences (e.g. also for self-­ repair), meanings and attitudes (repairing as an action alternative), the embedding of sustainable consumption in everyday actions (cf. Weder et al. in this volume) as well as politically designed technical framework conditions represent complex structures that can promote or also prevent sustainable practices. In any case, placing the responsibility for sustainable consumption solely on consumers, as is often demanded by politics and business, falls short of the mark (Grunwald, 2018). Political measures are needed that create the appropriate framework conditions and thus promote sustainable consumption patterns among consumers (cf. Paulinger and Tröger in this volume). Ironically, the above-mentioned, undoubtedly existing mutual processes of influence, displacement and dependency between production and consumption practices have led to the emergence of discussions in the sociology of consumption, for example, in which the analytical separation of production on the one hand and consumption on the other, which has been stated not only since Marx, is understood to be invalid – at least as far as the dominant ways of life in European societies are concerned. According to this diagnosis, contemporary consumption practices are always necessarily shaped by or even dependent on acts of production. Accordingly, it is advisable to place the concept of prosumption at the centre of the perspectives of observation, since it is able to capture both the producing and consuming aspects of the prevailing way of dealing with things (cf. Hellmann in this volume). However, the concomitant focus on the carriers of such practices is often associated with the creation of several blind spots in this perspective: While it is true that the hitherto hegemonic economic practices always depend on people’s own work, aspects of material and resource consumption are excluded. At the same time, this marks as negligible the aspects of this imperial mode of production and living that, from a socio-ecological perspective, are central to the destruction of nature and resources (Brand & Wissen, 2017). Furthermore, the emphasis on the

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

11

ideal-typical figure of the prosumer is problematic from an analytical perspective as long as the observations that have long been acknowledged in other discourses are not taken up, according to which the demand side of economic markets and exchange processes were already characterized by heterogeneities and inequalities in the middle classes of Western European societies shaped by Fordism. The possibilities and ways of dealing with the acquisition, consumption, care and disposal of everyday and luxury goods of all kinds were already dependent on parameters such as income and wealth, education and skills, but also age and gender-specific attributions. Practices of do-it-yourself or repair, whether they are primarily anchored in the sphere of private lifestyle, the public sphere or the economy, always entail aspects of social exclusion in addition to their inclusive character and often serve not only emancipation goals but also disciplining or self-disciplining. The do-it-yourself practices meant in the prosumer concept thus also fundamentally “do not mark the other of consumption” (Kreis in this volume), but move in the fields of tension “of disciplining and emancipation, market and market avoidance, inclusion and exclusion” (ibid.). The effect of the aforementioned parameters has once again intensified and strengthened in the highly flexible societies of postmodernity (Reckwitz, 2017, 2019) or integrated capitalism (Boltanski & Esquerre, 2018). In this context, it is partly accompanied, partly driven by processes of cultural change. The dismantling of welfare state institutions and regulations, which is mainly caused by ­neoliberalization processes, increasingly favors the primacy of the economic. This leads not only to the economisation of many previously non-economised areas of society, in the course of which short-term profitability criteria alone often guide actions, but also to an increasing societal division. This division is expressed in a pluralisation of individual forms of life, which is not only understood as individualisation, but is also traced back to its social roots, above all by milieu research through the elaboration of differentiated social milieus. Here, it is precisely the members of the high-­education and high-income social milieus whose lifestyles have the highest per capita resource consumption (Kleinhückelkotten et al., 2016). The aforementioned division is further manifested in the widespread erosion of the (male-dominated) normal employment biography, the emergence and constant growth of a low-wage sector, the disappearance of the industrial worker and the rise of socially hardly recognised simple service work, which not only disperse the possibilities and limits of prosumptive acts, but also distribute them highly unequally.

12

M. Jonas et al.

4 Do-It-Yourself and Repair as Components of a Circular Economy? For a long time, DIY and repair were elementary components of individual and collective everyday practices and everyday knowledge for broad parts of the population. As previously described, these practices and the knowledge associated with them increasingly receded into the background in the course of spreading mass consumption, increasing prosperity, the spread of wage labour, etc., before they have been revived as a new (or old) “life practice” for some years now. Central to the increasingly widespread practice of DIY and repair and its public perception are undoubtedly the efforts of grassroots movements that legitimise and implement these practices as contributions to the implementation of sustainability, the strengthening of the (local) economy as well as the (re)anchoring of community practices. In particular, the contribution of repairing to resource conservation has recently also been taken up by supranational and national institutions and discussed together with other measures under the keyword “Circular Economy”. A Circular Economy is understood as a fundamental alternative to currently prevailing and unsustainable, linear modes of production and consumption: “The Circular Economy can be defined as an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design; it proposes a restorative way of consumption with a closed loop where materials, products and components are kept longer in use and no waste is generated” (Dewberry et al., 2016, p. 77). Or, in other words, “Circular economy concerns the use and re-use of the earth’s resources in a continuous flow and is used as an opposite to the linear economy, in which resources are used to create goods and services and then discarded” (Mak & Terryn, 2020, p. 229). Key instruments for implementing a Circular Economy are, on the one hand, the avoidance of resource-­intensive products and their reprocessing and return to the material cycle and, on the other hand, the repair or reconditioning and reuse of existing products. In this context, it is first of all noteworthy that the European Commission has made increasing efforts in recent years to advance a Circular Economy model. With the first Circular Economy package adopted in 2015 (European Commission, 2015) and the draft on a “European Green Deal” presented at the end of 2019 (European Commission, 2019a), as well as the second circular economy package in spring 2020 (European Commission, 2020), the Commission has developed proposals and taken initial measures to stimulate a shift from linear to Circular Economic cycles. These proposals have been driven by the need to curb resource consumption in the EU and thus help to reduce global warming permanently and as quickly as possible below the 1.5° target considered “necessary” by many scien-

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

13

tists. In addition to ecological motives, the Commission also emphasises the supposed macroeconomic advantages of a Circular Economy, which it hopes will result from new innovations and associated economic growth. Euphorically, it states: The aim of the “Circular Economy Action Plan [is] to give a new boost to jobs, growth and investment and to develop a carbon neutral, resource-efficient and competitive economy” (European Commission, 2019b, p. 1). While the first Circular Economy Package focused on the energy efficiency of products and the increase of recycling rates, the new Action Plan on the Circular Economy now aims to increasingly promote the durability and reparability of products. To this end, legislative and non-legislative measures are to be implemented to create a new “right to repair” (European Commission, 2020). One of the most important existing regulatory instruments for this is the Eco-Design Directive, which aims to reduce the negative environmental impacts of products throughout their life cycle.7 This instrument should, for example, in future ensure that criteria such as interchangeability and availability of spare parts are taken into account to a greater extent in product design and distribution. A central non-legislative measure is the development of a label to reflect the reparability as well as the longevity of products (Mak & Terryn, 2020, p. 237; see, on public acceptance of this and similar measures, Paulinger and Tröger in this volume). From an ecological point of view, it is first of all welcomed that the Commission has increasingly taken up the area of reparability as a contribution to the Circular Economy, since repair or re-use are far more resource-efficient than recycling individual product materials and reintroducing them into the materials cycle.8 However, it is still unclear and vague how the right to repair and the other proposed measures will be specifically designed and implemented in the future.9 It also remains to be seen whether the Commission will be able to push through its plans as planned in the face of numerous objections from industry. However, it should be noted that the Commission continues to pursue an information- and technology-centred approach, which is fraught with many obstacles and weaknesses (see, for example, Kirchherr et al., 2018, p. 264; critically, Mak &  So far, however, the Eco-Design Directive only covers certain energy-related products (e.g. washing machines, televisions), but there are plans to extend it to other products. 8  See Mak and Terryn (2020, p. 235) and the literature cited therein for a discussion of the advantages of repair over recycling. 9  See, for example, the critical statements of various interest groups on the Action Plan and the Green Deal in:. https://eeb.org/circular-economy-action-plan-2020. Accessed: 28 August 2020.; AK https://www.akeuropa.eu/new-circular-economy-action-plan-cleaner-and-more-­ competitive-europe Accessed: 28 August 2020.; BEUC https://www.beuc.eu/publications/ beucs-view-european-green-deal. Accessed: 28 August 2020. 7

14

M. Jonas et al.

Terryn, 2020, p. 237). It is now scientifically well established that consumers find it difficult to take ecological labels into account in their purchasing decisions due to limited rationality, the ambiguity of labels, lack of time resources, etc., and that the intention of many labels fizzles out due to these factors (see, fundamentally, Nessel, 2016; see, critically on the information strategy of the EU strategy, e.g. Mak & Terryn, 2020, p. 230.). With regard to the right to repair, it is also largely unresolved to date whether and how a whole range of spare parts can be provided or stored and how the warranty claims associated with (self-) repair are resolved.10 Also, in addition to technical, legal and scientific issues, cultural barriers need to be overcome in order for repairs to be offered and also demanded across the board (Kirchherr et  al., 2018). Finally, it must be critically questioned whether the Circular Economy model thus applied by the Commission can actually contribute to achieving the associated ecological and also economic goals. For example, in a meta-critique of the Commission’s hoped-for effects of its measures, De Man and Friege (2016, p. 93) conclude: “Optimal design of closed material loops would not only result in a radical reduction of waste, but also in an increased creation of economic value. This promise is based on two feel-good assumptions: that ‘circular’ solutions will necessarily lead to sustainable outcomes; and that, as a rule, ‘circular’ solutions are available that can be realised in practice. Unfortunately, both assumptions are wrong.” This critical conclusion is related, among other things, to the fact that it has not yet been clarified how and whether the envisaged Circular Economy measures actually lead to the desired resource conservation, since, among other reasons, the return of supposedly “natural” materials to the natural cycle has limits, and possible rebound effects cannot yet be estimated (De Man & Friege, 2016). In addition to the ecological aspects, the social aspect should not be ignored. This is because the possible implementation of the Circular Economy, whether in a strong variant as demanded by grassroots movements in particular or in a gradual one as envisaged by the Commission, could also have an impact on existing labour market structures and organisations. The Commission sees high job potential in the course of a transformation to a Circular Economy – from 2012 to 2018, jobs related to the Circular Economy increased by 5% to 4 million across the EU, with a further 700,000 jobs expected by 2030 (European Commission, 2020). Potential is seen particularly in the social economy sector: Many socio-economic enterprises are already active in the field of re-use and repair and could benefit further from the Circular Economy. However, it can be assumed that there will have to be a strong change and transformation of jobs and that there will be a major  See, on these and other legal issues, as well as on legal options for stimulating repairs, Mak and Terryn (2020, p. 235). 10

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

15

upheaval in the structure of the labour market. Workers’ representatives therefore point to the need for a “just transition” that takes all social groups into account (Bundesarbeitskammer, 2020). Accordingly, it would have to be examined in more detail how a Circular Economy would also affect work and employment relationships. However, the Commission has so far only made vague proposals and ideas in this regard. At this point, we do not wish to devote further attention to the frequently discussed advantages and disadvantages of the Circular Economy model envisaged by the EU or the implementation intentions and measures of a Circular Economy in individual nation states (see, for example, Kirchherr et al., 2018 and the literature cited therein). Instead, we want to focus on an aspect that has only been addressed in part so far, namely that the EU as well as individual nation states are taking up some of the demands11 of the repair movement (e.g. the “Circular Economy Round Table”) and attempting to institutionalise repair and do-it-yourself practices within the framework of a Circular Economy by means of regulations and requirements as well as information strategies from above. It is noteworthy here that DIY and repair practices are framed not only as an ecological necessity, but also as a contribution to (new) macroeconomic growth. However, such “growth” is only achievable in the current capitalist economic system if profit-oriented companies are convinced that practices of repair, the provision of spare parts and software updates, or the recycling or avoidance of “waste” can be made economically exploitable and valorized. At the same time, consumers must also be convinced en masse that repair brings them an economic advantage. Appealing solely to value-based consumers in the implementation of the Circular Economy, as the EU or individual nation states hope, not only misses the reality of many people’s lives, but is also illusory, as we now know from many examples in the sustainability debate (Nessel, 2016). In short, the implementation and expansion of a Circular Economy will hardly be feasible without processes of increasing commodification of practices of repair, re-use or the “waste to worth” principle. At the same time, this means that the range of repairs will be expanded and thus more and more profit-oriented, rather large and e.g. product repair specialized companies or licensed repair companies will enter the market. An expansion of the Circular Economy to include large companies can also bring ecological and economic benefits. Sustainability, like economic  This refers in particular to the right to repair. However, the demands have not yet been clarified: Access to affordable spare parts, Access to spare parts from old equipment, Reduced VAT rate for repair services and second-hand goods, Repair authorization for more specialized companies even during the warranty period (see https://runder-tisch-reparatur.de/ forderungen/. Accessed: 14 July 2020.). 11

16

M. Jonas et al.

growth, requires a mass supply of and demand for resource-conserving products or repair services. Therefore it would be more economically and socially sustainable if there were many independent small businesses in the cities and municipalities that could meet the corresponding demand for repair services, instead of a few large companies dominating the market,. All in all, however, it is clear that the goals of the Commission and some national states envisaged so far can only be achieved if repair, do-it-yourself, reuse or recycling itself becomes a market or is organised in the form of a market. A culture of moderation (cf. Vogel in this volume) will hardly emerge in this way. It will also be necessary in the coming years to examine more closely whether and to what extent the “artist’s critique” expressed by the repair movement, which refers, among other things, to the autonomy of private lifestyles and to the importance of communal references, will be taken up and appropriated by large companies. At least if one follows studies on the “new spirit of capitalism”, then it would be no surprise if the “repair movement” shares the experience of many other movements critical of capitalism: Criticisms of the existing economic system have been taken up by corporations, and further, formerly private life practices have been commodified or organized in market terms (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2001). The renting of private living space or of private vehicles within the framework of a “sharing economy” are negative examples of this. For contrary to these practices, which also emerged from grassroots movements, and the associated goals of saving resources and strengthening communities, many of these offerings are now more likely to contribute to anchoring entrepreneurial mindsets in private lifestyles as well and, for example, to increasing rather than reducing mass tourism and individual transport (cf. e.g. Eichhorst & Spermann, 2016). Finally, it remains to be seen whether large manufacturers of electrical appliances, like vehicle manufacturers once did (keyword contract repair shop), will not also set up their own licensed repair shops or, for example, sell the provision of plans etc. as services. Both would, of course, open up new business models and possibly create new jobs, entirely in the spirit of the Commission. However, this would not only “close” ecological cycles, but also economic ones. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent Circular Economy practices will become increasingly commodified or whether the parallel existence of different types of providers (large companies, repair cafés, social economy enterprises) is possible. It will also have to be observed more closely whether the Commission and the individual nation states, in addition to their largely technology- and consumption-­centred approach, also exhaust the entire arsenal of legal and fiscal measures (cf. comprehensively Mak & Terryn, 2020; for the example of Austria Vollmann et al. in this volume), in order to take some of the possible tendencies just described into account. In any case, an institutionalization of repair and DIY prac-

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

17

tices “from above” seems to take into account essential aspects of the repair movement and of a comprehensive concept of a Circular Economy in a rather subordinate way, namely the anchoring of such practices and the promotion of the necessary knowledge to strengthen the local economy as well as civil society. In this respect, the repair movement and proponents of a comprehensive concept of the Circular Economy can possibly hope for other “partners”: cities and municipalities (on the topic of cities, municipalities and the circular economy, see EllenMcArthuer Foundation, 2019 and Sutcliffe and Berker in this volume). However, even in the partly ambitious but so far only rudimentarily implemented goals of cities and municipalities, it remains open so far whether potentials of a comprehensive and profound Circular Economy can be used in terms of an ecological, economic and societal transformation or whether these approaches rather follow the technology- and economy-driven models of the Commission as well as some nation states. In the future, it will therefore be necessary to examine more closely what consequences the strategies of a Circular Economy envisaged so far will have “from above” (EU, nation states) and what role cities can take on as facilitators of “bottom-up processes” (repair movement). To this end, the respective constellations of actors and power as well as the political and social opportunities will have to be examined more closely.

5 Do-It-Yourself, Repair and Circular Economy – Approaches and Perspectives From a historical perspective, do-it-yourself and repair have long been socially widespread practices, if not the dominant everyday practices that have structured and accompanied the way we deal with things. Structural changes such as the spread of mass consumer society, the resulting increasingly complex range of products and product characteristics, the spread of wage labour, and the decreasing economic necessity of having to repair or make products oneself instead of replacing them “cheaply” have increasingly reduced these practices and the knowledge about them. However, lifestyle and consumption-critical movements such as the urban gardening movement, the DIY movement or, most recently, the repair movement have increasingly taken up these practices again in recent decades and made them the subject of numerous scientific, political and economic debates. At present, however, these practices are no longer understood as an economic necessity, which historically was often the central motivation by these movements. Instead, they have been politicized and are now the subject of a broader debate on sustainability or, closely related, on Circular Economy.

18

M. Jonas et al.

A number of protagonists in social movements understand the practices of repair and do-it-yourself not only as a critique of the existing, linear and resource-­ using economic system, but also as an alternative to it. At the same time, this is associated with the hope of strengthening autonomy potentials and communal references in the living world and calls for a comprehensive ecological, economic and social transformation of the existing economic and social system. Both the EU Commission, through its first Circular Economy package and within the framework of the so-called “Green Deal”, and some nation states now regard repair and do-it-yourself practices as practices that can contribute to greater sustainability within the framework of a Circular Economy. As we have shown, repair and DIY practices can be framed and organized in very different ways. Some actors of the repair movement as well as other grassroots initiatives (the DIY or the urban gardening movement) strive for a comprehensive ecological, economic and social transformation “from below”, i.e. involving civil society and the local economy within the framework of “community concepts”. The EU Commission and also some nation states, on the other hand, tend to focus on organising and integrating repair and DIY within the framework of a Circular Economy “from above”. Their approach, often described as technology- and economy-­driven, relies more on the power of the market, i.e. on “empowered consumers” and big business, which makes a further commodification of repair and DIY practices not unlikely. A conclusive assessment of the effects of these two, partly conflicting approaches cannot be made here. Nor is it our concern to analyse in more detail the power and actor constellations in this area, which have often been unclear to date, although much will depend on how companies behave towards the concept of the Circular Economy and whether consumers and also cities tend to follow a bottom-up or a top-down approach. The previous remarks and especially the contributions in this volume rather contribute to describing and classifying practices of repairing and do-it-yourself theoretically and historically (cf. Hellmann, Kreis and Vogel in this volume) as well as to showing how political actors at national (cf. Vollmann et  al. in this volume), urban or municipal (cf. Sutcliffe and Berker as well as Piringer and Schwarzlmüller in this volume) and district level (cf. Hassemer in this volume) and how they behave towards bottomup and top-down approaches and also independently implement and further develop ideas and approaches. The empirical surveys in this volumeprovide more detailed information on current patterns of consumption and attitudes in the area of repair and extended use (cf. Weder et al. in this volume), on the emergence of value attributions and their influence on use practices (cf. Hipp and Jaeger-Erben in this volume), and on the acceptance or rejection of concrete or envisaged political measures (cf. Paulinger and Tröger in this volume). These contributions follow differ-

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

19

ent theoretical and methodological perspectives or are written from the point of view of practitioners. This heterogeneity illustrates the complexity of the phenomena that are at the focus of this volume: Repair, do-it-yourself, extended use and circular economies.

References Baier, A., Hansing, T., Müller, C., & Werner, K. eds.) (2015a). Die Welt reparieren – Open Source und Selbermachen als postkapitalistische Praxis. : transcript. Baier, A., Hansing, T., Müller, C., & Werner, K. (2015b). Die Welt reparieren: Eine Kunst des Zusammenmachens. In A. Baier, T. Hansing, C. Müller, & K. Werner (Eds.), Die Welt reparieren – Open Source und Selbermachen als postkapitalistische Praxis (pp. 34–61). Transcript. Baton, M., & Scholand, M. (2016). Potential greenhouse gas emissions reduction from applying circular economy principles to ecodesign products. An exploratory study to quantify the potential impacts on GHG emissions from applying principles of the Circular Economy to Energy related Products in Europe. Clasp Europe. Publication Library. https://clasp.ngo/publications/potential-­greenhouse-­gas-­emissions-­reduction-­from-­ applying-­circular-­economy-­principles-­to-­ecodesign-­products. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2001). Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus. UVK. Boltanski, L., & Esquerre, A. (2018). Bereicherung – Eine Kritik der Ware. Suhrkamp. Brand, U., & Wissen, M. (2017). Imperiale Lebensweise – Zur Ausbeutung von Mensch und Natur im globalen Kapitalismus. oekom. Brunner, K.-M., Jonas, M., & Littig, B. (2022). Capitalism, consumerism and democracy. In B. Bornemann, H. Knappe, & P. Naz (Eds.), Handbook of democracy and sustainability (pp. 163–177). Abingdon. Bundesarbeitskammer. (2020). Communication on the European Green Deal. Sustainable Europe Investment Plan. AK Europa. Position paper. https://www.akeuropa.eu/sites/ default/files/2020-­03/EN_Der%20europ%C3%A4ische%20Gr%C3%BCne%20Deal_0. pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Charter, M., & Keiller, S. (2014). Grassroots innovation and the circular economy. A global survey of repaircafés and hackerspaces. The Centre for Sustainable Design. University of the Creative Arts. https://cfsd.org.uk/site-­pdfs/circular-­economy-­and-­grassroots-­ innovation/Survey-­of-­Repair-­Cafes-­and-­Hackerspaces.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Charter, M., & Keiller, S. (2016a). The second global survey of repair Cafés: A summary of findings. The Centre for Sustainable Design. University of the Creative Arts. https:// cfsd.org.uk/sitepdfs/The%20Second%20Global%20Survey%20of%20Repair%20 Cafes%20-­%20A%20Summary%20of%20Findings.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Charter, M., & Keiller, S. (2016b). Farnham repair Café – Survey of visitors & volunteers. The Centre for Sustainable Design. University of the Creative Arts. https://cfsd.org.uk/ site-­pdfs/Farnham%20Repair%20Cafe%20Survey%202016.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Cole, C., & Gnanapragasam, A. (2017). Community repair: Enabling repair as part of the movement towards a circular economy. Nottingham Trent University’s Institutional Repository. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/30462/7/PubSub_8250_Gnanapragasam_ a381_Cole.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020

20

M. Jonas et al.

De Man, R., & Friege, H. (2016). Circular economy: European policy on shaky ground. Waste Management & Research, 34, 93–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15626015 Dewberry, E., Lourdes, S., Moreno, M., Sheldrick, L., Sinclair, M., Makatsoris, C., & Charter, M. (2016). A landscape of repair. Sustainable innovation 2016 (pp.  76–85). Centre for Sustainable Design. University of the Creative Arts. https://cfsd.org.uk/events/ sustainable-­innovation-­2016/. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Eichhorst, W., & Spermann, A. (2016). Sharing Economy: Mehr Chancen als Risiken? Wirtschaftsdienst, 96, 433–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-­016-­1994-­0 EllenMcArthuer Foundation. (2019). Circular economy in cities. Project Guide. Publications. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/circular-­economy-­in-­cities-­ project-­guide. Accessed 22 July 2020 European Commission. (2015). Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the circular economy. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-­register/detail?ref=COM(2015)614& lang=en. Accessed 9 Nov 2022. European Commission. (2018). Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/ec_circular_economy_final_ report_0.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. European Commission. (2019a). The European green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Accessed 9. Sept. 2020. European Commission. (2019b). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. https://ec.europa. eu/commission/sites/betapolitical/files/report_implementation_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. European Commission. (2020). A new Circular Economy Action Plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. https://eur-­lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-­6388-­11ea-­b735-­ 01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. European Environmental Bureau. (2019). Coolproducts don’t cost the earth. EEB Library. www.eeb.org/coolproducts-­report. Accessed 22 July 2020. Gershuny, J. I. (1979). The informal economy. Its role in post-industrial society. Futures, 10, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-­3287(79)90065-­X Grunwald, A. (2018). Warum Konsumentenverantwortung allein die Welt nicht retten wird. In A.  Henkel, N.  Lüdtke, N.  Buschmann, & L.  Hochmann (Eds.), Reflexive Responsibilisierung (pp. 421–436). Transcript. Jonas, M. (2017). Transition or transformation? A plea for the praxeological approach of radical socio-ecological change. In M. Jonas & B. Littig (Eds.), Praxeological political analysis (pp. 116–133). Routledge. Jonas, M., & Littig, B. (2015). Sustainable practices. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 834–838). Elsevier. Jonas, M., & Segert, A. (2019). Repair und Do-it-yourself Urbanism in Wien aus Bezirksperspektive. Reihenpaper IHS, 2, Institutional Repository at IHS. https://irihs.ihs. ac.at/id/eprint/4940. Accessed 9 Sept 2020.

Repair, Do-It-Yourself, Use for a Longer Period of Time

21

Kirchherr, J., Piscicelli, L., Bour, R., Kostense-Smit, E., Muller, J., Huibrechtse-Truijens, A., & Hekkert, M. (2018). Barriers to the circular economy: Evidence from the European Union. Ecological Economics, 150, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028 Kleinhückelkotten, S., Neitzke, H. -P., & Moser, S. (2016). Repräsentative Erhebung von ProKopf-Verbräuchen natürlicher Ressourcen in Deutschland (nach Bevölkerungsgruppen). Umweltbundesamt. Texte, 39, Umweltbundesamt Publikationen. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/texte_39_2016_repraesentative_erhebung_von_pro-­kopf-­verbraeuchen_natuerlicher_ressourcen_korr.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Lange, B., Domann, V., & Häfele, V. (2016). Wertschöpfung in offenen Werkstätten. Eine empirische Erhebung kollaborativer Praktiken in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe des IÖW, 213/16, Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung. Publikationen. https:// www.ioew.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BILDER_und_Downloaddateien/Publikationen/ Schriftenreihen/IOEW_SR-­2 13_Wertschoepfung_in_offenen_Werkstaetten.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Mak, V., & Terryn, E. (2020). Circular economy and consumer protection: The consumer as a citizen and the limits of empowerment through consumer law. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43, 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-­019-­09435-­y Nessel, S. (2016). Verbraucherorganisationen, Verbraucherpolitik und Nachhaltigkeit. Zum Beitrag von Organisationen auf sozial-ökologische Konsum- und Produktionsmuster. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 26, 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11609-­016-­ 0316-­0 Prakash, S., Dehoust, G., Gsell, M., Schleicher, T., & Stamminger, R. (2016). Einfluss der Nutzungsdauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informationsgrundlage und Entwicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz“. Umweltbundesamt Deutschland. Umweltbundesamt. Texte, 11, Umweltbundesamt Publikationen. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_11_2016_einfluss_der_nutzungsdauer_von_produkten_obsoleszenz. pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Reckwitz, A. (2017). Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Suhrkamp. Reckwitz, A. (2019). Das Ende der Illusionen  – Politik, Ökonomie und Kultur in der Spätmoderne. Suhrkamp. Simons, A., Petschow, U., & Peuckert, J. (2016). Offene Werkstätten  — nachhaltig innovativ? Potenziale gemeinsamen Arbeitens und Produzierens in der gesellschaftlichen Transformation. Schriftenreihe des IÖW, 212/16 Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung. Publikationen. https://www.ioew.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ BILDER_und_Downloaddateien/Publikationen/Schriftenreihen/IOEW_SR-­2 12_ Offene_Werkstaetten-­nachhaltig_innovativ.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2020. Tröger, N., Wieser, H., & Hübner, R. (2017). Smartphones werden häufiger ersetzt als T-­ Shirts. Die Nutzungsmuster und Ersatzgründe von KonsumentInnen bei Gebrauchsgütern. In C. Bala & W. Schuldzinski (Eds.), Pack ein, schmeiß’ weg? Wegwerfkultur und Wertschätzung von Konsumgütern. Bd. 6 (pp. 79–102). Verbraucherzentrale NRW.

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption? The Positive Twist on a Negative Cliché Kai-Uwe Hellmann

Abstract

At the latest since the social figure of the prosumer was rediscovered, the question has increasingly arisen as to what remains of pure, even passive consumption, when most consumers are more or less active, i.e. productivity seems to primarily shape their whole behaviour. Consumption without production thus seems to fall behind completely. This article explores this suspicion to some extent and, in this context, examines the extent to which leisure is the real mystery of modern consumption.

1 Prosumption Everywhere! Consumption Nowhere? Since the social innovation of prosumption – a neologism hatched by Alvin Toffler in 1980 – was quasi-rediscovered a good 10 years ago and is attracting steadily growing interest, the conventional understanding of consumption has come under

K.-U. Hellmann () Institute for Sociology, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_2

23

24

K.-U. Hellmann

considerable pressure to justify itself. George Ritzer in particular, together with his colleagues, has been a major driving force behind this development.1 Thus, as early as 2009, when this development was only just taking off, a discussion arose during a conference at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities (KWI) in Germany as to whether a very attentive, meticulous examination of everything that we still include under “consumption” today might not sooner or later lead to the realization that most of it turns out to be a form of prosumption, and thus that consumption itself becomes totally irrelevant.2 For almost all consumption always involves a minimum of cooperation and productivity on the part of the consumer, for instance in the sense of Michel de Certeau (1980) or Voss and Rieder (2005) which means that, viewed fleetingly, we would only be dealing with prosumption. Ergo, purely passive consumption would hardly occur any more, even in the case of television – a form of consumption that can hardly be surpassed in passivity  – because even during this, as the Dallas-study by Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes from 1990 revealed, there is a considerable amount of inner activity, interpretation and creativity (Hepp, 1998). If we now review the last 10 years, research on this question has not made much progress. Prosumption is constantly making ground gains at the expense of consumption, without it being entirely clear what exactly is getting lost in the process. In part, this discussion is not even open. This is why we want to pick up where we left off a good 10 years ago, at this “fuzzy front end”, so to speak. We start with the initial question: What distinguishes prosumption from consumption?

2 What Is the Difference Between Consumption and Prosumption? The Ready-Made Status of Goods and Services Without referring again to the original text by Toffler (1980) and subjecting it to a detailed exegesis, essential elements of the concept of prosumption will be briefly explained on the basis of an own, older definition. According to this definition,

 Cf. Ritzer, 2010, 2014, 2015a, b, c, d, 2017, 2019; Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010; Ritzer & Rey, 2013; Ritzer et al., 2012, 2018. To some extent, the contribution of Michael-Burkhard Piorkowsky (2017, p. 99 ff.) can also be assessed in this way when he proposes to think of consumption largely as production. 2  This is the German conference “Kollaborative Ökonomie? Zur Evolution kooperativer Märkte” which took place on 29 and 30 September 2009 at the Kulturwissenschaftlichen Institut (KWI) in Essen. 1

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

25

prosumption always occurs when a personal im/material contribution is made to the production of a material good or service that is primarily intended for personal use and from which it derives its use value, without which the production process would remain incomplete, and which is normally unpaid (Hellmann, 2010). The four elements of this definition are self-use, production process, i.e. value chain, self-work and unpaidness, especially no wage labour. Four short explanations in each case: 1. Self-use: Prosumption is about goods or services that are planned for one’s own use (“self usage”), be it for oneself, be it for relatives, friends, acquaintances etc. The motive and comprehension must confirm this (meaning and causal ­adequacy). Motives and comprehension must confirm this (meaning adequacy and causal adequacy related to Max Weber). 2. Production process: Prosumption contributes in one way or another so substantially to the production process and thus regarding the respective value chain without this contribution this chain would not be completed, i.e. the finished product would not be available for immediate use. Cooperation is therefore necessary, although not necessarily sufficient. Without this contribution, the intended consumption would not be possible in principle. 3. Own work: The consumer’s contribution to the completion of the production process takes place through own work. This certainly means work in the conventional sense, in that the respective active consumer as prosumer uses certain personally available material or immaterial resources in the form of production in order to be able to make this contribution at all. 4. Unpaid: This share of personal work is typically unpaid, as it is intended for personal use. There may be certain incentives, such as the thrill of testing a beta version, the cheaper price of IKEA products, and so on. But whatever symbolic payment may flow: it is certainly not “wage work”, to put it a little old-­fashioned here. If, against this background, we take up again the question of what still distinguishes consumption from prosumption, a first answer could be that the difference lies in whether one acquires “totally finished goods”3 (ready-to-use products) on markets of any kind which are immediately available for complete use without further ado, or not. This is because completely ready-to-use goods are acquired only by “pure” consumers, whereas unready-to-use goods are acquired by prosumers. The respec-

 Cf. an early determination of finished goods Hirsch (1925).

3

26

K.-U. Hellmann

tive degree of production of a particular good would thus be decisive in answering the question “consumption or prosumption?”.4 Whereby any purchase process is often multidimensional, depending on how one dissects such a process synchronically or diachronically (Siddiqui & Turley, 2006; Warde, 1992). Consider gasoline: the gasoline one fills up is immediately ready for use. Using it, one would act as a pure consumer, as soon as it is consumed – use without further intervention by the consumer itself because the active consumer is quasi the engine, if one may put it that way – while the refuelling itself is still connected with one’s own work, since mostly self-service is necessary for it.5 In this case, one would obviously act as a prosumer, quite in the sense of Toffler. If one therefore looks at such a purchase process for oneself, it can always happen that consumption and prosumption are experienced and accomplished almost in the same situation and by the same person – but only almost, because they do not happen at the same moments (as long as one concentrates on this small chain of actions: filling up with petrol > paying for petrol > consuming petrol by driving). First the gasoline has to be filled up (prosumption), before it can be consumed (consumption).6 Consequently, in this example prosumption and consumption do not occur synchronously, but successively. The hypothesis concerning this process would therefore be: First prosumption happens without consumption and then consumption happens without prosumption. But let us stay for a moment with this process of filling up with petrol, paying for it and consuming it: Is there consumption in relation to the filling up and buying process itself? Obviously consumption in principle seems to take place only after the refuelling and purchase process, that is, from the moment when one drives away after having paid, as long as one concentrates purely on the finished product “petrol”. However, if one registers that filling up with petrol usually this process also involves a petrol station and the whole infrastructure, in order to make this process possible at all, so one obviously consumes this infrastructure while filling up and paying. For one most likely does not contribute to the functioning of a petrol  Cf. Fig. 1 in Knödler and Martach (2019, p. 175), according to which a “pure” consumer would basically be located in column 6 (which, significantly, does not exist in this graph), because he or she would be content exclusively with products produced by purely ‘industrial’ manufacturing and design by companies” without any consumer cooperation, while the five columns before illustrate decreasing prosumption participation from left to right. 5  The situation is very similar for a “ready to heat” (RTH) or convenience product (Olsen, 2012): Although the ready-to-eat meal has been purchased (almost) ready to eat, it often still has to be heated, and this again – like filling up the tank yourself – is an act of prosumption. 6  Whereas the process of fuel as “driving” would again be prosumption, while the process as “consuming” would be consumption. 4

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

27

station anything but uses it ready for use and therefore merely consumes it. Thus, when refuelling, this is by no means only prosumption, in that one refuels and pays oneself, but at the same time consumption, in that one uses the infrastructure “gas station” synchronously like a finished good.7 By the way, this situation would be comparable to the subsequent driving away which obviously represents prosumption if one does it for oneself. At the same time one uses the public roads without actively participating in their completion or technical functioning, so that it should again be a matter of their consumption. And, of course, one consumes the utilization of the gasoline by operating the internal combustion engine. If such a dia- and synchronic dissection of factually (the same commodity) and socially (the same person) related acts of purchase and consumption is systematically reconsidered, a progression scheme can be constructed from it which depicts the situation-specific occurrence of simultaneous consumption and prosumption processes over time.8 The starting point would first be the distinction between acts of purchase and acts of consumption. Subsequently, a distinction could be made as to the extent to which one is dealing with a “finished good” so that predominantly consumption takes place, or with an unfinished good which requires prosumption, i.e. work by oneself to a considerable extent. Finally, it is examined from the point of view of simultaneity whether a certain prosumption process leads to consumption with used infrastructure in the sense of a finished good.9 For the purpose of illustration, a sinusoidal curve is used for the changeable course of all interconnected acts of purchase and consumption which in the upper area of the field indicates activities that are predominantly prosumption which would correspond to Ritzer’s label “prosumption-as-production” (p-a-p), and in the lower area largely consumption which in Ritzer’s denomination logic would be “prosumption-as-consumption” (p-a-c) (Ritzer, 2019). Finally, at the “edges”, the respective co-consumed infrastructures and further co-occurring event horizons are  This comparison between petrol and a petrol station is reminiscent of the distinction between “means” (means of action) and “conditions” (framework conditions) that Talcott Parsons (1937) once proposed: While “conditions” cannot be controlled, and must therefore be accepted as they are, “means” are consciously chosen and manipulated according to purpose. Applied to the example at hand, “means” would be produced and “conditions” consumed. 8  Cf. also Warde’s (1992) idea of dividing this process into ‘episodes’. 9  It would even be conceivable that such an infrastructure is by no means only available as a “finished product” but would itself have to be completed. An example would be setting up one’s own tent on a camping site, while the actual “matter” could be seen in “taking a vacation”. However, the furnishing of the camping site would again resemble a “finished product” and latently be consumed. 7

28

K.-U. Hellmann

Fig. 1  Consumption and prosumption phases of buying and consuming in alternation and over time. (Source: Own representation)

displayed which are indispensable as institutionally predetermined and possibly/ accidentally relevant accompanying frameworks (Fig. 1). How the curve of the consumption and prosumption activities for concrete acts of purchase or consumption looks exactly over time would have to be examined separately for each individual case. In order to give another example, in the case of breakfast, it is suggested in a purely schematic way how the constant change between consumption and prosumption in the course of time from purchase to consumption could take place, without simulating an exact, meticulous, appropriate synchronization (this would be too costly in this context, but always worth an empirical study). In the middle column, consumption processes are documented, in the right column prosumption processes, purely analytically separated (Table 1). Does this finally answer the initial question of how much consumption is still in prosumption? In the refuelling example two possible interpretations were proposed. In the first case consumption occurs after prosumption; in the second it occurs at the same time as prosumption but not directly in relation to refuelling and payment but in relation to a ready-to-use infrastructure which is involved in the background as a necessary condition, thus becoming significant, so to speak, outside of prosumption, with regard to another, albeit function-supporting frame of reference (Parsons’ “conditions”)10 – which opens up infinite possibilities of syn10

 Cf. footnote 7.

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

29

Table 1  Breakfast alternating between consumption and prosumption Consumption Breakfast Consuming the car, roads and traffic shopping regulations > Consuming the car park > Consuming the supermarket atmosphere and assortment > Consuming the checkout technology > Consuming the car, roads and traffic regulations

Prosumption Write shopping list > Drive there > Look for parking space and park > Get a shopping trolley > Look for and collect goods > Taking goods from the shelf and putting them in the trolley > Drive to the checkout and pay > Bring goods to the car and load them in > Return shopping trolley > Drive home > Clear out and store goods Breakfast Consuming house and furnishing Selecting goods, clearing them out infrastructure > Consuming kitchen, and putting them on the table > refrigerator and storage cabinet Making coffee > Cooking eggs > reliability > Conuming cutlery, crockery Putting out cutlery and crockery as and table functionalities > Consuming well as other ingredients > coffee machine reliability> Consuming Drinking coffee > Eating food > mass media products > Enjoy breakfast Reading the daily newspaper > > Consuming dishwasher and waste Clearing away and washing up > water system functionalities > Putting food away again Consuming refrigerator and storage cabinet reliabilities Source: Own representation, cf. on the aspect of “enjoying breakfast” Warde (1994, p. 891)

chronous consumption if the respective point of reference always lies beyond the ostensible prosumption process. Is there therefore no consumption that can be directed towards the same state of affairs as the prosumption itself? Perhaps it is. One could at least discuss the possibility of consuming a prosumption as such.11 What is meant by this? If one thinks back to the study by Katz and Liebes (1990) which is about watching the series Dallas, this process could be transferred to the present situation insofar as the prosumption process of filling up and paying for petrol represents, as it were, an episode of the everyday series “filling up with petrol” in which the prosumer co-observes himself and consciously co-consumes it as a process and thus himself in this series reception situation. One then experiences oneself filling up and paying for petrol on such a regular basis, and this in a context which undoubtedly belongs to the sphere of consumption. In this sense one could possibly speak of the consumption of a prosumption insofar as one accepts the idea of the self-experiencing consumer as a conceivable form of (mental) consumption (Hellmann, 2018). 11

 Cf. Roberts et al. (1988).

30

K.-U. Hellmann

But has this actually made it sufficiently clear what consumption means in itself? Usually, the specificity of consumption is seen in the fact that certain needs exist, recurring needs arise, demand arises, the selection of certain goods comes into play, finally money flows and then the actual consumption in the broader sense begins (Scherhorn, 1959; Streissler & Streissler, 1966). In distinction to prosumption, however, it was emphasized here as decisive that – referring exclusively to the respective completion effort of a certain commodity – work is only done in prosumption and not in consumption. And indeed the origin of the word “consumption” goes back to the binary distinction production/consumption from classical economics. Consumption thus represents the ­logical equivalent of production. And if production essentially means work12: Doesn’t consumption then stand for non-work, i.e. for leisure, for example? And does the characteristic of leisure perhaps conceal the mystery of pure, work-free consumption? For if, in the case of consumption in the broader sense, work were to be done again, then prosumption would be present, just as it is in the case of consumption in the narrower sense.13

3 Is Leisure (‘Muße’)14 the Real Mystery of Modern Consumption? At this point, a classic is called upon: Thorstein Veblen and his bestseller The Theory of the Leisure Class. It contains the famous chapter Conspicuous Consumption. On the surface conspicuous consumption is about the self-­ dramatisation of people who want to demonstrate to others by visibly wasting material goods or services that they consider themselves to be special, and therefore claim special prestige which they believe they have earned through the recognition

 Here it could be objected that production stands for wage labour, consumption therefore for unpaid labour. But the factor “unpaid work” applies precisely to prosumption. In this respect, it is not the factor “payment” that is decisive here, but the non-labour that would make consumption special. 13  Another remark: In principle, it would have to be decided at which degree of labour input one should no longer speak of consumption in a meaningful way, but of homework, see Joerges (1981), respectively prosumption. Cf. however Ullrich (2019). 14  There is a tiny meaning difference between the German word ‘Muße’ and the English word ‘leisure’: ‘Muße’ implies mainly a passive state of enjoying and experiencing while leisure includes also highly active behaviour. And ‘idleness’ is too negative connotated for using it in this context. 12

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

31

of others. “Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure.” (Veblen, 1999, p. 54). If one now asks specifically about the consummatory effect of demonstrative consumption for these persons, it is a question of this reputability that is accorded to them by others during this process, in that these others function as “witness” (Veblen, 1999, p. 54) to their elaborate self-staging and are supposed to bear witness to precisely this effort. What these self-dramatized persons, eager for recognition and reputation, consume for themselves during such demonstrative acts of consumption is the passive experience ‘to be regarded’ (‘angesehen werden’) by others, the observable attribution of prestige by others to themselves. In other words, the consumption of demonstrative consumption for such self-dramatizers consists in the experience of acts of recognition by others, the external observation of an external observation of a special form. This becomes even clearer, by the way, if one looks at Veblen’s previous chapter which bears the title Conspicuous Leisure. For idleness or leisure is the impression that the ruling class originally had in mind vis-à-vis its peers and subordinates. According to Veblen, the coding of idleness is characterized by the fact that it stands for the complete liberation from having to work. Thus, the following is said about the central motif: “Conspicuous abstention from labour therefore becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement and the conventional index of reputability; and conversely, since application to productive labour is a mark of poverty and subjection, it becomes inconsistent with a reputable standing in the community.” (Veblen, 1999, p. 30) And here, too, it is a matter of reputation and prestige, i.e. the experience of recognition by others, thus the observation of an observation that relates to oneself in a particular consumption situation. Only that under these circumstances it is not so much their ownership as the person for himself who is the focus of the event: he is something special because he ostentatiously does not have to work, others do that for him, and demonstrates leisure before others in order to be admired and envied precisely for this. Against this background, if we take up the question posed above as to what constitutes consumption as the opposite of production, we could say for the conditions of the time: consumption was understood as the demonstration of one’s own idleness, as the communication to others that one did not have to work, and how one experienced the effect of this communication on others for oneself. Historically, this can be made quite plausible. Thus, for centuries, people lived in societies that were dominated by an upper class in the sense of Veblen, Pierre Bourdieu or Norbert Elias which seemed desirable for almost everyone else to imitate, keyword “legitimate taste”. This upper class demonstrated its special status through demonstrative idleness and later

32

K.-U. Hellmann

through demonstrative consumption. In this context, this means that they were primarily interested in observing how others observed them during their idleness and that these others confirmed that they were allowed to consider themselves special because of this. Incidentally, Louis XIV had driven this to perfection even if he had to work hard to perform this illusion of idleness (Elias, 1983). Under these circumstances, would it not be obvious if this mode of observation had later been generalized, others would say democratized, and consumption has come to mean observing others observing one’s own idleness even if this means mirroring oneself? Consumption could thus denote a universally recognized process of experiencing one’s own idleness through others and oneself. However, there are hardly any positive indicators for this. Rather, it seems as if leisure, idleness, doing nothing have become strongly on the defensive in the course of the process of civilization and have been successfully stigmatized. Who could be exemplary for this is the novel character “Oblomov” by Ivan Goncharov because on the one hand this figure is representative of the social figure of an aristocratic, wealthy idler, and on the other hand it is stigmatized as a negative foil, as an anti-bourgeois model of life that is to be strictly rejected.15 This defensive evidence is also evident at present. The psychologists Christopher Hsee et al. (2010), for example, conducted studies in which they investigated the tension between idleness and busyness among US students. According to them, there is a clear aversion to idleness. Preference is usually given to “busyness”, i.e. bustle, busyness, productivity (Yang & Hsee, 2019).16 The order of the day is thus: constantly do something and appear busy. In contrast, idleness in the course of life is perceived as unpleasant and is predominantly rejected.17 This is particularly evident in job interviews when it comes to justifying discontinuities and gaps.

 In this context, reference should also be made to the systematic expulsion of idleness through work already in the course of the eighteenth century, introduced and promoted by administrative-bourgeois forces. Idleness was thereby demonized as an outright sin, the categorically excludable: “Labor in the houses of confinement thus assumed its ethical meaning: since sloth had become the absolute form of rebellion, the idle would be forced to work, in the endless leisure of a labor without utility or profit.” (Foucault, 1988, p. 67 f.) 16  At the same time, it should be noted that the thesis of the decline of the Protestant ethic in favor of hedonistic consumption motives in advanced industrial nations, as advocated for example by Daniel Bell (1978), is certainly confirmed in an international comparison (cf. Bozkurt et al., 2010; Bozkurz & Yeşilada, 2017). Admittedly, this (only) transfers the productivity norm from the production to the consumption sector (cf. Baudrillard 1998). 17  On the history and meaning of the construct “work ethic” (see Cherrington, 1980; Furnham, 1990; Rose, 1985). For an apology of idleness, see again Russell (1935); Levine (1995). 15

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

33

If this finding is generally true, and there is further evidence for such an “idleness aversion”, for example in research on the middle classes (Nipperdey, 1983, p. 255 ff.; Kocka, 1988), the question would be: Where does this come from? One answer could be: In its need for demarcation and self-assertion vis-à-vis the nobility, the bourgeoisie rejected precisely those things that the nobility found so contestable, namely leisure, idleness, unproductivity, wastefulness, and imposed a strict taboo on these aspects.18 Accordingly, life was to be continuously ­distinguished not only in the mode of production but also in the mode of consumption by productivity, that is, by busyness and industriousness – the self-chosen virtue of the bourgeoisie as a counterpoint to the aristocracy.19 “Consumption as a bourgeois practice has always been purpose-bound, rationally grounded, and ideologically underpinned. As a counter-design to the supposedly excessive consumption of pleasure by the aristocracy, the consumption of the bourgeoisie was supposed to reflect its world of values: The dignified but not ostentatious ambience of the bourgeois home served as evidence of ‘good taste’, the furnishing of children’s rooms with ageappropriate furniture and toys as proof of a sense of pedagogical responsibility, table manners as an indication of cultivated manners, the wardrobe of bourgeois women as elegant evidence of simple affluence, and the sailor suits of the young bourgeois even as a declaration of their parents’ political loyalty” (Budde, 2009, p. 133). Incidentally, this counter-affect of the bourgeoisie had already been emphasized by Max Weber (2005, p. 104): “The real moral objection is to relaxation in the security of possession,s the enjoyment of wealth with the consequence of idleness and the temptations of the flesh, above all of distraction from the pursuit of a righteous life.” And it is precisely this aversive affect that has been generalized  Put positively: “Saving – or abstinence – is the heart of the Protestant ethic” (Bell, 1978, p. 69). According to Andreas Reckwitz (2006, p. 429), consumption posed a threat to rational living for bourgeois culture because it was perceived as excessive, artificial and parasitic: “In the bourgeois sense, the consumption subject is excessive: it constantly transgresses the limits of moderation, of moderation, constantly seeks new opportunities for activity and is nevertheless unsatisfied. The consumer subject is artificial: it does not take objects as they are, but endows them with contingent, playful, therein artificial meanings. The consumption subject is parasitic: its activities do not serve another purpose, the consumption experience is purpose in itself.” 19  Cf. Campbell (2018, p.  68): “The Puritan antipathy towards the aristocracy was deeply grounded in their religious world-view which, placing the highest value upon work and frugality, considered the nobility to be corrupted through idleness and indulgence.” Whereby one could speak with Campbell of a paradox of Puritanism, since on the consumption side, almost dialectically conditioned, that was lived out which was strictly forbidden on the production side: hedonism instead of asceticism, at least for the bourgeois women as representative figures, an effect that Veblen already astutely observed. 18

34

K.-U. Hellmann

and has resulted in busyness (“busyness”, “work ethic”) rather than idleness, becoming that standard that should prevail even in consumption more broadly. This aspect has been repeatedly addressed in consumer research (Baudrillard, 1998; Keinan & Kivetz, 2011). Incidentally, this is particularly striking in the case of retirees, who often act enormously “busy”, according to David J. Ekerdt (1986), although they no longer have to work, because their social status continues to depend on the fact that they do not let themselves down even in retirement, but appears constantly busy, what Ekerdt called “busy ethic” (Hellmann, 2019, p. 231 ff.). Related to this might be the denigration of persons (circles) who appear as lazy, idle, good-for-nothing, and are condemned as so-called “Nichtsnutze”, “Taugenichtse” or “Tunichtgute”.20 In short: the adoption of the motif of leisure beyond the era of the aristocracy seems to have failed.21 “Pure” consumption can therefore no longer be defined by it, although leisure as a symbol for not having to work still symbolises the opposite of production and holiday advertising in particular often plays with this motif of promise. Moreover, the motif of leisure is closely related to the motif of hedonism. But this leads to a debate of its own (Campbell, 2018). What should be retained from the study of Veblen is the following idea: consumption can also be understood as a process of experiencing one’s own consumption by others or oneself, that is, of observing oneself or others, in any case as a mental event (Hellmann, 2018). Admittedly, it would be a process that is also under pressure to justify itself, because even in consumer research the attitude prevails that it is primarily active consumption that takes place, everyone and at all times. Especially since active consumers have often received special sympathy in recent years, while passive consumers have long had a miserable standing (Ullrich, 2019).22 One need only recall the chapter “Culture Industry” from the Dialectic of Enlightenment or the essay Notes on the Disproportion between Culture and Consumption by Jürgen Habermas (1956). Nevertheless, the intention is to encourage us to consider this option, especially when it comes to the question of how much consumption is still in prosumption. This would then be the positive turn of a negative cliché.  The English translation of these slightly different German words is always ‘good-for-­ nothings’. 21  In recent years, however, there has been research suggesting a rehabilitation and renaissance of the idleness motif. See generally on leisure, idleness and doing nothing Hersche (2006); Fuest (2008); Dobler and Riedl (2017). 22  Consistently, Dirk Hohnsträter (2018) even goes so far as to conceptualize consumption as a profession. 20

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

35

References Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society. Myths & Structures. Sage. Bell, D. (1978). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. Basic Books. Bozkurt, V., Bayram, N., Furnham, A., & Dawes, G. (2010). The protestant work ethic and hedonism among Kyrgyz, Turkish and Australian college students. Drustvena Istrazivanja, 19, 749–769. Bozkurz, V., & Yeşilada, B. A. (2017). Has capitalism lost its puritan Spirit? What do recent WVS data say about religiosity and work values? Economics and Sociology, 10, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-­789X.2017/10-­2/9 Budde, B. G. (2009). Bürgertum und Konsum: Von der repräsentativen Bescheidenheit zu den feinen ‚Unterschieden‘. In H.-G. Haupt, & C. Torp (Hrsg.), Die Konsumgesellschaft in Deutschland 1890–1990. Ein Handbuch (S. 131–144). Campus. Campbell, C. (2018). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism (New Extended). Palgrave Macmillan. Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. Working values and values that work. AMACOM. de Certeau, M. (1980). Kunst des Handelns. Merve. Dobler, G., & Riedl, P. P. (2017). Muße und Gesellschaft. Mohr Siebeck. Ekerdt, D. J. (1986). The busy ethic. Moral continuity between work and retirement. The Gerontologist, 26, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/26.3.239 Elias, N. (1983). The court society. Basil Blackwell. Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization. A history of insanity in the age of reason. Vintage Books. Fuest, L. (2008). Poetik des Nicht(s)tun. Verweigerungsstrategien in der Literatur seit 1800. Fink. Furnham, A. (1990). The Protestant ethic. The psychology of work-related beliefs and behaviours. Routledge. Habermas, J. (1956). Notizen zum Missverhältnis von Kultur und Konsum. Merkur, 10, 212–228. Hellmann, K.-U. (2010). Prosumer Revisited. Zur Aktualität einer Debatte. In B.  Blättel-­ Mink, & K.-U. Hellmann (Hrsg.), Prosumer Revisited. Zur Aktualität eines Begriffs (S. 13–48). Springer VS. Hellmann, K. -U. (2018). Verbraucherleitbilder, Konsumerlebnisse und die mentale Dimension des modernen Konsums. In C. Bala & W. Schuldzinski (Hrsg.), Jenseits des Otto Normalverbrauchers. Verbraucherpolitik in Zeiten des “unmanageable consumer” (S. 19–51). Verbraucherzentrale NRW. Hellmann, K.-U. (2019). Der Konsum der Gesellschaft. Studien zur Soziologie des Konsums. Springer VS. Hepp, A. (1998). Fernsehaneignung und Alltagsgespräche. Fernsehnutzung aus der Perspektive der Cultural Studies. Westdeutscher Verlag. Hersche, P. (2006). Muße und Verschwendung. Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter. Erster Teilband. Herder. Hirsch, J. (1925). Grundriss der Sozialökonomik. V.  Abteilung: Handel, Transportwesen, Bankwesen. II. Teil: Der moderne Handel, seine Organisation und Formen und die staatliche Binnenhandelspolitik. Mohr (Siebeck).

36

K.-U. Hellmann

Hohnsträter, D. (2018). Konsum als Beruf. In S.  Krankenhagen & J.  Roselt (Eds.), De-/ Professionalisierung in den Künsten und Medien. Formen, Figuren und Verfahren einer Kultur des Selbermachens (pp. 141–155). Kadmos. Hsee, C., Wang, L., & Yang, A. X. (2010). Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness. Psychological Science, 21, 926–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610374738 Joerges, B. (1981). Berufsarbeit, Konsumarbeit, Freizeit. Zur Sozial- und Umwelterträglichkeit einiger struktureller Veränderungen in Produktion und Konsum. Soziale Welt, 32, 168– 195. Katz, E., & Liebes, T. (1990). Interacting with ‚Dallas‘. Cross cultural readings of American TV. Canadian Journal of Communication, 15, 45–66. Keinan, A., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Productivity orientation and the consumption of collectable experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 935–950. https://doi.org/10.1086/657163 Knödler, H., & Martach, S. (2019). Nachhaltigkeit durch Kunden(ein)bindung in der Bekleidungsindustrie: Das Prosumer-Phänomen als Externalität im Konsum. In C. Arnold, S. Keppler, & H. Knödler (Hrsg.), Herausforderungen für das Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement. Globalisierung  – Digitalisierung  – Geschäftsmodelltransformation (S. 171–194). Springer. Kocka, J. (Hrsg.) (1988). Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert. Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich (3 Bd.). dtv. Levine, A. (1995). Fairness to idleness. Is there a right not to work? Economics and Philosophy, 13, 255–174. Nipperdey, T. (1983). Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866. Bürgerwelt und starker Staat. Beck. Olsen, N.  V. (2012). The convenience consumer‘s dilemma. British Food Journal, 114, 1613–1625. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701211273090 Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. A study in social theory with reference to a Group of Recent European Writers. McGraw Hill. Piorkowsky, M.-B. (2017). Konsum im Fokus der Alltags- und Lebensökonomie. In C. Fridrich, R. Hübner, K. Kollmann, M.-B. Piorkowsky, & N. Tröger (Hrsg.), Abschied vom eindimensionalen Verbraucher (S. 73–112). Springer VS. Reckwitz, A. (2006). Das Subjekt des Konsums in der Kultur der Moderne: Der kulturelle Wandel der Konsumtion. In K.-S.  Rehberg (Hrsg.), Soziale Ungleichheit, kulturelle Unterschiede: Verhandlungen des 32. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in München. Teilbd. 1 und 2 (S. 424–436). Campus. Ritzer, G. (2010). Focusing on the prosumer. On correcting an error in the history of social theory. In B. Blättel-Mink & K.-U. Hellmann (Eds.), Prosumer Revisited. Zur Aktualität einer Debatte (pp. 61–79). Springer VS. Ritzer, G. (2014). Prosumption: Evolution, revolution, or eternal return of the same? Journal of Consumer Culture, 14, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540513509641 Ritzer, G. (2015a). The “new” world of Prosumption: Evolution, “return of the same”, or revolution? Sociological Forum, 30, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12142 Ritzer, G. (2015b). Prosumer Capitalism. The Sociological Quarterly, 56, 413–445. https:// doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12105 Ritzer, G. (2015c). Automating prosumption. The decline of the prosumer and the rise of the prosuming machines. Journal of Consumer Culture, 15, 407–424. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540514553717 Ritzer, G. (2015d). Hospitality and prosumption. Research in Hospitality Management, 5, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2015.11828323

How Much Consumption Is Still In Prosumption?

37

Ritzer, G. (2017). From production and consumption to prosumption. A personal journey and its larger context. In M. Keller, B. Halkier, T.-A. Wilska, & M. Truninger (Hrsg.), Routledge handbook of consumption (S. 83–93). Routledge. Ritzer, G. (2019). Prosumption: Contemporary capitalism and the ‘new’ prosumer. In F.  Wherry & I.  Woodward (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of consumption (S. 75–94). Oxford University Press. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, Prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10, 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673 Ritzer, G., & Rey, P. J. (2013). From ‘solid’ producers and consumers to ‘liquid’ prosumers. In M. Davis (Ed.), Liquid sociology. Metaphor in Zygmunt Bauman’s analysis of modernity (pp. 157–176). Ashgate. Ritzer, G., Dean, P., & Jurgenson, N. (2012). The coming of age of the prosumer. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211429368 Ritzer, G., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2018). The velvet cage of educational con(pro)sumption. Open Review of Educational Research, 5, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2 018.1546124 Roberts, S. D., Scammon, D. L., & Schouten, J. W. (1988). The fortunate few: Production as consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 430–435. Rose, M. (1985). Re-working the working ethic. Economic values and socio-cultural politics. Batsford Academic and Educational. Russell, B. (1935). In praise of idleness and other essays. George Allen & Unwin. Scherhorn, G. (1959). Bedürfnis und Bedarf. Sozioökonomische Begriffe im Lichte der neueren Anthropologie. Duncker & Humblot. Siddiqui, S., & Turley, D. (2006). Buyer-seller role malleability: A dip in the eBay. European Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 295–296. Streissler, E., & Streissler, M. (Hrsg.). (1966). Konsum und Nachfrage. Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. Bantam Books. Ullrich, W. (2019). Konsum als Arbeit. Eine semantische Umpolung. In Pop. Kultur & Kritik. https://www.pop-­zeitschrift.de/2019/04/01/konsum-­als-­arbeitvon-­wolfgang-­ullrich01-­ 4-­2019/. Zugegriffen: 20. Februar 2020. Veblen, T. (1999). The theory of the leisure class. An economic study of institutions. Oxford University Press. Voss, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2005). Der arbeitende Kunde. Wenn Konsumenten zu unbezahlten Mitarbeitern werden. Campus. Warde, A. (1992). Notes on the relationship between production and consumption. In R. Burrows, & C. Marsh (Hrsg.), Consumption and class. Divisions and change (S. 15– 31). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Warde, A. (1994). Consumption, identity-formation and uncertainty. Sociology, 28, 877– 898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038594028004005 Weber, M. (2005). The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of capitalism. Routledge. Yang, A. X., & Hsee, C. K. (2019). Idleness and busyness. Current opinion in Psychology, 26, 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.015

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society Current Discussions in Historical Perspective Reinhild Kreis

Abstract

In current discussions about consumption and climate, do-it-yourself practices often appear as an easy solution to social and economic problems. Yet little is known about the forms and extent of DIY production or provision of goods and services, and there is little research on the motives and experiences of DIY. This article shows how domestic supply strategies, economic and social orders are interrelated. The call “Do it yourself!” is analysed in its complexity. It stands for emancipation as well as for disciplining, it can mean remoteness from the market but also consumption, and it goes hand in hand with processes of inclusion and exclusion. A look at the history of do-it-yourself helps to classify and specify current questions and proposals with a view to preconditions and consequences.

1 Introduction Do-it-yourself never disappeared. It was just that hardly anyone was interested in it for a long time. What private households produce and how they provided for themselves seemed to be a private matter for a long time. Neither does the productive R. Kreis Historisches Seminar, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_3

39

40

R. Kreis

added value of do-it-yourself appear in the national accounts, nor did the international campaigns of the 1970s for “wages for housework” receive much attention, and scientific research has also rarely dealt with do-it-yourself practices. The current increased attention for do-it-yourself is fed by two closely intertwined trends: On the one hand, in view of the debates on environmental protection and climate change, interest in supply issues is growing. From the criticism of mass consumption and the throwaway society to the demand for an unconditional basic income and the growing number of community gardens, repair cafés and solidarity farming businesses, there are discussions about desirable supply strategies for households. On the other hand, products related to “do-it-yourself” are a high-­ volume market. Internet platforms such as Etsy sell homemade products; magazines, books and courses with instructions on DIY techniques are booming, as is the market for handicraft, needlework and DIY utensils. The aesthetics of the homemade are being used to sell food as well as in the design of posters, clothing and furniture. The media accompany the current trend towards do-it-yourself with countless reports on the “new desire for creative DIY” (Augsburger Allgemeine) and the “do-it-yourself trend” (Wirtschaftswoche). Do-it-yourself practices thus stand for both the renunciation of consumption and non-market supply strategies, as well as for consumption and fashion trends. This dual perspective draws attention to the question of how the choice of modes of provision is related to the order of economy and society. For reflections on modes of provision between making, buying, repairing, and repurposing both create and constrain markets, raise questions about responsibilities, and evaluate the alternatives as good or bad, right or wrong. Since the beginning of industrialized mass production, these basic patterns have shaped all debates about modes of provision from the life reform movement to the women’s movement, from advertising to the war economy. A look into the past of do-it-yourself puts the current debates into a broader context that shows the call “Do it yourself!” in its contradictions and its complexity.

2 Prosuming – A Supply Strategy of the Consumer Age Household production is both an old and a new mode of provision. For millennia, people have produced much of what they then used and consumed themselves. However, such practices only became a distinct mode of provision of do-it-yourself once alternatives emerged. With the industrial mass production of everyday goods, such an alternative was available to growing sections of the population from mid-­

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society

41

nineteenth century and especially from the end of the century onwards. To be sure, it has always been possible to delegate particular activities to others and to not do something oneself. But with the availability of industrially produced goods for the masses, the number of available options took on a whole new dimension. Previous household production techniques were often preserved, but their importance changed in light of the presence of industrially produced goods: The production by one’s own hand, attributable to a specific person, was now only one of several possible modes of production and thus was specified as “do-it-yourself” (Kreis, 2020). Industrially manufactured products were not always available to everyone. Some people lacked money, others had no shopping facilities nearby, and in times of war and hardship consumption possibilities were limited for the whole population. But even under these circumstances, people remained aware of the fact that they made something themselves, which at other times or in other households could be obtained from the market. Even when individual choice was limited, buying and making oneself formed mutual points of reference. Being one of several options, supply strategies such as buying, DIY and the many options in between required legitimation and were evaluated according to both moral and economic criteria. Strictly speaking, DIY in modern industrial societies usually describes only one or some steps in the production process. Only rarely do households produce completely from scratch what they consume, but rather combine their own time and their own manual skills with purchased items (Becker, 1965; Warde, 2010): From balls of wool to drills, foodstuffs, screwdrivers and pans to bicycle hoses, dowels, paper and leather, people buy what they then process further in their private households. What is described as “self-made” is therefore mostly “prosuming”, a combination of production and consumption within private households (Hellmann, 2016). The term “self-made” emphasises the DIY sequences in the manufacturing process and signals that the end product was not purchased ready for use or consumption. With this flexible combination of elements of production and consumption, prosumption as a supply strategy is incompatible with the categories with which industrialized societies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are usually described. Prosuming cannot be easily placed in the coordinate system of production and consumption, work and leisure, but can be located at very different points – with far-reaching consequences. For the classification of an activity as work, leisure, production or consumption is linked, for example, to reputation, remuneration and social insurance. For more than a hundred years, authors and activists have tried – with little success – to draw attention to the inequality that emerges from such distinctions. In

42

R. Kreis

1911, for example, national economist and women’s rights activist Rosa Kempf (1911) denounced the wage gap between men and women based on assumptions about different care strategies. Women, Kempf said, were expected to sew or at least maintain their own clothes and to cook their own food. No one required the same of men  – accordingly their wages were higher in order to cover their expenses. In the 1970s, women’s rights activists and the “Wages for Housework” campaign drew attention to the fact that women worked unpaid and without welfare state protection and produced or provided themselves with what could also be bought on the market for money (Biermann & Bock, 1977; Lenz, 2010, p. 150 ff.). And more recently, books such as “The Working Customer” have shown how “customers become unpaid employees” who design, book, serve, assemble, or bill themselves and thus take over tasks that were previously done by paid workers (Voß & Rieder, 2005). These observations led to a wide variety of demands for remuneration, recognition or the redistribution of tasks. What they had in common, however, was and still is the indication that productive activities of private households are perceived, evaluated and remunerated unequally. It also becomes clear how much the evaluations were tied to role models and identities. Gender, class, level of education, generation and regional origin all played a role in determining which supply strategy was considered appropriate or inappropriate, work or leisure, right or wrong. Supply strategies can therefore be interpreted as “moral economies” in which economic and moral thought and action are closely intertwined (Frevert, 2019). Accordingly, the choice of a supply strategy was and is not only evaluated according to economic criteria, but also according to social norms and requirements. Decisions on supply strategies thus structured both the economy and society. The core question of how resources should be used is still relevant today. Is time more valuable than money or vice versa? Is saving resources and materials more important than saving time or money? Does it matter whether it is the time or money of parents, the unemployed, young people, academics, foreigners or villagers? What knowledge and skills should people have and invest time in? Who, in other words, should master particular do-it-yourself practices, such as welding, dowelling, cooking, or knitting? Questions of this kind have always been, and still are, controversial. Current discussions about supply strategies, as they are negotiated not least under the catchphrase “rethinking consumption”, should keep this ambiguity and complexity of do-it-yourself practices in mind. A look at the long tradition of such practices of self-sufficiency and prosumption can help to clarify questions and answers in current discussions. To this end, I will discuss three sets of categories which have informed practices of household production since the beginning of the

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society

43

industrial mass production of consumer goods. The first step deals with disciplining and emancipation, the second with DIY as a market and as consumption avoidance, and finally with questions of inclusion and exclusion.

3 Disciplining and Emancipation The example of handicraft lessons exemplifies how close disciplining and emancipation are in do-it-yourself practices (Ehrmann-Köpke, 2010). In view of new forms of work and consumption, handicrafts lessons for girls received a major boost in the late nineteenth century. Especially in the middle classes, fears prevailed that girls and women of the poorer classes might in the future work outside the home instead of running the household, and buy what they had previously made themselves. Without the presence of the mother in the household and family, the moral foundation of the state would be endangered, was the concern. The school was intended to remedy this. At a time when machine-knitted stockings and off-­ the-­peg clothing were increasingly available, girls were to learn more about how to make these items themselves – and thus to internalize virtues such as diligence, perseverance, thrift, and patience, as well as the idea of do-it-yourself as a distinctly female provisioning strategy (Kreis 2015, p. 204). If the aim here was to limit female agency and to control their use of time and money, others interpreted female handicrafts as a means of liberation. The new industrial goods were of bad quality, argued needlework teachers around 1900, and the sales staff in the shops tended to take advantage of female customers. However, those who had learned to make their own clothes and linens in needlework classes possessed knowledge of materials, taste, and were able to identify quality work. Such girls and women would not fall for “trash and sling goods”. Here lie the roots of consumer education, which created food consumers through do-it-yourself practices (Kreis 2015, p.  208 ff.). The life reform movement of the decades around 1900 and the environmental movement of the 1970s and 1980s argued similarly. They resorted to do-it-yourself practices in order to gain independence from consumer goods and manufacturing conditions that they rejected – for as long until goods of the desired quality were also available for purchase (Kreis, 2020, pp. 147– 190). Handicraft lessons for boys, the introduction of which had been discussed since the late nineteenth century, aimed in a similar direction. Boys were granted greater freedom in leisure activities, but here, too, for decades discussion revolved around the question of how boys could be educated to engage in useful leisure activities (Kreis, 2015). Echoes of this can be found in the DIY of the post-war decades.

44

R. Kreis

Imported as a new hobby from the United States and Great Britain, magazines, tool and material manufacturers advertised that DIY was a useful hobby that benefited the whole family and kept men in the house (Gelber, 1997; Voges, 2017, p. 231 ff.; Kreis, 2020, pp.  92–100). At the same time, repairing, tinkering, and, from the 1950s onwards, the new hobby of DIY were interpreted as a way to live out one’s creativity, to become independent of craftsmen and industrial goods, and to provide a balance to working life. Whether do-it-yourself practices are perceived as constricting and disciplining or as liberating therefore depends on the perspective and individual experience. The ambivalence between obligation and liberation explains why cooking and mending were not high on the agenda for many in the women’s movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Emancipation could also mean to no longer having to do something oneself. Another example is the post-war period when men and women reported how happy they were to no longer being forced to make everything from scratch. During the war years, shortages and scarcity had led to all kinds of make do, and it was liberating to no longer be subject to these constraints, but to be able to buy many things. Social norms and freedoms of this kind continue to shape our relationship to do-it-yourself to this day.

4 Market and Market Avoidance Do-it-yourself practices  – that sounds at first like anti-consumerism and market avoidance. And to a certain extent this assumption is true: do-it-yourself as a term is only meaningful if there is an alternative that could replace household production. Only when clothing, food, furniture, or car repairs are also available for purchase does the call “Do it yourself!” make sense. Poor people have long made for themselves what others bought in order to save money. Others sought to avoid markets and consumption because they rejected their mechanisms, consequences or preconditions. Since the late nineteenth century, alternative milieus critical of consumerism have argued, for different reasons, that people should “not be deprived” of household production. While some feared an alienation from nature and the environment if they only consumed prefabricated things, others criticized the environmental consequences of consumption or the conditions under which mass-­ produced goods were manufactured (Doernach, 1983; Kreis, 2020, pp. 147–190, 463 f.). Far beyond these alternative milieus, many emphasized homemade items as an expression of individuality and caring (Bock & Duden, 1977; Speck, 1956). In such contexts, market avoidance was seen as a sign of loving attention, for example when social norms dictated that birthday cakes should be homemade and not be bought at the supermarket.

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society

45

If we take a closer look, it quickly becomes clear that all these forms of household production are based on consumption. DIY practices are a huge market for entire industries. This includes the home improvement sector as well as the food industry, the manufacturers of kitchen utensils as well as handicraft shops and companies that produce hair dye, or grain mills with which one can grind their own grain and bake wholemeal bread from it – not to mention the vast market for instructions of all kinds. Cookbooks, DIY magazines, sewing classes, and books on everything from beekeeping to furniture making provide a steady stream of suggestions for what household production. All it takes is a little consumption. After all, instructions, tools, utensils, ingredients, and materials must first be purchased before one can get down to business. Viewed from this perspective, there is not much difference between the first sewing machines of the mid-nineteenth century and the 3D printers of the twenty-first century. They are items that are industrially manufactured, purchased as consumer goods, and then used in the context of household production. Those who buy these items do not bypass the market per se, but only certain markets (Kreis, 2020, pp. 307–321). Many of these items facilitate DIY practices or enable people to engage in such activities in the first place. The invitation to rethink consumption should also consider forms of consumption that go hand in hand with DIY practices. Here, on the one hand, concepts of the sharing economy are interesting, which can help to minimize consumption. On the other hand, the motives and frequencies of do-it-­ yourself must be considered. The American artist Lisa Anne Auerbach pointed this out a few years ago. With regard to DIY, she stated that companies had turned “an idealistic, consumption-critical, independence-promoting, forward-looking ethos into another opportunity to shop” (Auerbach, 2012, p.  5). Booms in household production always opened new opportunities for companies that marketed DIY as a mode of provision and aimed at households who consumed in order to make things themselves – and who also left behind “piles of barely used tools, leftover consumables, and unfinished projects.”

5 Inclusion and Exclusion How people provide themselves with goods and services is not an (entirely) private matter. How – and which – things come into the household signals belonging and distinction. Depending on how they provide for themselves, people imagine themselves and are seen as good parents, as freeloaders, as real men, as uneducated, as cultured, as eco or as miser. How particular modes of provisions should be interpreted is usually controversial and, moreover, changes over time. But decisions

46

R. Kreis

such as “make or buy?” are always (mis)interpreted as statements about values, knowledge, skills, financial possibilities and time budgets, and quite often the choice of supply strategies is supposed to evoke distinctions of this kind among observers. Questions of provision are therefore always also questions of identity (Kreis, 2020, p. 22 f.). Therefore, changes in the field of provisioning (or in their reinterpretation) are often explosive. Not least because they can shake up identities, perceptions of self and others, such changes have always been controversial. Three examples will shed light on these interrelations. First, there are questions of choice and its evaluation. During the two world wars or other times of scarcity, the majority of society resorted to household production. Those who did so did not stand out, but were part of a general trend. In times of economic prosperity, however, household production could well be a stigma – especially when it was not the result of an active choice but of poverty. Memoirs repeatedly describe how handmade or mended clothing in particular caused ridicule and exclusion (Maak, 1999, p. 162; Mog, 1983). The example of female handicrafts is similar. Whereas knitting, sewing, crocheting and embroidery were long regarded as a means of discipline and as visible expressions of a female lifestyle in conformity with social expectations and as expression of a life that was limited to the microcosm of the household, feminists often also defined themselves by refusing to engage in these activities. Current manifestations of feminism, on the other hand, reclaim handicrafts as “textile strategies” with political significance. In these contexts, DIY no longer has anything to do with poverty or oppression, but is interpreted as political, emancipated, self-­ determined action (Critical Crafting Circle, 2011). Similarly, do-it-yourself practices are justified in terms of environmental protection and sustainability. They may sometimes cause ridicule – but as a deliberate choice, the mechanisms of integration and exclusion involved here are quite different from those in the case of poverty-­based DIY. To be sure, these mechanisms also work in the opposite direction. In the environmentally conscious circles of well-heeled middle-class families, it is sometimes the purchased cake at the company party or the store-bought children’s hat that causes raised eyebrows. Industrially manufactured items which supported do-it-yourself activities likewise contribute to shaping social order. When the market for home improvement products emerged from the 1960s onwards and DIY stores offered tools and materials for private households, professional craftsmen panicked. If anyone was able to dowel, hang wallpaper and lay tiles with the new materials, if the knowledge and skills of a trained person – the master craftsman – were no longer necessary, what was the difference between the professional and the amateur?

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society

47

(Voges, 2017, pp. 121, 145 f.) More than half a century earlier, confectioners had railed against the baking courses of the Dr. Oetker company, which threatened to steal their ­clientele away (Kreis, 2020, p.  111). Whenever new do-it-yourself tools entered the shelves, they challenged the relationship between professionals and amateurs and, in extreme cases, made entire industries obsolete. The sharp decline in the number of travel agencies after the introduction of PCs and software programs is a case in point (Hachtmann, 2015, p. 227 f.). For professionals, the question was how to justify their services. Amateurs, on the other hand, were confronted with expectations tackle particular tasks, which were supposedly child’s play thanks to the new products. The range of DIY-related goods led to new freedoms as well as constraints, new forms of inclusion and exclusion, of identity formation and ascription.

6 Rethinking Consumption – With History This brief outline of the history of do-it-yourself can only highlight a few characteristics of a long and much more complex past. But it becomes clear that disputes about modes of provision go far beyond questions of economic efficiency and sustainability. The examples show do-it-yourself practices as a moral economy in which modes of provision were linked to ideas about right and wrong behaviour, identities, and role models. Modes of provision position individuals as well as groups within a social matrix and therefore shape economy and society. DIY is not the opposite of consumption. Rather, consumption and DIY practices are intertwined and interrelated on several levels. Therefore, current debates cannot be about laud do-it-yourself practices as the superior alternative to consumption. On the contrary: the conceptual tensions between disciplining and emancipation, market and market avoidance, inclusion and exclusion are characteristic of modern societies in which people can choose between several modes of provision. Since current debates claim to rethink consumption, compare modes of provision and develop suggestions, a look at the grey areas and conceptual challenges can help to reflect expectations and presuppositions as well as the complex implications of any interference in household choices on modes of provision.

48

R. Kreis

References Auerbach, L. A. (2012). Dont’t do it yourself. Adocs. Becker, G. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75, 493–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228949 Biermann, P., & Bock, G. (1977). Auch in Deutschland gibt es jetzt eine Kampagne um Lohn für Hausarbeit vom Staat für alle Frauen. Courage, 3, 16–21. Bock, G., & Duden, B. (1977). Arbeit aus Liebe  – Liebe als Arbeit. Zur Entstehung der Hausarbeit im Kapitalismus. In Frauen und Wissenschaft. Beiträge zur Berliner Sommeruniversität für Frauen, Juli 1976 (pp. 118–200). Courage Verlag. Critical Crafting Circle, Crafti(vi)sta!. (2011). Handarbeit, Aktivismus, Politik und Kunst. Über dieses Buch. In Crafti(vi)sta! Critical Crafting Circle (Hrsg.), Handarbeit als Aktivismus (S. 8–10). Ventil Verlag. Doernach, R. (1983). Handbuch für bessere Zeiten, Bd. 1: Bauen + Wohnen, Kleidung, Heimwerk, Wasser; Bd. 2: Nahrung, Tiere, Energie, Bio-Mobile. Klett-Cotta. Ehrmann-Köpke, B. (2010). “Demonstrativer Müßiggang” oder “rastlose Tätigkeit”? Handarbeitende Frauen im hansestädtischen Bürgertum des 19. Jahrhunderts. Waxmann. Frevert, U. (2019). Moral economies, present and past. Social practices and intellectual controversies. In U.  Frevert (Hrsg.), Moral Economies. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, Sonderheft, 26, (S. 13–43). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gelber, S. (1997). Do-it-yourself: Constructing, repairing and maintaining domestic masculinity. American Quaterly, 49, 66–112. Hachtmann, R. (2015). Rationalisierung, Automatisierung, Digitalisierung. Arbeit im Wandel. In F. Bösch (Ed.), Geteilte Geschichte. Ost- und Westdeutschland 1970–2000 (pp. 195–237). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hellmann, K.-U. (2016). Prosumismus und Protest. Eine Polemik. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 29, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1515/fjsb-­2016-­0234 Kempf, R. (1911). Das Leben der jungen Fabrikmädchen in München. Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage ihrer Familie, ihr Berufsleben und ihre persönlichen Verhältnisse. Duncker und Humblot. Kreis, R. (2015). Mechanisierung als pädagogisches Argument. Schule, Arbeit und Konsum um 1900. In M. Caruso & C. Kassung (Hrsg.) Jahrbuch für historische Bildungsforschung Bd. 20 Schwerpunkt: Maschinen (S. 199–217). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Kreis, R. (2020). Selbermachen. Eine andere Geschichte des Konsumzeitalters. Campus. Lenz, I. (Ed.). (2010). Die neue Frauenbewegung in Deutschland. Abschied vom kleinen Unterschied. Eine Quellensammlung. Springer VS. Maak, K. (1999). Flickwerk als Metapher. In H. Nixdorff (Hrsg.), Das textile Medium als Phänomen der Grenze – Begrenzung – Entgrenzung (S. 153–182). Reimer. Mog, J. (1983). “Landkarte der Mutterliebe”. Zur Fetischisierung mütterlicher Flickkünste. In G.  Korff, Ludwig-Uhland-Institut für Empirische Kulturwissenschaft & Württembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart (Hrsg.), Flick-Werk. Reparieren und umnutzen in der Alltagskultur. Begleitheft zur Ausstellung im Württembergischen Landesmuseum Stuttgart vom 15. Oktober bis 15. Dezember 1983 (S. 87–90). Stuttgart. Speck, O. (1956). Kinder erwerbstätiger Mütter. Ein soziologisch-pädagogisches Gegenwartsproblem. Enke.

Do-It-Yourself and the Order of Economy and Society

49

Voges, J. (2017). “Selbst ist der Mann”. Do-it-yourself und Heimwerken in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wallstein. Voß, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2005). Der arbeitende Kunde. Wenn Konsumenten zu unbezahlten Mitarbeitern werden. Campus. Warde, A. (2010). Notes on the relationship between Production and Consumption. Acquisition. In A. Warde (Hrsg.), Consumption (Bd. 2, S. 163–177). Sage.

About the Way We Deal with Things Thomas Vogel

Abstract

This article is about the critique of today’s culturally and economically shaped way of dealing with things. It traces a cultural-historical and philosophical line of development of our actions, which are determined by acceleration, waste and abundance. The contribution illustrates the absurdity and contradictoriness of our current mode of production and consumption. From the repurposing of consumer goods of earlier times to the fast pace of today’s handling of things (e.g. the “Tempo handkerchief”) to the absurdity of industrial mass production of used (historical) goods (“used look”), the article traces a line of development in the production and consumption of our cultural history. Based on the analysis, philosophical considerations of a culture of moderation and a more mindful, appreciative approach to resources and things are pointed out as an alternative to the imperatives of an abundance and throwaway society (cf. Vogel, T. (2018). Moderation  – What we can learn from an old virtue. Munich: oekom.). For 2500  years, people have been philosophizing about moderation as a goal for

T. Vogel () Institute for Educational Sciences, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_4

51

52

T. Vogel

contentment and happiness. The excessive production and lifestyle in the industrialized countries and the destruction of the natural foundations of life require a new reflection on this philosophy as a search for the right measure in man’s relationship to himself, to nature and in his dealings with things.

1 Introduction and Problem Definition The concept of thing is associated with a pre-modern understanding, which in the political sense aims at the networking of people with each other (thing, res publica) and in the technical sense at the networking of people with things (stuff). Things originally denoted contentious matters, for the sake of which and around which people gathered. That is why places of assembly were called “thing” in earlier times, and that is why those things that concerned all people were called “res publica” until the early modern period. In contrast to this concept of thing, today’s talk of artefacts, products, commodities and consumer goods refers to the modern understanding of the object as an object and thus to a depoliticisation and objectification of the concept of thing that began above all with industrialisation. With regard to the handling of things, a differentiation and linking of both levels seems to make sense. Things, their production as well as the handling of them is also a political question. The French sociologist Bruno Latour blames this forgetfulness of things, indeed their explicit denial, for some of the ills of this world, such as the ecological crisis, and calls for a restitution of the politics of things (cf. Krebs et al., 2018; cf. Latour, 2005). Things are first of all those which man produces and uses to satisfy his needs. They are created by appropriating natural materials and subjecting them to a change of form. In order to produce things, materials must be obtained from the natural environment. In doing so, man intervenes in the natural balance and either destroys something living (e.g. a tree from which he extracts wood) or interrupts slower natural processes by extracting stones, ores, etc. The production of things is fundamentally different from the extraction of materials from the natural environment. The production of things is fundamentally violent towards nature; for things can only come into being through the interruption and destruction of existing natural processes. The first things that man made were tools made of stone, bone or wood. The objects made of these served him for scraping, crushing or dividing other raw materials and foodstuffs, but also as weapons or for protection against the elements. In the course of history, man developed increasingly complex tools and aids. Freud therefore referred to man as a “prosthetic god” (Freud, 2000 [1941], p.  57). He used this term to describe man’s constant striving to perfect the performance of his motor and sensory organs and to extend the limitations naturally imposed upon

About the Way We Deal with Things

53

them. With the increasing interventions by tools and aids in naturally occurring processes and by the production of a wide variety of objects, man increasingly changed his natural environment. Today, the human-nature metabolic process has taken on global dimensions and endangers the natural foundations of life through climate change, species extinction and dwindling resources. On the question of how things come into the world, Hannah Arendt distinguished in her Vita-activa study (1996 [1958]) between the forms of activity labor and work, as well as between objects of consumption and objects of use. According to Arendt, consumer objects are the product of physical labor. They have only a short life span and serve the reproduction of life. Consumer goods as a result of human labour are foodstuffs such as bread, vegetables, meat, etc. If they are not consumed, they spoil relatively quickly and regardless of whether we consume them or not. The production of consumer goods through labor is a lifelong ­necessity. Commodities, on the other hand, are results of manufacturing, works of our hands, so to speak. They last for a longer period of time, regardless of whether we use them or not. By making, man creates a world of things that produces a certain permanence and durability. Without making, the work of our hands, we would probably not know what a thing is at all (cf. ibid.). The question of how to deal with things is directly linked to man’s relationship with nature, with the natural foundations of his life; for there is an indissoluble metabolic relationship between man and nature. All the things that man needs for his life he must take from nature and in the process transform many natural substances according to his own needs. Through these metabolic processes, man inevitably and continuously changes natural processes. Work and production differ fundamentally in their effects on the household of nature: although work and consumption are, according to Arendt, primarily consuming processes, man returns the food produced by work to nature through his metabolism. From the standpoint of the natural and the household of nature, manufacturing is destructive, “since only the manufacturing process forever takes the matter it requires from nature, deprives it of it, while work, while it feeds on the ‘good things’ of the earth, also always returns them to it by way of the metabolism of the human body” (Arendt, 1996 [1958], p.  118). Every production, every use and consumption of things brings about changes in the natural environment. Through his production and consumption, man transforms nature into a different state. Such transformation processes and the accompanying changes in nature have increased greatly since industrialization. Man no longer sees himself as part of nature. He increasingly sets himself apart from natural conditions, tries to make himself as independent as possible from naturally occurring processes and to free himself from the adversities that nature demands of the human course of life. In the course of history, man has thus created an artificial world of things that stands in opposition to nature.

54

T. Vogel

2 Terminology in Dealing with Things Terms that specify our dealings with things say a lot about forms of the relationship between people and things. Already the term “concept” contains the word “grasping”, which is at the same time known as an act of our hand. By grasping a thing with his hands, man develops a concept of the same. Grasping with the hand and grasping with the mind are etymologically closely related. Central terms that specify the handling of things are using and consuming, repairing, maintaining and caring for, repurposing, reusing and recycling. These terms always refer to a time dimension of dealing with things. In the first place in dealing with things are the concepts of “use” and “consume”. They are distinguished by the type of use and the useful life of things. In the case of consumption, the object usually perishes after a single use, loses its value immediately in the process of use. The use of a thing wears out an object, but it can be used several times and is not consumed by the single use. The difference between an object of use and an object of consumption can be seen in the two different manifestations of a handkerchief, a paper handkerchief and a cloth handkerchief. A paper handkerchief usually loses its function with the single act of use, is thrown away and thus becomes waste. Only the raw material, the paper, can be reprocessed and used again as a recycling material. Paper handkerchiefs are a typical example of a consumer product. A cloth handkerchief, on the other hand, can be used several times, it belongs to the category of consumer goods. It does not disintegrate in the one-time use process, and can then be cleaned by washing and used again. Although it wears out during the usage process and loses its consistency through multiple usage and cleaning processes, it can be used for longer periods of time than consumer goods. Depending on the material from which they were made, the wear and tear of everyday objects is described in more detail by terms such as abrasion, scraping, scuffing, straining, leaching, thinning, dulling or tearing. Such terms indicate that the material from which the objects were made slowly disintegrates, wears away, through the process of constant use. In order to delay the process of wear of an object or to preserve its function, there are various courses of action: • Through maintenance and care, you can prolong the overall useful life of a thing. • By patching or mending, you can renew worn components of the item. • Repairing allows you to restore or replace defective components of a thing, extending its overall useful life.

About the Way We Deal with Things

55

• Repurposing is when the object is used for a new purpose not originally intended (e.g. the cloth handkerchief is used as a cleaning rag). • By recycling, the raw material from which the item was originally made is recovered and can then be used to make a new product. The listed actions lead to an extension of the useful life of things and thus to the preservation of a natural resource once extracted. Maintenance and care are processes to maintain the functionality of technical artefacts and to extend their service life. Maintenance is precautionary and often occurs at predetermined intervals (e.g. the inspection of cars). Maintenance is a “specific form of care” that manifests itself in “preventing the occurrence of ­damage by replacing wearing parts or regularly caring for objects (for example, by oiling, cleaning)” (Krebs et al., 2018, p. 29). The time dimension of waiting is also referred to by etymology, which at the same time connected waiting with awaiting, looking forward to something coming. In this respect, waiting is linked to a specific inherent temporality of things, which requires the person waiting to persevere and give things their time (cf. ibid.). The purpose of repair is to restore the functionality of a thing. A commonality between maintenance and repair is the objective of preserving things. Historically, repair has always been part of man’s interaction with things, but it has different meanings in different eras and cultures. Repairing is after-care and serves to remedy malfunctions or defects in function. Repairing helps to restore a thing that has already reached the end of its life or has become unusable, thereby extending its life. Both maintenance and repair delay wear and tear and the time when a thing becomes unusable. It can be used for a longer period of time until it is discarded. Mending refers to an early modern established practice of mending, etymologically in the sense of making good or whole again. The practices of mending were closely associated with the pre-industrial scarcity economy and craft culture. There was a difference in meaning between the concept of mending and that of repairing that is barely perceptible today: the word “repair” did not become common until the early twentieth century. During this period, changes occurred in the meaning and practice of dealing with things. In this context, the spread of talk of repairing seemed tied to the emergence of industrial modes of production in the nineteenth century. From a historical perspective, then, there was not only a general shift from repairing to the new production of things, but also a re-accentuation of repairing itself. There has been a shift from patching up to replacement-repair conditioned by standardization and the availability of spare parts (cf. Krebs et al., 2018, p. 28). Due to the modular design in vehicles and other technical devices that is wide-

56

T. Vogel

spread today, only defective parts are replaced; repair is no longer necessary or possible, and probably no longer desired by manufacturers. The repurposing of utilitarian objects was common practice in earlier times. The term “conversion” is understood to mean that an object is put to a second or further use. If today the process of repurposing is often found in connection with (agricultural) buildings that no longer correspond to the structural change and technological progress in the agricultural sector, it was common in earlier times to continue using everyday objects such as coffee cups with broken handles or a damaged cooking pot in other areas (cf. Reimers, 1986). There is a difference between repairing and reusing (or recycling) in terms of the object. Repairing aims at the further use of the object, whereas recycling is about the further use of the material value of an object. Thus, repairing focuses on the use value of a thing, whereas recycling focuses on the utilization of the material. Compared to repairing, recycling can be characterized as a “destructive practice of disposal” that “feeds a (throwaway) product that tends to be short-lived into a cycle of material reuse” (Krebs et  al., 2018, p.  30). Recycling in the sense of material reuse of the material present in an object is not a new invention of the throwaway society. In earlier times, this form of recycling materials was already common practice, for example in paper production from old textiles, the so-called rags. The forms of dealing with things that are conceptually concretized here have undergone a partly fundamental change of meaning in the course of history. This change in meaning was particularly shaped by the relationship between the material value of an object and its relationship to the value of the labour wage. Thus, in earlier times, a high material value of things often contrasted with a low level of wages, which meant that things had to be treated with care, preserved and used for as long as possible. This situation has changed fundamentally with the advent of industrial mass production, rising wage costs and falling material costs up to the present day.

3 The Handling of Things in the Course of History Human interaction with things has changed fundamentally, especially since the beginning of industrialization. In the past, people cherished all their possessions and used them for as long as possible. Things were acquired in order to keep them. The motto, Fromm noted, used to be “Old is beautiful!” (Fromm, 1980, p.  75). Today’s motto in dealing with things is: “Acquire – temporarily possess and use – throw away (or if possible profitably exchange for a better model) or acquire anew:

About the Way We Deal with Things

57

that is the cycle; ...” (ibid.). According to Fromm, people influenced by marketing now follow the motto that new is beautiful (cf. ibid.). The development of the handling of things went through different phases. In the nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, the care, repair and wear and tear of everyday objects, as well as their repurposing and the recycling of raw materials, were still part of everyday culture. The way things were handled in these times was due on the one hand to a situation of scarcity and the fact that a high material value contrasted with a low wage level. At the same time, however, it was also an expression of a general appreciation of things. For example, special items of clothing had to undergo a decline from Sunday to everyday wear: “In the case of ‘good’ clothes, wear and tear was kept in check by wearing them only occasionally. If a boy’s Sunday trousers were no longer in good condition, they could still serve as school trousers for a long time until they wore out. After that, the trousers were only used in the afternoon and finally as work clothes” (Reimers, 1986, p. 7). Textiles are a good illustration of the more mindful way of dealing with things at that time: “It was a matter of course to darn socks, sweaters, etc., to turn garments, collars and cuffs. The ribbing of, for example, gloves to the point of damage and new knitting on of the damaged part were often practiced, as was the sewing on of patches (which in turn were made of fabric that could no longer be repaired). [...] In times when aprons were worn throughout, patching fabric for the otherwise good skirt could be cut out where the apron sat, thus gaining suitable patching material for the worn back. A knitted sweater was made into socks, gloves, or a pot holder. Sugar or flour sacks became petticoats and aprons. Potato sacks became work aprons or, rolled up, served as a seal on drafty doors.” (ibid.) Things were used and preserved more intensively. Already during the manufacturing process, care was taken to ensure that objects could be used for as long as possible. Objects that could be used in a functional way were passed on to the next generations. A suit, for example, was therefore made in such a way that it could be sewn around several times so that men of different sizes and figures could use it and it could be passed on across generations. The consequences that man inflicted on nature in earlier epochs through the production and use of things could be ethically justified to the extent that the goods were put to sustainable use. The raw materials taken from nature were intensively used. Many things, having lost their primary function, were needed in other functions through repurposing. And finally, even if further repurposing was no longer possible, at least the raw materials from which the things were made were recycled. Thus, the raw materials once obtained were used for long periods of time before being returned to the natural cycle and succumbing to natural decomposition.

58

T. Vogel

4 Forms and Problems of Dealing with Things Today From the “mending culture” of the past to the abundance, acceleration and throwaway society of today, a specific change in the way we deal with things has emerged (Fig. 1). Whereas the pre-industrial “scarcity society” was characterized by repairing, reworking and reusing as a survival strategy, from the abundance society and in the course of the throwaway society, a superficial and short-term use of consumer goods has prevailed, which, in view of low new acquisition prices, foregoes waiting and caring for as well as repairing many things (cf. Krebs et  al., 2018, p.  13). Today’s way of dealing with things can rather be characterized by the ­fast-­moving nature of a paper tissue. If possible, things should perish in their onetime encounter with the world (cf. Anders, 1986, p. 54). Well-known sociological categories for characterizing modern industrial societies provide relevant clues to the way we deal with things today. Viewed from different perspectives, sociologists refer to these societies as a throwaway society, an acceleration society, an affluent society, or an affluent society. Each of these designations points to specific features of the way we deal with things. The terms affluent society and affluent society emerged in the 1960s and described situations that enabled the majority of the population to satisfy material Timetable

The way we deal with things

Consumption of resources

Humans rarely repurpose things. Beginning of industrial mass production

Humans rarely repair/mend things anymore when they are damaged. Humans no longer wear things out. Humans produce things that are quickly consumed. Humans produce things that are unfixable. Humans produce things whose wear and durability are already planned during production (obsolescence). Humans produce things that are socially rendered useless by fashion trends. Humans mass-produce things that already look repaired and historic.

Today

© Thomas Vogel

Fig. 1  Dealing with things since the beginning of industrialization. (Source: © Thomas Vogel)

About the Way We Deal with Things

59

needs far above the subsistence level, as well as extensive opportunities for consumption, and in which many also participated in “prestige consumption” and luxury goods. The term “affluent society” was coined by the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1959). He used it to describe a development in which social wealth expands to such an extent that consumer goods, commodities and services eventually become abundant. As a result of an abundant supply of consumer goods and rising incomes, the longevity of products becomes less important; in many cases, long-lived products are replaced by short-lived products purchased at shorter intervals. The abundance society consequently led to the “throwaway society”. The term “throwaway society” describes a mentality that is characterised by a wasteful use of natural resources (energy, materials) and rapid consumption (consumerism), as well as by the destruction of the natural basis of life due to the short useful life of things. In the throwaway society, usable and new products are thrown away in ever shorter cycles, or goods are produced in such a way that they can only be used for a short time. The origins of the throwaway society lie in the USA at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when hygiene articles such as toilet paper, nappies, handkerchiefs or sanitary towels began to be manufactured for single use. After World War II, numerous other disposable items such as paper cups, plastic utensils, beverage containers, and more were added. The throwaway society has made short-term use and quick discarding a routine for dealing with things. The term “acceleration society” also refers to phenomena of the throwaway society. Rosa defines acceleration as an increase in quantity per unit of time, whereby the quantity can be various things such as a distance travelled, volumes of data communicated, goods produced or also the quantity of consumer goods used per unit of time (cf. Rosa, 2005, p. 115). The specific character of the acceleration society with regard to the relationship to things is encountered today in terms such as “fast fashion” or “fast food”. In order to encourage people to accelerate consumption, the industry uses many psychological and technical means. These means used by the industry are called planned obsolescence.1 The term obsolescence comes from Latin (“obsolescere”)  The term “planned obsolescence” was already used in 1960 by Vance Packard, who subjected it to a differentiated examination in his study “The Great Waste” (cf. ibid. p. 59 f.). Kreiß (2014, p. 15) defines planned obsolescence as a targeted reduction in the economic durability of products, which is not disclosed by the manufacturers, with the purpose of triggering premature replacement purchases by customers. In this context, Kreiß also speaks of a “variety of covert product deterioration” (ibid., emphasis in the original). Within our economic system, it is in the interest of numerous (not all) producers to artificially shorten the product life cycle of their products in order to increase sales volume. Evidence of a deliberate, i.e. planned, shortening of the product life cycle is provided, among other things, by an expert report commissioned by Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (2014). 1

60

T. Vogel

and literally means to wear out, become obsolete or out of use. In modern marketing strategies, one can observe a planned, deliberate control of the process of wear and tear and aging of things and distinguish here three different strategies: 1. functional obsolescence: an existing product becomes obsolete through the introduction of a new one that fulfils its functions (often supposedly) better. (iPhone generations, VW Golf models, etc.) Functional obsolescence/aging can initially be viewed positively in terms of technical progress; it is about a product being replaced by a new one due to technical improvements (e.g. the corded telephone by the cordless mobile phone). But if it is a question of a model generation being replaced by a new product only because of marginal – i.e. very minor – technical changes, and if it is ultimately only a question of encouraging customers to change the product in order to remain “up-to-date”, functional obsolescence becomes psychological. It probably has little to do with technical progress when a smartphone is offered in 22 model variants within 13 years.2 The motive for these model changes is not to offer the consumer something technically better, but rather to push company sales. 2. qualitative obsolescence: a product fails or wears out at a certain planned, usually not too distant time. For many products, companies attempt to accelerate consumption through planned qualitative obsolescence. In doing so, they use various means to ensure that their products become obsolete or break down early. In addition, manufacturers use various other methods to make their products in need of replacement (cf. Kreiß, 2014):

• They make it impossible or difficult to repair their products. • They only hold spare parts for short periods of time. • They don’t offer maintenance, service, or – especially with digital devices – updates. • They deliberately plan incompatibilities with other devices of the same function (e.g. charging cables). Through such macroeconomically and ecologically nonsensical strategies, consumption is compulsively accelerated. 3. psychological obsolescence: a product that is still good in terms of quality and performance is considered obsolete and worn out because it seems less desir Cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone. Accessed: 15 March 2020.

2

About the Way We Deal with Things

61

able due to fashion or other changes. Fashion, Anders argues, is a measure taken by industry to make its own products in need of replacement. It renders the still well-warming coat, since it cannot physically ruin it, socially useless (cf. Anders, 1986, p. 48). In this context, fast fashion is a current trend of acceleration, in which fashion chains throw collections onto the market at ever shorter intervals. Market leaders in this field offer up to 24 collections every year. Fast fashion is changing the way we deal with clothing: “Every German buys around 60 new items of clothing a year and wears them for half as long as 15 years ago. Yet the wardrobes are already full: various surveys show that almost everyone has items of clothing in their wardrobe that are never worn” (Greenpeace, 2017, p. 3). A further stage of perverse production and corresponding consumption is represented by the so-called vintage trend. “Since repaired things already have rarity value, they are ‘repaired’ (and by the disposable industry itself) and thus ‘historical’ looking products are produced” (Anders, 1986, p.  283). The current “used look” of the textile industry, in that patched, torn or abraded garments are stylized as a trend, illustrates this development. Significant traces of use are artificially applied to things, either industrially or by hand, with the aim of creating an appearance that looks as if the object is old and has a history, was bought at a flea market or inherited. What in earlier times were called “traces of use” are artificially produced. The final stage of wastefulness is the destruction of new, unused things; that is, things made without ever being used immediately become waste. This phenomenon can be observed in online retailing. There, new consumer goods that are returned by the customer are simply scrapped because the effort to bring these things back into the trade is not economically worthwhile. According to the results of a study by the University of Bamberg (2019), in 2018, of the 487 million items returned to online retailers in total – i.e. together with unusable returns – around 20 million were simply scrapped or disposed of. The current way of dealing with things is also changing due to digitalization, which is accompanied by automation, remote control of processes and artificial intelligence. With the smartphone, man has created a new tool that combines many functions of other devices. In addition to a camera and radio, it is also an alarm clock, timetable, clock, calendar with reminder function, notepad, it provides the latest news and weather reports, navigates us through traffic and allows us to play games to pass the time. It has thus become an omnipresent constant companion of people. In the so-­ called smarthome, another variant of digitalization, different networked devices

62

T. Vogel

“communicate” with each other. Smarthome serves as a generic term for technical processes and systems in living spaces and houses that focus on increasing the quality of living and life, security and efficient energy use on the basis of networked and remotely controllable devices and installations as well as automatable processes. This term covers both the networking of home technology and household appliances (for example, light sources, blinds, heating, but also cookers, refrigerators and washing machines) and the networking of consumer electronics components (such as the central storage and home-wide use of video and audio content). Inevitably, such smart technology is accompanied by a surge of alienation in the way we interact with things. People control the devices around them as far as possible from a distance. In the process, they lose their sensorimotor relationship with things. These accomplish certain tasks such as vacuuming, mowing the lawn or controlling heating, lighting and other household appliances as needed. The remote-­controlled devices, which work according to a programming, require neither an understanding of the function of the corresponding device nor their direct handling. Smart technology frees people from everyday chores and allows them to turn their attention to other activities. For example, you can have a remote-­ controlled robot mow the lawn or vacuum the house, and then get on an exercise bike or go to the gym, even if it’s for lack of exercise. One explanation for the accelerated metabolism between man and nature, which is increasingly becoming an ecological problem for us today, is often seen in the demand for a functioning modern economy. The economy, which is geared to constant growth, demands that all worldly things appear and disappear at an increasingly accelerated pace. The problems of dealing with things today, Hannah Arendt explained, result from the fact that we have evolved into a society of work and consumption that no longer produces the things of use, but only knows exclusively alienated labor for the production of objects of consumption. Today, man treats objects of use as if they were consumer goods. We have transformed the using of goods into consuming them, “so that now a chair or a table is consumed as quickly as a dress or a shoe once was, while a dress or a shoe is left in the world for as little longer as possible and is ‘consumed’ in much the same way as distinctly consumer goods” (Arendt, 1996 [1958], p. 147). Arendt drew from her analysis the conclusion that the functioning of the modern economy, centered on work and working people, demanded “that all worldly things appear and disappear at an increasingly accelerated rate” and would immediately come to a halt when people began “to put things to use, to respect them, and to preserve their inherent permanence” (ibid., p. 149). In place of duration, durability, continuance, the ideals of Homo faber, the world builder, Arendt argues, has come the ideal of the Animal laborans, which, when it dreams, dreams itself the abundance of a land of plenty (ibid., p. 150). The

About the Way We Deal with Things

63

modern economy, Arendt argues, has necessarily moved in the direction of a “waste economy”, an economy based on waste. Every object is treated as a reject, and things are used up and thrown away almost as quickly as they appear in the world (see Arendt, 1996 [1958], p.  158). This argumentation is still plausible; despite today’s pressing ecological problems, the so-called job argument is repeatedly used in discussions about a different, sustainable way of dealing with things. More and more natural resources are turning into waste at an ever faster rate. According to a recent study by the World Bank, the flood of waste is increasing rapidly worldwide. Currently, according to the World Bank report, there are about two billion tons of waste per year (World Bank Group, 2018). By 2050, urbanisation, population growth and further economic growth will increase the amount of waste by around 70% to around 3.4 billion tonnes per year. Plastic waste poses a particular challenge in this development. As recently as the 1950s, people used plastic with as much care as glass or silk. But then consumer goods companies discovered the benefits of the material and a lifestyle developed that incessantly produced waste. Between the years 1950 and 2015, 8.3 billion tons of plastic were produced worldwide. This is equivalent to more than one ton per person living on earth today. Plastics have become almost indispensable in industrial society. They can be found in plastic bags, smartphones and dashboards. However, almost half of all plastic products are waste after less than 1  month (Heinrich Böll Foundation/ BUND, 2019). Disposable products and packaging make up the very largest part. Not even ten percent of the plastic ever produced has been recycled. “In 2016, the world generated 242 million tonnes of plastic waste [...] Unlike organic waste, plastic in nature takes hundreds to thousands of years to decompose” (World Bank Group, 2018, p. 117). This waste causes significant health and environmental damage: “Plastic waste clogs drains, causing flooding; its incineration triggers respiratory problems and promotes climate change; its consumption shortens the life expectancy of animals; and when it enters canals and oceans, it pollutes water bodies” (ibid.). Earlier ways of dealing with things, such as caring for, maintaining and repairing them, have lost importance in the course of the emergence of the consumer and throwaway society in the twentieth century. In view of the fact that people in industrial societies have accumulated an abundance of goods, they can no longer devote the appropriate attention to individual objects for reasons of time. Therefore, only very valuable and particularly valued things are maintained and repaired. At the same time, a standard for prosperity, happiness and satisfaction has been established in industrial societies in the form of the indicator of gross national product, which takes only the speed of new products, sales of goods and the flow of money

64

T. Vogel

as a yardstick. The faster things become obsolete, wear out, break, or are thrown away, the more the gross national product increases. If, on the other hand, in the logic of the system, things last a very long time, do not become obsolete or broken, and can be repaired or repurposed, the gross national product falls and, in ­accordance with the paradoxical logic of prosperity, the satisfaction of the people falls. As long as this indicator serves as the central measure of people’s happiness and satisfaction in an economic system and people are driven to ever-increasing consumption, it will be difficult to change the way we deal with things. According to Rosa (2016), all objects that accompany people for part of their lives have an influence on their individual identity. Especially things that people produce or repair themselves become part of their everyday life experience and their personal identity. Acceleration, on the other hand, ensures a reduction of goods that contribute to identification. Technical acceleration had the effect of making the production of goods cheaper than their repairs, increasing the rate of exchange of objects and decreasing their lifespan. Therefore, people could no longer form long-term bonds with these objects. In addition, an increasing complexity of many products increasingly prevented them from being repaired by the individual. The individual thus lost his “cultural and practical competences” (ibid.). The lack of knowledge about the function and treatment of things led to the development of a guilty conscience towards these very objects. The consequence of this was an increasing alienation and uprooting of man from the world of things; for only the permanence of the world of things opens up a sense of home for man. From it “grows for us the familiarity of the world, its customs and traditions, which regulate the intercourse of man and thing as well as that between men” (Arendt, 1996 [1958], p. 112). As the world of things becomes increasingly fluid, man loses his familiar surroundings, is driven more and more into homelessness and becomes ill.

5 Aspects of a Sustainable Way of Dealing with Things The question of how we deal with things today is directly linked to the relationship of human beings to nature, to the relationship of human beings to each other and of the individual to himself. There is an indissoluble metabolic relationship between man and nature. Through production and consumption, man constantly transforms the given states of nature. Statistically, every German consumes 16.1 t of raw materials per year (Umweltbundesamt, 2018). Basler estimates that human-generated progress is currently occurring about a million times faster than the rate of evolution of nature. In terms of Earth history, he says, humans are on the verge of using

About the Way We Deal with Things

65

up all the fossil, liquid and gaseous fuels that nature has continuously accumulated in more than a year within 30 seconds (cf. Basler, 1973, p. 17). The consequences of the way we deal with things, such as climate change, the extinction of species or the shortage of raw materials, show that this consumption of energy and raw materials caused by our lifestyle is not sustainable. The current social crisis of nature results from a great difference between our ability to materially change natural conditions and a social as well as individual inability to feel and take responsibility for the effects of our actions. A change in the way we deal with things is necessary in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Because the way we deal with things has far-reaching ecological as well as social consequences, in future every production, every new acquisition and every use of things must be questioned with regard to the specific benefits and the possible consequences and side-effects. A culture of moderation would mean that people would form a moral imagination that would enable them to fundamentally incorporate the imagination and feeling for the consequences of the production and consumption of these objects, and to develop a corresponding attitude of value. Truly virtuous, according to Anders, would be the person who morally scrutinizes his possessions, who examines every possession for its implicit moral maxims. The imperative of our age, according to Anders, is: “Have only such things whose maxims of action could also become maxims of your own actions” (Anders, 1985 [1956], p. 298). This demand is initially directed at consumers; however, in view of today’s flood of goods and the confusion of goods, the consumer is morally overtaxed. Therefore, this demand must be addressed to the producers and the policy makers. Today’s demand for moderation results from the inability of contemporary culture to determine standards and set limits. This culture appears “sick of growth” in its excessiveness. This sickness is based on the fact that it lacks an idea of sufficiency. “We are unable to decide [...] what we actually need, in what quantity and quality. Our wants and needs are mutilated, formatted, impoverished as a result of the omnipresence of commercial propaganda and the overabundance of commodities” (Gorz, 2009, p. 84 f.). The establishment of a norm of sufficiency, he argues, is incompatible with the economic system’s striving for maximum return and therefore this system inevitably tends towards maximum waste (ibid., p. 42). What is needed, therefore, is a culture of moderation (Vogel, 2018). The concept of moderation, which can look back on 2500 years of philosophical history, is often misinterpreted in the German-speaking world and almost exclusively equated with renunciation, limitation or restriction. Correctly understood, “moderation” is about thinking and reflecting on one’s own life, one’s own needs, determining the right balance between too much and too little, and acting accordingly. Ancient ideas about temperance resulted from reflections on man as a think-

66

T. Vogel

ing being striving for inner peace. The Greek word for moderation “sophrosyne” was translated as “orderly understanding” and “prudent composure.” Through their understanding people are to bring order into their lives. They are to reflect and ­determine a right measure with regard to the handling of things, which lies between too much and too little. Moderation in dealing with things sensibly leads away from constant consumption to conscious use. Whereas in consuming things man is careless and indifferent to them, a conscious use is directed towards a careful, cautious and attentive handling. Orderly understanding and prudence ensure that we apply the right standards to our thoughts and actions and thus attain independence, freedom and a good life. The ancient philosopher Socrates (469–399 BC), looking at the masses of articles for sale in the market of Athens, often said to himself: “How numerous are the things of which I have no need” (Diogenes, 1990, p. 86). Thus, even in his own time, he called for a change of perspective and a greater reflexivity in dealing with things. He was not concerned with the question of what he lacked, but boasted of his freedom, which consisted in not needing things. By setting oneself apart from the things one does not need, man proves his independence and freedom. The Cynics also formulated a similar thought: ‘I do not possess, lest I be possessed’ (cited in Durant, 1978, p. 260). The Cynics drew attention to the fact that the possessions a person accumulates often bring dependencies. Their thought takes on an important meaning in an affluent society; for the people of this culture must not only acquire the many things they possess,3 but these objects must also be selected, placed, used, experienced, cared for, cleaned up, dusted off, repaired, stowed, and ultimately disposed of. Thus, they rob us of a great deal of time and make us dependent. Additionally, owning technical devices makes us dependent on expert knowledge to maintain and repair them. From this perspective, renunciation or more conscious consumption could also be acts of self-liberation. What does the virtue of moderation mean with regard to a future-oriented way of dealing with things? The virtue of moderation aims especially at a reflexive determination of a right measure in dealing with things. Every object we take possession of has to go through a life cycle from the extraction of the raw materials to the so-called disposal, which entails innumerable ecological and social consequences and side effects that are often difficult to comprehend. Only if people are aware of the explicit and implicit effects of the way they deal with things can they ultimately live up to their responsibility. Figure 2 shows rules for future-oriented consumption and a more mindful approach to things.

 Estimates suggest that the average European owns around 10,000 items (cf. Bigalke, 2011).

3

About the Way We Deal with Things Timetable

The way we deal with things

67 Consumption of resources

Considerable reflection on needs Today

Buying things new in a quality-conscious and sustainable way. Buying things used. Borrowing things from others. Swapping things with other people. Fixing things to extend their life. Making or repurposing things yourself.

Future

Use and care for the things you have for as long as possible. © Thomas Vogel

Fig. 2  Future-oriented cascade of use of things. (Source:© Thomas Vogel)

Many current ideas and concepts for curbing the wasteful use of things are based on historical models. Ideas such as the so-called “cradle-to-cradle concept” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) are borrowed from originally more mindful ways of dealing with things. They pursue the old goal of a circular economy that is as waste-free as possible, in which materials and nutrients circulate endlessly. The Swedish poet Hans-Christian Andersen (1952 [1862]) already had this idea in mind when, in the mid-nineteenth century, he called for a sensual, qualitative approach to natural raw materials in the fairy tale The Flax. At the heart of this fairy tale was the idea of using a raw material once it had been extracted for as long as possible. In the story, Andersen describes the “life cycle” of flax: This first comes to bloom in a field and is happy. But man puts an abrupt end to the flax; it is harvested and processed into linen in a painful transformation process. The flax, however, perceives this metamorphosis into “a beautiful, large piece of linen” as a new happiness. However, this is by no means the end of his life’s journey, for the linen comes under the scissors and twelve pieces of underwear are created. This too is seen as great happiness, for now the flax creates usefulness in the world. The linen does not last forever, however, and so the flax must again suffer what is at first an agonizing process of change, but which then turns it into beautiful white paper on which to write the most beautiful stories and verses. The flax rejoices in its renewed, very special happiness; for what was written on the paper was so wise and so good, and it made people much wiser and better. It was, after all, so much more than one could dream of as a little blue flower in the field. But even that was not the end of it. The paper came to the printer, and in this form the flax now felt itself to be the very

68

T. Vogel happiest. But after a time the book was thrown into a bin and finally burned in the hearth. But even in burning it still performed a delightful task: the red sparks that shot up from the fire delighted the children. Flax, now atomized into invisible beings from the fire, was overjoyed and said to himself, “The song is never out, and that is the most glorious thing of all, we know it, and that is why we are so happy – so indescribably happy” (Andersen, 1952 [1862], p. 85).

Crucial elements of the course of events in this story are that the plant has grown naturally and thus comes to its life bloom as well as the strict recycling of things after the loss of their respective use value. In addition, the fairy tale describes the metamorphosis of the flax in such a way that it becomes a way of life that looks like a ripening far beyond the vegetable fruit and is connected with an associated pain of value (cf. Meyer-Abich, 1990, p. 104). The fairy tale shows structural elements of a so-called product line analysis, a tool developed by ecological economic research in the 1980s to analyse the social, economic and ecological consequences and side effects of a product from raw material extraction, production and consumption to disposal. Just as there are food chains in the natural world to which we connect ourselves in such a way that the overall structure of life for each other is disturbed as little as possible, the way of thinking in Andersen’s fairy tale or the product line approach can be taken as a model for corresponding metamorphosis chains in the economy. Through various transformations, so-called cascades of use of things are created, which fit into a cycle as much as possible. The fairy tale “The Flax” brings before our eyes the question of how we want to deal with the “value pain of things” at present and in the future. The morality expressed in the fairy tale stands in stark contrast to our current practice of industrial production and our wasteful consumerism. As long as fashion trends and built-in obsolescence guide our consumption, it is hard to think of compassion for the “Werdeschmerz” of things, of a sensual, pleasurable and moderating way of dealing with our fellow world. The contrast between the idealistic approach depicted in the fairy tale and our current practice clarifies the problem and expands our perspective, which is narrowed by economic and technical-scientific ways of thinking, towards a reconcilable relationship between man and nature in dealing with things.

References Anders, G. (1985 [1956]). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. erster Band: Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution (2. unv. Aufl.). Beck. Anders, G. (1986). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. zweiter Band: Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. (4. unv. Aufl.0. Beck.

About the Way We Deal with Things

69

Andersen, H.-C. (1952 [1862]). Der Flachs. In T.  Ramsay (Hrsg.), Andersens Märchen. Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft. Arendt, H. (1996 [1958]). Vita activa oder vom tätigen Leben (8. Aufl.) Piper. Basler, E. (1973). Strategie des Fortschritts. Verlag Huber. Bigalke, S. (2011). Wenn Besitz zur Last wird. Süddeutsche Zeitung. www.sueddeutsche. de/leben/moderne-­sammelwut-­wenn-­besitz-­zur-­last-­wird-­1.1089089. Accessed 20 Feb 2018. Bund, Misereor, (Hrsg.). (1997). Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland – ein Beitrag zu einer global nachhaltigen Entwicklung. 4. überarbeitete und 4. überarbeitete und (erweiterte). Birkhäuser. Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2014). Geplante Obsoleszenz. Gekauft, gebraucht, kaputt – vom viel zu kurzen Leben vieler Produkte. Bundestag Publikationen. https://www.gruene-­ bundestag.de/publikationen/publikationen-­detailseite/gepla.nte-­obsoleszenz?cHash=3ba c8d74b47359f5cea540d3728e9905. Accessed 9 Juni 2020. Diogenes, L. (1990). Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen. Übersetzt und erläutert von Otto Apelt (3. Aufl.). Felix Meiner. Durant, W. J. (1978). Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit. Band 3. Das klassische Griechenland. Südwest. Freud, S. (2000 [1941]). Das Unbehagen in der Kultur. Und andere kulturtheoretische Schriften (6. Aufl.). Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Fromm, E. (1980). Haben oder Sein – Die seelischen Grundlagen einer neuen Gesellschaft (4. Aufl.). Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag. Galbraith, J. K. (1959). Gesellschaft im Überfluss (1. Aufl.). Droemersche Verlagsanstalt. Gorz, A. (2009). Auswege aus dem Kapitalismus. Beiträge zur politischen Ökologie. Rotpunktverlag. Greenpeace. (Hrsg.). (2017). Konsumkollaps durch fast fashion. Eigenverlag. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Bund (Hrsg.) (2019). Plastikatlas – Daten und Fakten über eine Welt voller Kunststoff (2. Aufl.). Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Plastikatlas. https://www.boell.de/de/ plastikatlas. Accessed 26 Februar 2019. Krebs, S., Schabacher, G., & Weber, H. (2018). Kulturen des Reparierens. Dinge – Wissen – Praktiken. transcript Verlag. Kreiß, C. (2014). Geplanter Verschleiß. Wie die Industrie uns zu immer mehr und immer schnellerem Konsum antreibt – und wie wir uns dagegen wehren können. Europa Verlag. Latour, B. (2005). Von der Realpolitik zur Dingpolitik oder Wie man Dinge öffentlich macht. Merve. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle – Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press. Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1990). Aufstand für die Natur. Von der Umwelt zur Mitwelt. Hanser. Reimers, G. (1986). Abnutzen, flicken und wiederverwenden in der Alltagskultur auf dem Lande. In von H. W. Löbert (Hrsg.) Materialien Landwirtschaftsmuseum Hösseringen (Nr. 4). C. Becker. Rosa, H. (2005). Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Frankfurt a. M. Rosa, H. (2016). Beschleunigung und Entfremdung. Entwurf einer Kritischen Theorie spätmoderner Zeitlichkeit. Unter Mitarbeit von Robin Celikates. 5. Aufl. Suhrkamp.

70

T. Vogel

Umweltbundesamt. (Hrsg.) (2018). Rohstoffkonsum steigt wieder an - auf 16,1 Tonnen pro Kopf und Jahr. Umweltbundesamt Pressemitteilungen. https://www.umweltbundesamt. de/presse/pressemitteilungen/rohstoffkonsum-­steigt-­wieder-­an-­auf-­161-­tonnen-­pro. Accessed 6 Sept 2019. Vogel, T. (2018). Mäßigung – Was wir von einer alten Tugend lernen können. oekom. World Bank Group. (Hrsg.) (2018). What a Waste 2.0. A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Open Knowledge Repository. https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/handle/10986/30317. Accessed 26 Feb 2020.

A Norwegian Circular Economy? Protestant Visions of an Alternative to Mass Consumerism Thomas Edward Sutcliffe and Thomas Berker

Abstract

Like many other successful terms, ‘circular economy’ is weakly defined and open to different interpretations. This openness, which enables adoption by a broad coalition of actors, has been dealt with in the academic literature by repeated efforts to define and categorise. Instead of adding yet another definition, in this chapter, we describe the particular vision of a ‘circular economy’ which is performed in the context of the Norwegian region of Trøndelag. Drawing on two cases which are interpreted with the help of the concepts of the sociotechnical imaginary and sociotechnical vanguard, we present a specific vision of a feasible and desirable alternative future deeply rooted in protestant ethics of individual responsibility and the absolute reduction of consumption. Because of these historical and cultural roots, we argue that despite opposing trends, this vision has a good chance of becoming the dominant vision of a sustainable future in the Norwegian context.

T. E. Sutcliffe () • T. Berker Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_5

71

72

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

1 Introduction In hindsight, the visions, hopes and convictions of those driving processes of industrialisation in the Eighteenth Century appear as destined to succeed and unavoidable. It is not easy to imagine a world in which industrial forms of production were a radical alternative and in which their protagonists were weird exceptions dreaming of very different futures than most people. Max Weber’s “Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism” (2005 [1905]) describes these early industrialists as outsiders that clung to a new set of beliefs, which both motivated them and justified the consequences of their actions. In this chapter, following Weber’s example, we trace alternative beliefs and dreams of a better future among Norwegian p­ roponents of a circular economy. To be able to do so, we are less interested in circularity as incremental adaptations leading to more efficient and sustainable industrial production, but will focus on those descriptions that potentially are vanguard visions of an everyday life that transcends industrial production and consumption. Many elements of these visions of a circular world are imported from the outside and will be familiar to readers that have followed the career of circular economy ideas during the previous decade. But, as we will argue, the socio-technical imaginaries present in Norwegian programmatic manifests and initiatives, are also exemplars of at least one specific aspect, which we will call its reference to Northern European Protestantism. In the next section, we will describe our approach, combining the inspiration of Weber’s classic text with the influential concept of sociotechnical imaginaries developed by Jasanoff and Kim (2009, 2015) and sociotechnical vanguard by Hilgartner (2015). We then move on to describe the background and context of our cases – circular initiatives connected to the influential Norwegian environmental non-governmental organisation (ENGO) “Future in our hands”1 (FIOH). The presentation and discussion of our cases conclude this chapter.

2 From Ethics to Visions and Imaginaries Weber’s treatise on “The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism” is commonly read as an alternative to Marxist interpretations of the birth of capitalism and the industrial revolution. In this opposition, Marx is, of course, the materialist, and Weber the idealist thinker, which would render their positions diametrical oppo-

 «Framtiden i våre hender» in Norwegian.

1

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

73

sites. Weber seems to have foreseen this reading and ends on a cautious note calling for more research on how protestant ethics not only made possible and formed early capitalism but also how it has been formed by “the totality of social conditions, especially economic” (Weber, 2005 [1905], S. 125). Thus, Weber wants his treatise to be read as a study of how collectively held visions of a good life participate in creating new ‘social conditions, especially economic’ not as exclusive to their cause. Weber analyses Calvinist, Methodist, Pietist, and Baptist religious doctrines that, according to him, only differ in the degree of their “iron consistency” (ibid., S. 87) but not in their basic compatibility with principles of capitalist entrepreneurialism. Weber shows that these religious writings break with previously dominant Catholic and Lutheran ethics in ways more consistent with capitalist economic activity than with other forms of production and exchange. Such affinities between collectively imagined forms of social order and large-­ scale societal projects have more recently been analysed using the framework of sociotechnical imaginaries developed by Jasanoff and Kim (2009, 2015). Sociotechnical imaginaries are “collectively imagined forms of social life and social order reflected in the design and fulfilment of nation-specific scientific and/or technological projects” (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009, S. 120). These imaginaries can be rooted in a collective’s past, but they are more than the stories an imagined community tells since they are directed towards an attainable and desirable future. Within this framework, the ethics that Weber found formulated and practised by early capitalists corresponds to what Hilgartner (2015) has called vanguard visions: “the visions of single individuals or small collectives, gaining traction through blatant exercises of power or sustained acts of coalition building” (Jasanoff, 2015, S. 4). In this sense, calling a collectively held vision of a plausible and desirable future a vanguard vision, will always be a label that is applied retrospectively. Only a few visions will succeed in becoming a widely shared socio-­technical imaginary. It is plausible that in today’s secularized West, neither vanguard visions nor sociotechnical imaginaries are any longer formulated in religious writings – even though they may have religious overtones. However, the common element between Weber’s protestant religious beliefs and today’s vanguard visions and sociotechnical imaginaries is that they contain strong ethical programs in the form of visions and prescriptions about how one should lead a good life now and in the future. In this way, vanguard visions motivate and justify change as much as the religious believers of the past.

74

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

3 Circular Economy: An Emerging Sociotechnical Imaginary? Recently, several observers have elevated circular economy in Finland and Flanders to the status of a sociotechnical imaginary (Fratini et  al., 2019; Bocken et  al., 2019). Indeed, the circular economy is currently one of the most promising contenders to linear, industrial ways of organizing the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. In Norway, as elsewhere, the circular economy is promoted by groups that otherwise have very different visions of a better future. It is seen as a way to increase Norway’s competitive advantage by parties that promote market-liberal policies, it is proposed by environmental groups as the ultimate means to get to terms with climate change, and it is part of a vision of a better, simpler and more fulfilling life beyond the pleasures of consumerism. Despite this support from a diverse set of actors and despite the circular economy’s recent rise to prominence in environmental policies all over the world, there is good reason to believe that the dominant sociotechnical imaginary of how to deal with climate change and other environmental challenges is the continued belief in unchanged high levels of consumption enabled by ‘green growth’ and technological innovation. For example, in Norwegian and European research funding, while the circular economy has entered the scene, there is still a dominant emphasis on innovation and technological development aiming at product substitution (Vittersø & Strandbakken, 2016, S. 13) in which unsustainable technologies are replaced with more sustainable options. Framed in the theoretical terms laid out in the previous section, the existence of a tension between increasing coalition building around circular alternatives and the persistent dominance of a sociotechnical imaginary that is defended by incumbent actors (Geels, 2014), means that circular visions are potential vanguard visions. They are not yet (part of) a sociotechnical imaginary, but they may very well become (part of) one, which would, in hindsight, justify calling them vanguard visions in Hilgartner’s and Jasanoff’s sense. In what follows, we discuss circular economy initiatives in the Norwegian context as vanguard vision ‘to be’, i.e. we ask how these initiatives and their visions could become part of a national sociotechnical imaginary that transcends linear industrial visions of continued growth.

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

75

4 Background: Norway and Future in Our Hand’s Early Consumption Critique Norway’s economic history follows in many ways the European example. It took part in the industrialisation processes of the last 200  years that made economic growth possible (Munthe, 2014). Trade agreements and cooperation with other countries saw Norwegian society and businesses enriched by new impulses that spurred advanced economic activity. This activity, among others, resulted in a steady growth in domestic product, which enabled high investments in production equipment, education, technical, and organisational improvements in the public and private sectors. Additionally, the emergence of the consumer society, which took place in the decades after the Second World War, saw the mass consumption of standardised products and services rise (Myrvang, 2009). Houses got bigger, people spent less money on food, and filled their houses instead with furniture, electrical appliances, clothes, and other miscellaneous products that were produced and sold. The so-called ‘oil fairy tale’ (‘oljeeventyr’) since the beginning of the 1970s is seen as a pivotal piece in how today’s, Norwegian society has come to be. Where other countries saw temporal declines in economic growth, in Norway, the consumer society steamed onward, and private consumption grew threefold over the coming 50 years (Myrvang, 2009). Myrvang points out that during the twentieth century, each Norwegian has become eight times richer on average. The consumer society, then, points to central characteristics of Norwegian society. Due to its oil and natural gas fuelled uninterrupted growth and low degrees of social inequality, Norway has acquired a wealthy and broad middle class which has extraordinary consumption power. However, even though Norway can be seen as exemplary for a mass consumption society which is undisturbed by economic disruptions, in this little country in the far north, earlier than in other countries, mass consumption has also been diagnosed as something profoundly wrong, in a cultural critique of the material consumption’s position and status in society. An influential proponent of this consumer critique was the Norwegian Erik Dammann, a former marketing consultant, who in 1972 published the book “Future in our hands”. It began with the thought that: we must consider the world as a united source of raw materials for our subsistence, and humanity as one family where everyone is born with the equal right to what Earth provides, independent of where one happens to be born. (Dammann, 1972, S. 15, our translation).

76

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

Considering this, he continues, we find a vastly different and unfair situation. Europe and North America, with its third of the world population, have usurped almost all power and influence over Earth’s inhabitants. The continents with the richest deposits of natural resources are those that have least access to them. Dammann rhetorically and sarcastically questions this logic and imbalance and asks if a new allocation of these resources wouldn’t be a natural solution, and a reduction in consumption to redress scarcity among the poor? Dammann (1972) writes that a more human approach is needed in which we critically ask ourselves if experts can find solutions. What happens when experts decide? Are other human needs outside of money addressed when economists design models of society? Do engineers consider the future homes of people when suburbs are built? And what happens when people lose trust in themselves to know what is best for them? It provides these experts with an open playing field. Dammann, then, concludes that it is the experts that need to be guided by the people. Dammann’s (1972) starting point is to hold back, to not blindly follow current development in Norway and other countries. Second, he proposes that citizens should see their work, conduct of life, and acquisitions in a greater picture. For him, it is important not to lose sight of what others think either, e.g. wanting a bigger car and more comfort, but become aware and attentive to the pressure such development involves. “To become human instead of a consumer” (Dammann, 1972, S. 169), he claims, means finding the ‘real’ joys of life, and his normative messages point to what everyone can do as an individual, to rely on what one believes is right, and show to others that the future, indeed, is ‘in our own hands’. Encouraged by the enthusiastic reception of his book, in 1974, amidst booming consumerism and in a time in which Norway’s ‘oil fairy-tale’ just had begun, Dammann held the speech “the merry madness”2 (Dammann, 1974) in a tightly packed sports hall west of Oslo, Norway. This ‘madness’ pointed to the aforementioned unfair distribution of raw materials between the global North and South that high-­industrialised countries and their market-oriented systems managed. His public talk to some 3000 attendees, would become the people’s movement known as Future in Our Hands (FIOH). FIOH, then, was established in protest towards this unjust course, against hunger, and other crises in the global South, but simultaneously addressed the problems in the global North. FIOH argued that overconsumption, too, brought about social and psychological issues by working long hours to elevate income, but moreover that people were engrossed in material values. Such global humanism, solidarity, and a holistic critique of consumption and distribution distinguished FIOH from other development aid organisations (Hansen, 2007)  «Det glade vanvidd» in Norwegian.

2

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

77

and – at least in the early 1970s – distinguished this Norwegian social movement from others in other countries. Since the 1970s, FIOH has grown to 38,000 members, which is even more impressive if one considers that Norway has only five million inhabitants. It has become an important voice and source of information and pressure pertaining to misleading and deceptive advertisements, openness in industry, and ethical guidelines for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund. FIOH has of late become an important proponent for a circular economy and released in 2019 a report which shows a heavy investment and belief in this economic paradigm. In line with FIOH’s historical roots, the report emphasises individual attitude changes to shift to circular modes of consumption. The report’s normative message sums this up: “You must accustom yourself to share, repair, take care of and most importantly – consume less” (Boye, 2019, S. 52). Images mobilized are of a recent past, in which people lived without waste: We humans have always known how to preserve the resources around us and how to exploit waste. Many Norwegians remember how generations before us knew how to produce goods of high quality and how to care for them. We repaired, and were creative with the resources that we had at our disposal. In villages there was almost no waste. Food waste became compost, clothes were redesigned until they found a new life as cloth and rags. (Boye, 2019, S. 8, our translation).

From FIOH’s standpoint, a turn to a circular economy entails not just economy, but a deeper and structural change in society geared towards how one should live one’s life, which is something Dammann has stood for since the beginning. FIOH’s adaptation of the circular economy to the Norwegian context is consequential not only because of the influence of this organisation on policy makers and policy but also – as we will argue after we have presented two instances of this influence – because FIOH promotes a particular version of a circular vision.

5 Case Overview The cases of FIOH’s circular initiatives presented here are situated in the Norwegian medium-sized city Trondheim and region Trøndelag. The cases represent few instances of public–private-ENGO collaboration on consumption reduction and a reorganization of consumption in the region. Since autumn 2019, we have participated in an observatory capacity at three FIOH events related to case nr. 1, where we have followed its development. An interview with a public librarian involved in circular initiatives is also informing case nr. 2. Hence, the selection of these cases

78

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

is based on their relevance for the region’s shift to a potential, future circular economy. These actors are mainly working with utilising second-hand resources in textiles, construction material, and food waste. The alternatives and the transition that local and national policies favour, can be interpreted to be at odds with a specific Norwegian comfort culture, which is deeply embedded in most Norwegian people’s lives. Very high living standards, soaring levels of private consumption, and low population density produce a challenging situation for those aspects of a circular transition that restrict current ways of consumption and are based on sharing of resources, extending product lifetime, and reducing waste accumulation. Politically, the Trøndelag region is committed to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 12 to ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns, and especially goal 12.5, which states that “[b]y 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse” (UN SDG, n.d.). Thus, because of the current high consumption culture in Norway that we described, an alternative scenario is projected to reduce private consumption in the county Trøndelag, but also to reach SDG number 12. The ­concept of circular economy, which is a way to think of production and consumption as more sustainable, is an official part of the county’s value creation strategy (Trøndelag County, 2017) and its appurtenant action programme (Trøndelag County, 2019). They emphasise the development of “business models for resource-efficient production and consumption of resources. Increased utilisation of residual raw materials based on product innovation and business cooperation” (Trøndelag County, 2017, S. 4). The following parts describe cases that project this contextually new way of imagining consumption and production. However, to be noted, these cases are ongoing projects and the results, especially pertaining to case nr. 1, have yet to materialise.

5.1 Case 1: “Reduced Consumption Through Increased Reuse, Repair and Redesign” In 2019, a pilot study on the co-location of circular initiatives showed a potential for value creation for stakeholders within the reuse, repairs, and sharing economy in Trøndelag. It showed that a circular economy is a feasible future for the region. However, according to the County Commissioner’s Report (2020), existing circular initiatives are small, fragmented, and need increased knowledge to become competitive. For a vanguard vision, this fragmentation is to be expected as well as the expressed desire to become ‘competitive’ within the existing frame of reference.

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

79

The results of the pilot study were used to argue for funding of a larger project in which FIOH assembled a network of actors interested in gathering experience with circular economy. The application centred on competence building for the network resulting in new activity within reuse, repairs, redesign, including a well-­ functioning network of circular business stakeholders, as well as increased demand for circular products and services (County Commissioner Report, 2020). The project received funding for 2 years (2020–2022). In line with FIOH’s focus on individual consumption, the goal of the project is to reduce consumption and waste from private dwellings in Trøndelag, and it is to strengthen the competitiveness of actors within reuse, repairs, and design. The project’s stakeholders gathered by FIOH are the county municipality of Trøndelag, which is facilitating the project, the waste cluster of mid-Norway, the Trondheim public waste department (TRV), and Trondheim municipality. There are three main targets for this project, (1) to increase reuse, (2) to strengthen private businesses offering repair, reuse, and redesign, and (3) to increase interest and positive attitudes towards reuse, repairs, and redesign. The ­targets aim at increasing levels of reuse in Trøndelag. Its complimenting activities are primarily focused on raising awareness through posts via blog forums and the news media. Secondly, it is about mapping resources and stakeholders and identifying potential cooperation with relevant stakeholders to forward the development of a circular Trondheim. Moreover, stakeholders are mapped, developing concepts and guidelines, and establishing a network. To sustain the networks, workshops and courses along with social measures are to be held and taken. Finally, activities aim at knowledge creation through concrete activities such as workshops, attitude campaigns, and lectures on consumption practices. Recently, to facilitate this network, a digital platform has been established. Later in the project, a larger physical location in Trondheim is to host these ‘green actors’ where resources are shared to increase the utilisation of used materials from TRV. This location is aimed to be an important piece in the realisation of the project’s goal of reducing consumption through more accessible resources. A challenge for many of these smaller actors is that their businesses are conducted in addition to their full-time job, which makes growing their operations difficult. The application text consists mainly of references to existing plans and political programs related to sustainability, such as commitments to climate change mitigation and fulfilment of the UN SDGs. The passages in which circular economy is mentioned explicitly refer exclusively to private consumption in the context of a generational shift:

80

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker [s]ince one-two generations ago, we have gone from a circular society to a use and discard of single-use based products. For a sustainable economy, we must return to products that are made to last and to stimulate repairs and reuse of materials (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 6, our translation).

Formulated as a ‘must’, the circular economy is presented not only as informed by the past but also as a necessity for the future. According to the application text, circular economy activities, such as repair, are only ‘forgotten’ because of the lack of opportunity to be reminded of how easy they are: A new generation of young people has ‘forgotten’ the values and methods around repair, re-use and craft. Consumers that never have engaged in these activities think that it is difficult and impossible to repair their products. But repair has to be discovered! Repairing things, one often discovers that it is easy and one will most likely engage in repair activities again. Knowledge around repair, reuse and recycling increases the value of the product for the consumer. Sustainability has to be an experience! (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 2, our translation).

In the context of FIOH’s history, the re-discovery of the individual’s ability to achieve repair contributes, first and foremost, to the desired overall reduction of consumption. The additional value contributed by the experience of repair is emphasised: one does not lose the ability to buy new and better things. Instead, one gains valuable experiences. Implicit here is the strong belief in individual experience resulting in more sustainable choices. The application implicitly acknowledges that not every consumer good is as easy to repair as it is claimed in the passage quoted above and that not every consumer will be able to achieve every repair. Therefore, another part of the project aims at supporting small commercial actors in the region in order to: […] create a network for Trøndelag’s repair and redesign professionals to contribute to community building, concept development and knowledge exchange. Many feel that they are small and alone in their work. (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 2, our translation)

Again, the project targets individuals, but now in a commercial context. The networking and capacity building supported by the project is supposed to strengthen these actors that share the vision of a circular economy. The future envisioned so far consists of consumers and networked private actors making a living from repair, redesign and recycling. A third party, the public sector, is assigned the role of facilitator. A little shop offering used goods co-located with the largest public recycling centre and driven by Trondheim’s public

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

81

waste disposal works is described as an ‘arena’ which makes it easier for consumers to engage in re-use and to learn about material flows in the region (Future in our hands, 2020, S. 1).

5.2 Case 2: ‘Reimagining’ Public Libraries The project described in the previous section has a strong focus on individuals and how they can be encouraged to experience repair, to make a living from repair, redesign and recycling. Another major activity initiated by FIOH in the Trondheim region, is in many respects similar, but assigns a much bigger role to public authorities as facilitators. Originally conceived by FIOH together with a group of students of the local university NTNU, a development project explored the possibility of turning public libraries into sites that offer loans for tools that are used infrequently and still bought by most Norwegian households. These libraries, which are owned and ­operated by the municipalities, quickly embraced this opportunity to extend their reach, and today they are operating this service which was extended to also comprise electric bicycles that can be used to transport bulky goods. In addition, local libraries allow the use of more expensive equipment, such as 3D printers and sewing machines, on their premises. According to the library statistics for 2019, the 37 different objects located at six different libraries were rented in 1214 instances. This case is the second example of strong public involvement in realising consumption-­oriented projects. But it also indicates a rather fluid process from idea to realisation in which the involved stakeholders willingly cooperated. By building on the libraries’ principle of renting, this newly established mandate for the library has become a step towards attaining a specific, circular sustainable consumption pattern within Trondheim and Trøndelag. Reimagining libraries as sites for renting out tools come with new roles and tasks for the librarians. Initially, the infrastructure was digitally and physically designed to accommodate books, but the introduction of tools has brought some difficulties. Tools cannot be booked online, yet. One must either send an email, call, or meet in person. Despite initial system challenges, renting tools is planned to be as easy as books through the library systems. According to our informant, a local librarian involved in the initiative, already, the library is receiving positive feedback and reactions from people saying that they are ‘glad and surprised’ about the services offered. Furthermore, when asked about the role of people in a circular transition, the informant indicated that complementary infrastructural and public involvement is needed to ensure reducing consumption:

82

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker I think everyone has a responsibility of course, but I think that it would be naive to think that people will do this big job for themselves, so if Trondheim municipality and the library facilitates, it would become easier for people to take responsibility. (Public librarian)

In addition to FIOHs vision of circularity, visions of the future role of public libraries were relevant in this case. Since the rise of digital access to an abundance of information, libraries have increasingly been challenged to redefine their role. Different answers exist, libraries have been cast “as a democratic instrument in a multicultural and digital context” (Audunson, 2005), as instruments closing digital divides (Kinney, 2010), or as a supporter of local communities (Hildreth & Sullivan, 2015). The plans of Trondheim’s public libraries participate in the search for a feasible and desirable future. In this context, it is no coincidence that the ‘tool library’ was originally presented as part of another initiative called ‘the people’s workshop’ (Skille, 2017), through which courses in crafts and ‘repair parties’ were organized at libraries.

6 Norwegian Vanguard Visions of Circularity? Summarising both cases, they share a common vision of circularity, which is closely connected to FIOH’s programmatic goal to reduce mass consumption. The considerable support mobilized among regional and municipal actors indicates that FIOH’s vision of a circular future is seen as desirable and feasible by politicians and other officials. The activities described are rooted in the overarching policy strategies of the county and municipality, but also within a broader national agenda that aims to make Norway a pioneer of a green, circular economy (Office of the Prime Minister, 2019). The national government is developing a national circular economy strategy that is projected to be finalized by the end of 2020. The approach taken by the government is a process of dialogue and knowledge exchange with various sectors in Norway. Both cases focus on individual awareness, values and experiences connected to reduced consumption. Individuals learn and enact reduced consumption, small commercial actors are empowered to support these processes, and public actors, finally, are assigned the role of facilitator. Coupled with the focus on individual consumption championed by FIOH, both cases are examples of how digital and physical infrastructures play important roles in connecting both invested stakeholders and citizens to gear production and consumption patterns towards circularity. The public authorities are important facilitators in this transition, and without them, the cases described here would be difficult to realise.

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

83

These cases and the actors involved can thus serve as important examples of learning for the Norwegian government going forward with the national strategy. At the same time, even if the projects succeed in creating awareness and networks around circularity, and if the libraries manage to extend their circular activities, there is little reason to believe that the cases show that a widely shared circular sociotechnical vision is about to immediately reduce consumption in Trondheim and Trøndelag. Rather, we propose that our observations should be read as a description of a vanguard vision “in the making” that points in the direction of a possible, more profound sociotechnical change. Whether the currently dominant vision of continued high levels of consumption enabled by frictionless product substitution will be replaced by a vision of more radical transformations of production and consumption remains to be seen and will depend on a variety of factors that are difficult to predict. However, based on our observations, we can now ­describe a specific sociotechnical imaginary, towards which FIOH and their allies work as vanguards. Hilgartner, who has coined the term ‘sociotechnical vanguard’, describes the work done to create what in hindsight became the new sociotechnical imaginary of synthetic biology as skilful coalition building based on the combination of existing visions in new ways: Sociotechnical vanguards seek to make futures, but (to paraphrase Marx) they cannot make them simply as they please; they do not make them under self-selected circumstances, but do so using vocabularies and practices already given and transmitted from the past. (Hilgartner, 2015, S. 50)

In this sense, the vocabularies and practices employed in the successful coalition building driven by FIOH, as was presented above, are relevant indicators for the shape of the sociotechnical imaginary that is aimed at. We do not claim that the two cases from FIOH’s work with circular initiatives that we have picked and presented here are representative of circular initiatives in Norway. But together with the strong alignment of these cases with FIOH’s consumption critique since the 1970s reveals the contours of a specific vision, in which individuals reduce consumption through the rediscovery of lost competencies and knowledge from a recent past, which is facilitated by regional public actors. The vision refers to the Norwegian past in two, interrelated ways: First, it evokes the image of a better, rural and pre-industrial world, in which people lived less alienated from each other and from nature. And second, it does so by appealing to the individual rather than arguing in social, economic or political terms. In this sense, it is first and foremost moralizing and strongly rooted in the same protestant ethics of individual responsibility and avoidance of waste and luxury that, according to

84

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

Weber, characterized the ethics of early capitalists. This even longer line into the past, connects the specific circular economy vision promoted by FIOH with fundamental values embedded in all institutions of a protestant country like Norway. Against this backdrop, the coalition between the regional public sector and the moralizing consumption critique of the FIOH flavour observed here definitely has a potential to spread further and ultimately become a new dominant sociotechnical imaginary. Whether and how far the vanguard vision presented here is a specific Norwegian or Northern European one, can be disputed. The reference to a more circular past and the diagnosis of lost competencies that first have to be recovered to create a more sustainable future is present in many sustainability initiatives all over the world. The transition town movement, which started in the UK, for instance, ­explicitly referred to the more frugal production and consumption practices during the Second World War and promoted cross-generational learning about the more sustainable ways of the past. Neither are moralizing warnings against the alienation of mass consumption the invention of FIOH and have a long history reaching back to the social movements of the 1960s. In this respect, for example, a close reading of Dammann’s book against the backdrop of Fromm’s (1976) “To have or to be”, which was published 2 years later and influential in German-speaking countries, would be instructive. Despite these similarities and parallels, we still would claim that a historically informed analysis of national (and maybe also regional) differences in how more sustainable futures are imagined can reveal specific constellations. It is no coincidence that FIOH formulated its early mass consumption critique in apolitical and moralizing terms in protestant Norway, and it is no coincidence that local circular economy initiatives in today’s Norway are driven by FIOH. Whether this means that circular production and consumption will become the dominant sociotechnical imaginary in Norway’s sustainability policies in the future is uncertain. But if it happens, in this chapter, we have contributed to an analysis of how this could happen.

References Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61, 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510598562 Bocken, N., Ritala, P., Albareda, L., & Verburg, R. (Hrsg.). (2019). Innovation for sustainability: Business transformations towards a better world. Springer. Boye, E. (2019). Sirkulær framtid – om skiftet fra lineær til sirkulær økonomi (Mariboes gate 8, 0183). Framtiden i våre hender (FIVH).

A Norwegian Circular Economy?

85

County Commissioner Report. (2020). Reduced consumption through increased reuse, repairs and redesign. Trøndelag county, Archive case document nr. 202000988-2. https:// opengov.360online.com/Meetings/TRFKPROD/Meetings/Details/849861?agendaItemI d=206097&fbclid=IwAR3MOcUuc1xkpK67AqzBipYqBKfnjPu_xyvMWGjnvL5-­uQ_ TGBg5LZWBvXo. Accessed: 28 Feb 2020. Dammann, E. (1972). Fremtiden i våre hender. Gyldendal. Dammann, E. (Hrsg.). (1974). Ny livsstil. Om folkeaksjonen Fremtiden i våre hender. Gyldendal. Fratini, C.  F., Georg, S., & Jørgensen, M.  S. (2019). Exploring circular economy imaginaries in European cities: A research agenda for the governance of urban sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 974–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.04.193 Fromm, E. (1976). Haben oder Sein. Deutsche Verlags Anstalt. Future in our hands. (2020). Reduced consumption through increased reuse, repairs and redesign. Application nr. 2020–0069, regional development funds, Trøndelag county. https://opengov.360online.com/Meetings/TRFKPROD/Meetings/Details/849861?age ndaItemId=206097&fbclid=IwAR3MOcUuc1xkpK67AqzBipYqBKfnjPu_xyvMWGjnvL5-­uQ_TGBg5LZWBvXo. Accessed: 8 Oct 2020. Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31, 21–40. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2F0263276414531627 Hansen, A. B. (2007). Oppbrudd fra forbrukssamfunnet: bevegelsen Framtiden i våre hender 1974–1982 (Master’s thesis, University of Oslo). University of Oslo. Hildreth, S., & Sullivan, M. (2015). Rising to the challenge: Re-envisioning public libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 55, 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.201 5.1085247 Hilgartner, S. (2015). Capturing the imaginary. Vanguards, visions and the synthetic biology revolution. In S. Hilgartner, C. Miller, & R. Hagendijk (Eds.), Science and democracy: Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond. Routledge. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S. Kim (Hrsg.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (S. 1–33). University Of Chicago Press. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.  H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11024-­009-­9124-­4 Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (Hrsg.). (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press. Kinney, B. (2010). The internet, public libraries, and the digital divide. Public Library Quarterly, 29, 104–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01616841003779718 Munthe, P. (2014). Økonomi i Norge. I Store Norske Leksikon. https://snl.no/Økonomi_i_ Norge. Accessed: 19 Feb 2020. Myrvang, C. (2009). Forbruksagentene. Slik vekket de kjøpelysten. Pax Forlag. Office of the Prime Minister. (2019). Granavolden political platform for the Norwegian Government, formed by the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party. Office of the Prime Minister. Granavolden, 17 January 2019. at https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/politisk-­plattform/id2626036/. Accessed: 18 Feb 2020.

86

T. E. Sutcliffe and T. Berker

Skille, A. (2017). Lån verktøy på biblioteket. https://www.nrk.no/trondelag/norges-­forste-­ve rktoybibliotek-­1.13552546. Accessed: 2 Mar 2020. Trøndelag County. (2017). A value creating Trøndelag. Strategy for innovation and value creation in Trøndelag. Passed by the county council on 14 December 2017. https://www. trondelagfylke.no/contentassets/b91afe6250b342e9b2d73dc270993796/strategy-­for-­ innovation-­and-­value-­creation-­in-­trondelag.pdf. Accessed: 8. Oct 2020. Trøndelag County. (2019). Action Programme 2020–2021 for the strategy “value creation Trøndelag”. Adopted by the County Executive Committee on 3 December 2019. Retrieved 6 October 2020, from https://www.trondelagfylke.no/contentassets/b91afe6250b342e9b2d73dc270993796/handlingsprogram-­politisk-­vedtatt-­en-­final-­13.02.20. pdf UN SDG. (n.d.). Sustainable development goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg12. Accessed: 11 Mar 2020. Vittersø, G., & Strandbakken, P. (2016). Forbruk og det grønne skiftet. In G.  Vittersø, A. Borch, K. Laitala, & P. Strandbakken (Hrsg.), Forbruk og det grønne skiftet (S. 9–24). Novus Forlag. Weber, M. (2005 [1905]). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Routledge classics) (2nd ed.). Routledge.

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime of Devices Tamina Hipp and Melanie Jaeger-Erben

Abstract

The globally increasing consumption of electronic devices is associated with many social and ecological problems, which can be significantly reduced by longer usetime. This paper presents a model for explaining usetime, which was developed based on qualitative interviews with users on their use of devices, especially mobile phones and washing machines. The model “Doing Value” draws attention to the fact that obsolescence is not a state but a process or a dynamic socio-technical phenomenon that is produced and constantly updated in social practices of consuming, devaluing, re-using, re-buying and throwing away. Central to this are constructions and attributions of meaning that relate, on the one hand, to the devaluation of a product in use, and on the other, to valorisation and the attribution of specialness or desirability in relation to products that have not yet been used or are “new”.

T. Hipp () • M. Jaeger-Erben Department of Sociology of Technology and the Environment, Brandenburg University of Technology, Senftenberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_6

87

88

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

1 The Socio-ecological Relevance of Long Usetimes of Electronic Devices According to the Federal Environment Agency, 754,751 t of e-waste can be attributed to private households in Germany alone in 2017, resulting in about 9.12 kg per capita (Umweltbundesamt, 2019). The increasing consumption of electronics worldwide is associated with social and environmental problems (Pérez-Belis et al., 2015), resulting in particular from the upstream production of the devices (Janusz-Renault, 2008; Prakash et al., 2015). Nevertheless, devices are often purchased even though they are not used (Roberts et  al., 2017), disposed of even though they still work (Cooper, 2004), or used in parallel with other devices that can perform the same functions (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019). Longer lifetimes and usetimes, on the other hand, can conserve resources (Bartl, 2014; Cooper, 2010; Nishijima, 2017) and make a key contribution to transforming society towards a circular economy (Cooper, 2005; Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2013; Kaddoura et al., 2019). The lifetimes and usetime of consumer goods are not only a relevant topic from a sustainability perspective, but also important for consumer and consumer research, as is shown not least in this anthology. The present study1 investigates how the usetime of electronic devices comes about. The focus is placed on the context of use of the devices and the setting of product use, and predominantly considers how a shortening of the usetime and thus premature aging or obsolescence occurs. Obsolescence is conceptualised here not as a state, but as a process or a dynamic socio-technical phenomenon that is produced and repeatedly updated in social practices of consuming, devaluing, re-­ using, re-buying and throwing away, etc. (Jaeger-Erben & Hipp, 2018b). Central to this are constructions and attributions of meaning that refer, on the one hand, to the valorisation or devaluation of a product in use, and on the other hand, to valorise and the attribution of specialness or desirability in relation to products that have not yet been used or are “new”. In the following Sect. 2, the theoretical foundations of the study are presented. A brief outline of research on usetime is followed by an excurses on practice theories as the social theory of the model developed and on the sociology of valuation, which provides the basis for the conception of product evaluations. Section 3 out This article presents the results of Tamina Hipp’s PhD, which is supervised by Prof. Dr. Melanie Jaeger-Erben. The PhD is part of the research group Obsolescence as a Challenge for Sustainability, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the thematic focus of Social-Ecological Research. 1

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

89

lines the methodological approach: Qualitative interviews with users were conducted and analysed based on the grounded theory approach. In Sect. 4, the model “Doing Value” model is presented to explain the usetime and in the following Sect. 5, possibilities for application are shown. The results are summarised and discussed in the conclusion (Sect. 6).

2 Theoretical Foundation First, key findings of research on usetime that are particularly relevant to the present study are outlined. This is followed by a presentation of the basics of practice theories (Sect. 2.2) and the sociology of valuation (Sect. 2.3), as these provide the theoretical foundation for the model developed.

2.1 Research on Usetime of Electronic Devices In research on lifetimes and usetime of electronic devices, there are different approaches as to how these are subdivided and thus defined (Murakami et al., 2010). In the following, usetime is understood as the phases of product acquisition, use, and transfer (including storage) of a device by a user. Lifetime is taken to mean the periods of use by different users of a device, adding production and “destruction”. In the literature, various forms or types of obsolescence2 are discussed, which limit the obsolescence of a product to an isolated factor, such as material, functional or economic obsolescence. Although these categories seem to make sense theoretically, they are rarely found in reality, since in practice it is predominantly an interplay of various factors (Van Nes & Cramer, 2006)  – which concern the product, the user, the context of use and the setting – that lead to the end of the usetime or to product replacement. So far, there is no model that can better represent reality in its complexity due to the interplay of different dimensions. Many studies have shown that there are major differences between individual product groups in terms of how long they are used on average and why they are discarded (Cooper & Mayers, 2000; Evans & Cooper, 2010; Jaeger-Erben & Hipp, 2018a; Wieser et al., 2015). A distinction is often made between consumer electronics (“brown goods”), which are subject to shorter innovation cycles and are  For an overview and critical discussion of different obsolescence types, see Jaeger-Erben et al. (2016). 2

90

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

often replaced even when they are still working, and household appliances (“white goods”), which tend to be used until they become defective (Cox et  al., 2013; Knight et al., 2013). Overall, research to date has mainly looked at decisions (e.g., regarding purchase and repair) or design-for-longevity (Haines-Gadd et al., 2018), rather than the practical use of devices in everyday life. For example, research examines the emotions associated with the acquisition of electronic devices and shows that the euphoria felt initially subsides after some time and the devices are used unconsciously and routinely as part of everyday material arrangements (Hedman et al., 2019).

2.2 Usetime from a Practical Theory Perspective Theories of practice were chosen as the social theoretical basis for the study, as they open up new perspectives for the consideration of product lifetimes and can thus provide impulses for research on the (non-)sustainable use of electronic products (Jaeger-Erben, 2017). In practice theories, materiality and corporeality of being is emphasised and recognised as a component of all practices. Social practices are set as the smallest unit of analysis and routines are embedded in social contexts and settings that determine the meaningfulness of action across individuals (Shove & Spurling, 2013). This conceptually and methodologically overcomes the separation between actor and structure often found in the social sciences (Schatzki et al., 2000). Individuals are conceived as carriers of practices that use artefacts meaningfully and with the help of embodied competences (Reckwitz, 2002). A practice-oriented approach emphasises that consumption is not primarily a fulfilment of objective needs for people, but that social practices require certain types and ways of consumption to be carried out (Røpke, 2009; Shove, 2007; Warde, 2005). In regard to usetimes, questions arise about what devices are used for and how, based on what context and setting of use, and how it comes to be that they are no longer used for engaging in these practices. The termination of the period of use is thus not regarded as an individual decision of a rationally acting actor, but as the result of a concatenation of use practices that are meaningfully related to one another and that are embodied by actors and artefacts embedded in the corresponding settings. The devices themselves, as well as social meanings, narratives, and competencies, take on the function of connecting these practices over time. Nevertheless, these patterns of interconnected practices are not rigid, but vary depending on different circumstances.

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

91

2.3 Conception of Device Valuations In the analysis of the empirical material oriented towards the open, category-­ developing approach of Grounded Theory, it became evident that a relative value of the devices is revealed in and through the social practices. This value is often not consciously reflected as produced and reproduced through the use of the devices. Sociology of valuations (Kjellberg & Mallard, 2013; Krüger & Reinhart, 2017; Lamont, 2012; Meier et al., 2016) provides the theoretical basis for reconstructing these predominantly implicit value attributions. In Theory of Valuation (Dewey, 1939), Dewey, a classic of the sociology of valuation, already understood valuation as a process and conceived it as a performative act. Value is thus conceived as produced in interaction – in contrast to economics, which locates it in the object, or psychology, which locates it in the subject (Arnould, 2014; Ramírez, 1999; Simmel & Frisby, 2004). In short, “[…] value emerges from what people do” (Arnould, 2014, p. 130). The value of a device is thus produced, reproduced, and valorised or devalued in and through the social practices in which the device is involved or which are related to the device. The valuations do not have to be conscious or intended by the acting subject, instead they are produced and varied in the interaction – also in relation to context and setting – with the device. To emphasise the performative character of this value assignment process, it will be referred to as “Doing Value” in the following. “Doing Value” thus encompasses both the processes of emotionally grounded value attribution (Krüger & Reinhart, 2016, 2017) and comparison-based evaluation (Bowker & Star, 2000) as distinguished in the literature (Krüger & Reinhart, 2016). The emotionally based valuation is found insofar as these valuations depend on subjective habits, on the specific context of use, on the user’s previous experiences in dealing with other devices, and on individual manifestations of socially shared aesthetic preferences. It is also a comparison-based evaluation, since the device is evaluated in relation to other devices. Inherent in these value assignments is that they have a trans-situational character: They unfold their effect across individual moments of device use and thus across the different consumption phases. On the one hand, value assignments are produced by the practice of use; on the other hand, they contribute to structuring the handling of the device in the subsequent device-­ human interactions.

92

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

3 Methodological Design A qualitative-reconstructive approach was chosen for the reconstruction of the usetime to investigate the phenomenon with an open mind. Both the sampling and the analysis were based on the logic of (reflexive) grounded theory (Breuer et al., 2018; Bryant & Charmaz, 2011; Mey & Mruck, 2011; Strauss & Corbin, 1996), as this methodology is suitable for generating theoretical concepts based on empirical material while reflecting the researcher’s influence on the research process. Fifteen guided in-home interviews were conducted, each lasting about 2 h, and more are planned. The interviewees come from different social segments (age, gender, social status) and live across Germany. The interviews focused on attitudes towards consumption and handling electronic devices, as well as the equipment of electronic devices in the household. In order to analyse the differences between information and communications technology (ICT) and household appliances, the use patterns of the two contrasting devices mobile phone and washing machine were recorded. The consumption history of the interviewees was collected in order to reconstruct how many of these devices they had already owned in their lives, how intensively they were used and how they were acquired and passed on. This procedure also made it possible to consider whether devices were used in parallel or were not owned during certain phases. After transcribing the interviews verbatim, the results were analysed according to Grounded Theory using the analysis software ATLAS.ti. During the analysis, the following aspects were coded, among others: the number of devices, the phases of consumption (acquisition, use, if necessary repair and storage, passing on) and usetime of the devices, in particular the ways of dealing with them (intensity of use, care practices, etc.) and the handling of (partial) defects as well as reflections and attributions of responsibility in this regard and overall the elements of the described social practices (context of use, setting factors, materiality, competencies, constructs of meaning). In a further analysis step, it was coded how and by what means the devices were assigned or denied values.

4 The Model “Doing Value” The model “Doing Value” for explaining the usetime of electronic devices was developed based on empirical data on the use of mobile phones and washing machines, but examples relating to the use of mobile phones will be given here in particular; differences between the two devices will be shown in the following

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

93

Sect. 5. In the following, the complexity of the phenomenon of usetime in practice will first be illustrated using two examples (Sect. 4.1), before parts of the model are described in detail in subsequent subsections: The characterisation of value allocation (Sect. 4.2), the sequence of phases of use (Sect. 4.3) and equipment replacement (Sect. 4.4). Figure 1 illustrates the model.

4.1 Multidimensionality of Usetime The interviews suggest that it is usually not a specific aspect that causes a device to become obsolete, but that various circumstances in regard to a specific context of use lead to device replacement, as the following two case studies illustrate: 1. The smartphone of an older person was used only very selectively. In all device-­ human interactions, the device was assigned a low value. The usage practice reflected the societal perception that smartphones were superfluous and complicated. The device was now 4 years old, the battery capacity had degraded, and the case was cracked. The wireless connections were always active, so the ­device was receiving and transmitting mobile data unintentionally. The user was basically satisfied with the device, but interpreted the “low data volume” display that appeared 1 day as an error message from the device and not as a warning from the contract. The decisive reason for the mobile phone exchange was the incorrect error diagnosis due to lack of knowledge and the daughter’s subsequent offer to give her a used device from a leading brand manufacturer, which had previously been stored in the daughter’s drawer for some time. 2. A person in her late 30s uses her smartphone very intensively, both privately and professionally. To maintain its functionality, she treats the device carefully. However, the person always replaces her smartphones every 2 years to prevent a possible device failure and to always be up-to-date with the latest application possibilities. This usage practice shows the socially shared idea of “new is better” and “new is reliable”. However, she replaced the last device after only 1  year because a new model of her favourite brand appeared on the market, which promised a better photo quality. This seems particularly important to her, as she places great value on the children’s photos she takes. She passes on her always functioning and well-maintained sorted-out devices in her social environment and acquires new releases. In both examples, devices that are functioning in principle are sorted out, but not only the material condition of the devices differs (functioning perfectly vs. only to

Use

Valorise new device

Acquisition

Give away

Replacement

Value

2-x

Use

Fig. 1  Changes in the value of devices during the consumption process. (Source: Own representation)

Acquisition

Time

1

Devaluation used device

Give away

94 T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

95

a limited extent), but also the context of use. Both cases illustrate that the devices are assigned a value that decreases during the period of use. In the first example, the device category smartphone is attributed only a low importance, because the device is only slightly integrated into the everyday design. In connection with this, there is also a lack of competence in dealing with the device, which leads to a false error diagnosis (“low data volume”) and triggers a complete devaluation of the device. Meanwhile, the low esteem of the device is reflected in the almost indifferent attitude of the user, resulting in the device replacement being initiated by a relative. Although the device was used for an above-average period of 4 years, a longer period of use would have been possible if the unintended data transfer had been restricted or the contract had been changed. However, since the discarding of the device did not result in a new purchase, but merely brought a previously stored device “back to life”, the device replacement can be rated as above-average in terms of resource conservation. In the second example, the device category smartphone is assigned a very high value, which is shown by the strong integration of the device into the daily routine, both professionally and privately. Due to this dependency, reliability plays a decisive role, which is why device replacement is completely decoupled from actual material functionality due to its routine and instead linked to the idea of how old a device may be to ensure its functionality. The narrative “new is better and reliable” thus acquires justificatory relevance for the devaluation of the device and the regular device replacement. The subsequent purchase of a new device is associated with additional resource consumption, but passing it on to a second user does not make the device obsolete. It could be speculated that the practice of regular replacement was originally established through contracts that offered the user a new device on a 2-year cycle. The two examples illustrate that the value attributed to the device in a specific context of use is related to how long it is used.

4.2 Characterisation of Value Assignments In principle, the reference frame for valuating a device is the range of activities provided by the context of use. If devices are used frequently and intensively, they are generally perceived as more important than if they are only used selectively. The value attributed to the device is dynamic because it changes over the usetime. It is produced, reproduced, increased or decreased by the device-human interaction. Generally, there is a devaluation of the device over the course of use until it can no longer be used according to the requirements of the context of use and is replaced. The device is compared with other devices that seem particularly attrac-

96

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

tive or unattractive – especially if the device is still new or is soon to be replaced. Both previously owned devices, those from friends and relatives or those communicated about in the media (advertising, product reviews, etc.) serve as a comparison, as illustrated here: “The camera was a bit very coarse-pixelated. When my brother showed me that there are much better mobile phones, I was a bit envious and said okay, now I have a very old mobile phone, now it’s good” (27 years). The amount of effort required to use and maintain the device also plays a role in the evaluation. For example, a reduced battery capacity can lead to a devaluation if the additional effort for more frequent charging is perceived as a burden. On the other hand, a long battery capacity can also add value to the current device. In addition, the attributed value also develops justification relevance for how much effort is invested in product maintenance. For example, a smartphone user refers to the low monetary value of her mobile phone when asked how she would describe the use of her smartphone: “Not very carefully, because it doesn’t cost me a lot of money. Well, I don’t have an expensive mobile phone that costs 500 euros, where I have to take out insurance for it or something. And if it is broken, then I would go to the store and buy a new, cheap device” (34 years). The value attributed to the device refers on the one hand to the device category and on the other hand to the specific exemplar and can be divided into different dimensions. These value dimensions are not clear-cut, they overlap and play a different role in different settings, and they are also linked to different social meanings. In the analysis of the empirical data using grounded theory, numerous value dimensions were identified in relation to smartphones and washing machines, a selection of which is presented here, which appear to be particularly relevant for the usetime and have already been discussed in research: • The use value describes the suitability of the device to perform the activities required by the context of use, such as sufficient battery capacity for intensive mobile use. • Usability refers to the user’s experience of how easy it is to use the device. Usability is linked to user skills, ease of use, familiarity, and acclimatisation. In the case of smartphones, the operating system and the size of the device play a particularly important role. For some users, usability is decisive: “For me, it was only important that I could handle the device.” (60 years), while others can flexibly adapt to any device: “I’ve had five different ones in the last eight months, from company X to Y and so on. Yes, I can work with anything” (51 years). • Sign Value encompasses the symbolic meaning attributed to the device within a specific setting, as ascribed by a social milieu. One interviewee described himself as follows: “One has his car, which is super important for him and is a

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

• •

•

• •

97

status symbol. I have more electronics, smartphones, laptops, and that’s where I tend to spend my money” (35 years). The economic value refers on the one hand to the acquisition value and on the other hand to the presumed sales value of the device in its current condition. The reliability dimension encompasses the user’s expectations of the extent to which the appliance is usable in various situations, as here: “That it [the washing machine] seals reliably. That I know, even if I go shopping and come back, that nothing bad awaits me” (34 years). Attachment encompasses the bond to the appliance category or the specific item, as this example illustrates: “I love it [washing machine] […]. I don’t like to part with things I like” (34 years). Aesthetics include design features such as shape, surface and color. Under the dimension of sustainability, social and environmental impacts are summed up that are associated by the user with production, use, and disposal.

These value dimensions are preceded by the general condition of the device, as this can set all dimensions to zero. This includes partial defects and wear and tear (e.g., crack in the display, reduced battery performance), as well as visual wear and tear (scratches, rust, dents) and the defect (device cannot be used in its current state). The interplay of these value dimensions is complex; contrary valuation tendencies can occur both regarding different dimensions and within one dimension. The example of usability can be used to illustrate that while familiarisation with a device increases over the course of its usetime, which leads to a positive valuation, on the other hand the speed of the device can also decrease due to outdated software, which in turn impairs usability. While experienced users rate specific functions (e.g., quality of the camera, fingerprint sensor) as more important, users with lower skills seem to attach more importance to general functionality and usability. Value attribution processes take place within specific settings, which include both the meaning-giving context in which social practices take place and the supply systems, such as manufacturers, retail, power supply, services, material yard, media, advertising (Brooks, 2015; Fine et al., 2018; Weller 2009). Thus, the setting includes the infrastructure necessary for use, but at the same time it also functions as a reference for valuation processes, for example due to technological innovations, changing values and media-­mediated narratives. The following quote illustrates how, due to a lack of infrastructure, a device is not complained about because the effort required to do so is deemed too great. “[For a complaint] the effort would be too great for me. I would have to go to [city X] first. Then I’d have to drop it off where I bought it. Then they would send it in. Then I wouldn’t have one. Then I’d

98

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

have to go back and pick up the phone again. And that’s where I ended up wasting more gas than [buying a new one].” (34 years). The context of use determines what a device is to be used for and how it is to be used and in what way the device is integrated into everyday practice, which also results in the dependence on the device and specific product requirements. In the data, use as a business device and gaming in particular had a shortening effect on the usetime.

4.3 Sequence of the Phases of Use The rather linear division of usetime into the phases of purchase, use and give away found in the literature can contribute little to understanding the phenomenon of obsolescence, as the value attribution of a product is linked to product use in everyday life. The reason for a new purchase and the choice of device does not arise out of “nothing”, but is influenced by experience with a predecessor device. Even initial purchases are made based on experience with the use of a device of a similar product category or because of stories from friends and ralatives and product reviews. Furthermore, the passing on of a device is often not exclusively explained by the device itself (e.g., total loss), but takes place relationally to a potentially new device or its valorisation and accessibility. The possible next device thus serves as a reference object which, in addition to the context of use, forms the basis for the valuation of the current device. Accordingly, the usage phase is modeled as the beginning, which creates the basis for explaining both when and how a device is abandoned or passed on and why a new device is acquired. Figure 1 illustrates the depreciation of the used device in parallel with the appreciation of a new device.

4.4 Device Replacement The end of the usetime comes closer, the more the current device is devalued and a potentially new device is valorised. The product exchange thus takes place based on the relative appreciation or depreciation of both devices. The value gradually decreases on one side and increases on the other until a “tipping point” is reached, i.e., a decisive moment. An abrupt re-evaluation  – usually devaluation  – can also be caused spontaneously by events which, for example, involve a defect in the device. The devaluation of a device as “no longer suitable for the intended context of use” is strongly related to usage skills. These include experience in dealing with defects and diagnosing problems, as well as knowledge of repair options and services (Fig. 2).

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

99

Event

Setting Context of use

Materials

Devaluation used device

Through social practices of doings and sayings, the value of the device is reproduced and modified Competences

Valorise new device

Meanings

Relational to each other

Replacement

Accessibility new device

Use

Give away

Acquisition

Fig. 2  The model “Doing Value” to explain usetime. (Source: Own representation)

In most of the case studies, the users sought advice in the process of product exchange from children, partners, parents, friends and colleagues, e.g., here: “My secretary’s son is a master electrician, and he always does that, he also offers that for friends, so to speak, that he looks after it” (29 years). The advice in the shop, as well as the own research appears to be secondary to the search for quick advice from the people around. The decisive factor for the act of product exchange is the accessibility of a new device, whereby the products are predominantly provided by the supply systems (market and trade). In particular, new releases, special offers and contract options can initiate product exchange. However, events in the private sphere, such as an open birthday present or a discarded device from an acquaintance, can also be the cause for a replacement. For example, one person reported that when her microwave oven broke down, she waited “until a brochure came with a relatively cheap offer” (57 years).

100

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

5 Possibilities of Applicability of the Model The model “Doing Value” for the analysis of usetime directs the focus to how product valuation takes place during the practice of use. On the one hand, it is intended to contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of obsolescence, and on the other hand, it also makes it possible to derive strategies for promoting longevity. For example, it can be used as an analytical tool to examine the role played by single elements in limiting usetime in a specific case and how these elements are interlinked (Sect. 5.1). These patterns of social practices differ in terms of their specific form and frequency between product groups. Typical patterns and related recommendations for the promotion of long use are presented for mobile phones in Sect. 5.2 and for washing machines in Sect. 5.3 as examples to illustrate differences between devices.

5.1 Recommendations for the Promotion of Long Usetimes Whether and how social practices and thus social change can be controlled is controversially discussed in research. Mostly, either the stability (Reckwitz, 2003) or the dynamics (Shove et  al., 2012; Watson, 2012) of social practices are emphasised. Reckwitz (2003), for example, emphasises the unpredictability of practice, while Hörning views social practices as “repetitions and re-developments” (Hörning, 2001, p.  163). Shove highlights that changing actors’ attitudes is unlikely to change behaviour (Shove, 2010) and points out that practices are more likely to be modified if all elements – i.e., materiality, competencies and constructs of meaning – are equally addressed to break existing linkages. Overall, the practice theory approach focuses less on the change of actors or their attitudes and motives and more on the setting and material arrangements in which practices take place (Shove et al., 2012; Watson, 2012). In the previous model description, the pattern of concatenation of social practices of antagonistic valuation was presented, since this occurred frequently in the data. Here, over the period of use, there is a successive devaluation of the current device due to wear and tear, partial defects and associated social meanings (fear of breakdowns, anger about increased maintenance, etc.) and, in parallel, an opposing revaluation of a desirable new device with features that appear more attractive (complementary functions, efficiency, design, symbolic meanings, etc.). The exchange of devices is prompted by a specific occasion, such as a new release on the market, a special offer or an open gift.

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

101

To promote long usetimes, it seems plausible in principle to slow down the devaluation of the current device and the valorisation of a new device. In doing so, it might be advisable to focus on the design of the devices (1) on the one hand, but equally on the social meanings (2), the competences (3) and the respective settings associated with the use on the other hand. Regarding (1) product design, in addition to robustness, repairability is particularly important, which is also reflected in the availability of construction manuals, spare parts and corresponding service offers. Furthermore, in terms of a circular economy, a modular design is promising: here, defective components can be replaced, and product innovations can also be added afterwards through “space for new things” (Aziz et  al., 2016; Proske & Jaeger-­ Erben, 2019). Regarding the (2) social meanings associated with usetime, it seems sensible to generally increase the value of older and used devices, which could be done, for example, through extended warranties, guarantees and additional product ­insurance. The attributed value is also related to the expected lifetime, but there are large differences between individuals in this respect (Jaeger-Erben & Hipp, 2018a). From this, it can be hypothesised that (3) knowledge about the expected lifetime of electronic devices might also be conducive to ascribing value to devices for longer and thus also encourage lifespan-extending product care practices. Transparency in the purchasing situation about the expected lifetime of devices, for example through a manufacturer’s warranty statement, might contribute significantly to this. Furthermore, important information on product care could be clearly and unambiguously elaborated in an instruction leaflet, since extensive operating instructions are rarely studied. The competences of the user or of her or his people around play a role at various stages of the use process, for example in terms of appropriate operation and in the case of (partial) defects being able to decide to what extent a repair is worthwhile or can even be carried out oneself. All in all, knowledge of these structural possibilities should not be underestimated, as it is a prerequisite for implementing life-extending practices in the first place. Furthermore, the maximum usetime is not the only way to increase resource efficiency per capita. If used devices are passed on to a new user, short usetime do not have to be unecological. According to the interviews, whether appliances are sold or given away privately again depends on how much value is attached to them. For example, a 7-year-old, functioning washing machine was thrown away when it was no longer needed because the user thought that no one would buy such an old appliance anyway. In addition, some interviewees expressed general reservations about second-hand appliances. The potential for sustainability that is hidden here is made more difficult by cheap offers for new purchases as well as more difficult

102

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

and cost-intensive repairs, which accelerates the devaluation of used devices. Through refurbishing of used equipment and additional guarantees, equipment that is already in use could also be upgraded.

5.2 Focus on Mobile Phones As in the case of other ICT, insofar as they are (still) subject to rapid product innovation cycles (see Sect. 2.1), to valorise a new device seems to play a greater role overall than to devalue the current device. Thus, functioning smartphones are frequently exchanged for more modern devices. In the interviews, the valorisation of a new device mainly referred to extended or improved functionality (e.g., battery capacity, operating system, better camera), design and symbolic meanings. In contrast, the devaluation of the used device played an important but often subordinate role, which is why functioning devices were mostly either passed on or kept in the drawer. The devaluation was often attributed to slower usability due to a lack of software updates and low performance, lower battery capacity and a crack in the display. A specific pattern found in mobile phones is the exchange according to regular rhythms of a mobile phone contract. In the contract logic pattern, the device is automatically devalued, largely decoupled from its functionality, initiated by the setting. Subsequently, it is usually kept in the drawer as a replacement device, given away to relatives and friends or sold online. The usetime is typically 2 years. To promote longevity, contract options could be designed here that guarantee the functionality of the device through service and provide replacement devices in the event of repairs. A sub-form of this is the business mobile phone pattern. Here, the device is provided by the employer and replaced in regular cycles based on a contract. The business use demand a device that is always ready for use, as the employee’s ability to work could be restricted in the event of a failure. Here too, to promote longevity, contract options could be designed which guarantee the functionality of the device through service and provide replacement devices in the event of any repairs. Another pattern found in smartphones is gaming affinity. Here, the valuation of the device is oriented towards “gaming” computer games with it. Therefore, features such as processor performance and battery capacity can be decisive for the devaluation when a new game with higher requirements is launched. According to these criteria, the valorisation of a new device takes place in parallel. The usage intensity is above average, the usage time is below average.

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

103

In the case of the pattern sustainability, on the other hand, the used device is devalued much more slowly, and in some cases the opposite effect even occurs: up to the point of irreparable total loss – for example because spare parts can no longer be supplied – the device is attributed a higher symbolic significance if it is older and is thus also held in higher esteem overall. This is usually accompanied by a pronounced tolerance of partial defects and a great willingness to carry out repairs. New devices are devalued in this pattern, as the ecological and social damage they cause is placed above the individual added value of owning a new device.

5.3 Focus Washing Machine Unlike mobile phones, the devaluation of the current washing machine plays a greater role in product replacement than the valorisation of a new one. This is also the case for other household appliances (see Sect. 2.1). The value of the washing machine was defined in the interviews primarily in terms of functioning reliably and not causing problems, as clean laundry is considered crucial, as these quotes illustrate: “Washing machine, that’s quite important. I don’t like dirty laundry and when the dirty laundry piles up, that doesn’t work at all. So washing machine – very important” (60  years). Some interviewees lived without their washing machine at times when the setting required it, for example, students with a small flat and little money. If the financial situation or the setting changed in some other way, such as the birth of a child, going to the launderette was felt to be impractical, as reported here by way of example: “You, if [name child] ever has a diarrhoeal illness, I don’t feel like it. We have to be able to wash properly here then, don’t we? […] And then I said it five times, and at some point he [partner] said: Yes, we’ll buy one now” (39 years). It also depends on the setting what size the washing machine may be to fit on the space with water connection provided for the appliance, especially in small flats: “And there the size had been a very important criterion” (45 years). The washing performance – clean laundry – was at least not questioned for any appliance in the 15 interviews. However, the expected lifetime emerged as a significant indicator for the attribution of value to the appliance, although this varied greatly between the interviewees. On the one hand, the expected product lifetime is associated with the brand and purchase price and, on the other hand, it is compared with stories about short and long working washing machines that have been experienced, told and communicated in the media. Often, the expected lifetime is not quantified numerically, but is described as longer or shorter in relation to other appliances. While a younger appliance is normally attributed a longer life expec-

104

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

tancy and thus a higher value, in a few cases the interviewees particularly valued their old models because they expected them to last a long time due to their construction and ease of repair: “I know from the newer appliances that they generally last less long than they used to and then, especially with washing machines, they no longer have the metal inserts where the drum runs in, but plastic and then everything is built in so that you can’t and shouldn’t repair anything later. And with the older machines you can still repair a little bit. That’s why I’m generally less inclined to part with such things” (56 years). Likewise, an valorisation of old devices can be seen in specific settings that allow only few free times for the washing process. “The great thing about this one is that it only takes about an hour. Newer models are just so, perhaps super water-­ saving and super energy-saving, but they also need significantly longer than an hour” (35 years). As a rule, however, appliances are successively devalued with increasing age if they consume more energy and water and are noisier compared to newer models. If a functioning appliance is therefore replaced, the pattern is called “modernization for efficiency”. Whether, in the case of a (partial) defect, repairs are checked and carried out by a professional repair shop or whether people even lend a hand themselves depends on the one hand on the value attributed to the device and on the other hand on the social meanings associated with the repair, the setting and previous experiences. However, a repair is often seen as very inconvenient: “First, someone has to pick it up. Then it also leaks in the car. So, you can’t just transport it like that. The customer service would have to pick it up. And then you don’t have any in the time. So it’s more trouble than [buying] any other device now.” (34 years). If a device is replaced because the repair is not checked or not carried out, this pattern of interlocking social practices is described as repair is not worth it. To counteract this, the recommendations given above seem appropriate when it comes to structurally facilitating repairs. In addition, setting factors relating to the housing situation often lead to washing machines becoming obsolete. The pattern of moving house is about that a functioning washing machine – which is, however, only attributed a low value – is discarded because the effort to transport it to the new apartment is spared or the appliance does not fit into the new apartment due to its size. In the household re-­ composition pattern, a washing machine becomes redundant as two households are merged with one appliance each. The interviews then discarded the appliance that was deemed to have less value, such as this: “I had a really old one, relatively. Well, it must have been six or seven years old. […] We got rid of it. [...] And through that, I knew that she had a relatively new one. […] I would not have thought that some-

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

105

one would still buy such an old washing machine” (57 years). It seems plausible that appliances that are no longer needed but are in working order are more likely to be sold secondhand if they are upgraded through refurbishing and additional guarantees. However, a prerequisite for this is that the owner considers the appliance valuable enough to offer it for sale.

6 Conclusion The model “Doing Value” presented here aims to consider the multidimensional influences on usetime in reality, and is therefore necessarily more complex than the more theoretical forms of obsolescence presented in Sect. 2.1. The perspective is directed towards the fact that devices do not predominantly become obsolete because they spontaneously break down or are considered obsolete based on a free decision by the user, but that becoming obsolete is a process that is already rooted before the act of purchase – through experience with the predecessor device and engagement with the supply on the market –, takes place through the practices of use and maintenance and can even go beyond the purchase of a new device if, for example, the old device is still being stored as a replacement device. This process of devaluation is linked to the materiality of the device, as well as to socially shared meanings and to the competencies of the user. The devaluation process is accelerated by technological innovations, digitalisation, changing values and is thus subject to the influence of a setting that gives meaning and significance, which is structured by the supply systems (manufacturing, trade, services, etc.). The empirical basis of the model is formed by qualitative interviews with users, which were analysed based on grounded theory. The theoretical foundation is provided by practice theories and sociology of valuation. It can be applied to different devices, as shown here for mobile phones and washing machines. The model can be used as an analysis tool to investigate the role of different elements in the formation of usetime. The model “Doing Value” can offer added value to research on product lifetimes, as it can also be used in complex interwoven case studies for all electronic devices to analyse how obsolescence comes about. It does not only focus on one moment, but considers the entire consumption process (purchase, use, product replacement and transfer). From a case analysis, hypotheses can be derived as to how obsolescence could be delayed. The focus here is on what the device is used for, which is why the model is also open to the possibility that a device is no longer needed due to changes in the setting, for example. Furthermore, the model raises the question of how it comes to valuing devices and can therefore also stimulate

106

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

reflection on how devices are valorised and devalued in society. Accordingly, it might be useful to slow down the processes of devaluing used devices as well as valorise new ones. In addition to a robust, repairable and, if necessary, modular product design, service offers that promote longevity can also contribute to this. Following this, it seems to make sense to upgrade used devices through refurbishing and product insurance to support the second-hand market.

References Arnould, E. J. (2014). Rudiments of a value praxeology. Marketing Theory, 14, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593113500384 Aziz, N. A., Wahab, D. A., Ramli, R., & Azhari, C. H. (2016). Modelling and optimisation of upgradability in the design of multiple life cycle products: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.076 Bartl, A. (2014). Moving from recycling to waste prevention: A review of barriers and enables. Waste Management & Research: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 32, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342 42X14541986 Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. MIT Press. Breuer, F., Muckel, P., & Dieris, B. (2018). Reflexive grounded theory. Eine Einführung für die Forschungspraxis (3. überarbeitete und erweiterte. Aufl.). Springer. Brooks, A. (2015). Systems of provision: Fast fashion and jeans. Geoforum, 63, 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.018 Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Hrsg.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Sage. Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27, 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-­004-­2284-­6 Cooper, T. (2005). Slower consumption reflections on product life spans and the “throwaway society”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9, 51–67. https://doi. org/10.1162/1088198054084671 Cooper, T. (Hrsg.). (2010). Longer lasting products. Alternatives to the throwaway society. Gower/Ashgate. Cooper, T., & Mayers, K. (2000). Prospects for household appliances. Sheffield Hallam University. Cox, J., Griffith, S., Giorgi, S., & King, G. (2013). Consumer understanding of product lifetimes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2013.05.003 Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. In O.  Neurath, R.  Carnap, & C.  Morris (Hrsg.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Bd. 2, Nr. 4). University of Chicago Press. Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation (Hrsg.). (2013). Towards the circular economy. Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation. https:// www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/towards-­the-­circular-­economy-­vol-­1-­ an-­economic-­and-­business-­rationale-­for-­an-­accelerated-­transition. Accessed: 27. Juli 2020.

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

107

Evans, S., & Cooper, T. (2010). Consumer influences on product life-spans. In T. Cooper (Hrsg.), Longer lasting products. Alternatives to the throwaway society (S. 319–350). Gower/Ashgate. Fine, B., Bayliss, K., & Robertson, M. (2018). The systems of provision approach to understanding consumption. In O. Kravets, P. Maclaran, S. Miles, & A. Venkatesh (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of consumer culture (S. 27–42). SAGE. Haines-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J., & Aliakseyeu, D. (2018). Emotional durability design nine – A tool for product longevity. Sustainability, 10, 1–19. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10061948 Hedman, J., Bødker, M., Gimpel, G., & Damsgaard, J. (2019). Translating evolving technology use into user stories: Technology life narratives of consumer technology use. Information Systems Journal, 29, 1178–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12232 Hörning, K. H. (2001). Experten des Alltags. Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens (1. Aufl.). Velbrück Wissenschaft. Jaeger-Erben, M. (2017). Geplanter oder hervorgebrachter Verschleiß? Das Potential (umwelt)soziologischer Praxistheorien zum Verstehen von Obsoleszenz bei Konsumgütern. In S. Lessenich (Hrsg.), Geschlossene Gesellschaften. Verhandlungen des 38. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Bamberg 2016. publikationen.soziologie. de/index.php/kongressband_2016/article/view/595/pdf_227. Accessed: 27. Juli 2020. Jaeger-Erben, M., & Hipp, T. (2018a). All the rage or take it easy? Expectations and experiences in the context of product lifetimes descriptive analysis of a representative online survey in Germany in 2017. Obsolescence Research Group/OHA-Texte 2018/1. https:// challengeobsolescence.info/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2018/03/Research-­G roup-­O HA_ Description-­Online-­Survey_2018.pdf. Accessed: 6. Aug. 2020. Jaeger-Erben, M., & Hipp, T. (2018b). Geplanter Verschleiß oder Wegwerfkonsum? Verantwortungsdiskurse und Produktverantwortung im Kontext kurzlebiger Konsumgüter. In A.  Henkel, L.  Hochmann, N.  Buschmann, & N.  Lüdtke (Hrsg.), Reflexive Responsibilisierung. Verantwortung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Sozialtheorie (S. 369–390). Transcript. Jaeger-Erben, M., Winzer, J., Marwede, M. & Proske, M. (2016). Obsoleszenz als Herausforderung für Nachhaltigkeit. Ursachen und Alternativen für Kurzlebigkeit in der „Wegwerfgesellschaft“. In H. Rogall, H.-C. Binswanger, F. Ekardt, A. Grothe, W.D. Hasenclever, I. Hauchler, M. Jänicke, K. Kollmann, N. V. Michealis, H. G. Nutzinger, & G.  Scherhorn (Hrsg.), Im Brennpunkt Ressourcenwende  – Transformation zu einer ressourcenleichten Gesellschaft (S. 91–122). Metropolis. Janusz-Renault, G. (2008). Modell zur produkttypenspezifischen Bestimmung der ökologisch optimalen Nutzungsdauer (Dissertation). TU Berlin. Kaddoura, M., Kambanou, M. L., Tillman, A.-M., & Sakao, T. (2019). Is prolonging the lifetime of passive durable products a low-hanging fruit of a circular economy? A multiple case study. Sustainability, 11, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184819 Kjellberg, H., & Mallard, A. (2013). Valuation studies? Our collective two cents. Valuation Studies, 1, 11–30. https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-­5992.131111 Knight, T., King, G., Herren, S., & Cox, J. (2013). Electrical and electronic product design: product lifetime. WRAP  – The Waste and Resources Action Programme. www.wrap. org.uk/sustainable-­electricals/esap/consumer-­behaviour/reports/consumer-­research-­ electrical-­product-­lifetimes. Accessed: 18. Juni 2019.

108

T. Hipp and M. Jaeger-Erben

Krüger, A. K., & Reinhart, M. (2016). Wert, Werte und (Be)Wertungen. Eine erste begriffsund prozesstheoretische Sondierung der aktuellen Soziologie der Bewertung. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 26, 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11609-­017-­0330-­x Krüger, A.  K., & Reinhart, M. (2017). Theories of valuation  – Building blocks for conceptualizing valuation between practice and structure. Historical Social Research, 42, 263–285. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.42.2017.1.263-­285 Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-­soc-­070308-­120022 Meier, F., Peetz, T., & Waibel, D. (2016). Bewertungskonstellationen. Theoretische Überlegungen zur Soziologie der Bewertung. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 26, 307– 328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11609-­017-­0325-­7 Mey, G. N., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded theory reader. Springer Fachmedien. Murakami, S., Oguchi, M., Tasaki, T., Daigo, I., & Hashimoto, S. (2010). Lifespan of commodities, part I. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1530-­9290.2010.00250.x Nishijima, D. (2017). The role of technology, product lifetime, and energy efficiency in climate mitigation: A case study of air conditioners in Japan. Energy Policy, 104, 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.045 Pérez-Belis, V., Bovea, M.  D., & Ibáñez-Forés, V. (2015). An in-depth literature review of the waste electrical and electronic equipment context: Trends and evolution. Waste Management & Research: The Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association ISWA, 33, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14557382 Prakash, S., Dehoust, G., Gsell, M., Schleicher, T., & Stamminger, R. (2015). Einfluss der Nutzungsdauer von Produkten auf ihre Umweltwirkung: Schaffung einer Informationsgrundlage und Entwicklung von Strategien gegen „Obsoleszenz“. ZWISCHENBERICHT: Analyse der Entwicklung der Lebens-, Nutzungs- und Verweildauer von ausgewählten Produktgruppen. Umwelt Bundesamt Publikationen Texte 10/2015. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen. Accessed: 6. Aug. 2020. Proske, M., & Jaeger-Erben, M. (2019). Decreasing obsolescence with modular smartphones? – An interdisciplinary perspective on lifecycles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.116 Ramírez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-­0266(199901)20:13.0.CO;2-­2 Reckwitz, A. (2002). The status of the “material” in theories of culture. From “social structure” to “artefacts”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 195–217. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-­5914.00183 Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken [Basic elements of a theory of social practices]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32, 282–301. https://doi. org/10.1515/zfsoz-­2003-­0401 Roberts, T., Hope, A., & Skelton, A. (2017). Why on earth did I buy that? A study of regretted appliance purchases. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 375, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0373

“Doing Value”: How Practices of Assigning Meaning Influence the Usetime…

109

Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice  – New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics, 68, 2490–2497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015 Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. (Hrsg.). (2000). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge. Shove, E. (2007). The design of everyday life. Cultures of consumption series. Berg. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42, 1273–1285. https://doi. org/10.1068/a42282 Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (Hrsg.). (2013). Sustainable practices. Social theory and climate change (Routledge advances in sociology) (Bd. 95). Routledge. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice. Everyday life and how it changes. SAGE. Simmel, G., & Frisby, D. (2004). The philosophy of money (3. enl. Aufl.). Routledge. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2019). Ausstattung privater Haushalte mit Unterhaltungselektronik im Zeitvergleich, Deutschland. Statistisches Bundesamt. www.destatis.de/DE/ Themen/Gesellschaft-­Umwelt/Einkommen-­Konsum-­Lebensbedingungen/Ausstattung-­ Gebrauchsgueter/Tabellen/a-­unterhaltungselektr-­d-­lwr.html?nn=209688. Accessed: 8. Juli 2020. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage. Umweltbundesamt. (2019). Elektroaltgeräte. Umweltbundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/abfall-­ressourcen/produktverantwortung-­in-­der-­abfallwirtschaft/ elektroaltgeraete#elektronikaltgerate-­in-­deutschland. Accessed: 6. Febr. 2020. Van Nes, N., & Cramer, J. (2006). Product lifetime optimization. A challenging strategy towards more sustainable consumption patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1307–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.04.006 Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5, 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090 Watson, M. (2012). How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2012.04.002 Weller, I. (Hrsg.) (2009). Systems of provision & industrial ecology: Neue Perspektiven für die Forschung zu nachhaltigem Konsum. Forschungszentrum Nachhaltigkeit. artec-paper Nr. 162. https://nbn-­resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-­ssoar-­219508. Accessed: 6. Aug. 2020. Wieser, H., Tröger, N., & Hübner, R. (2015). Die Nutzungsdauer und Obsoleszenz von Gebrauchtsgütern im Zeitalter der Beschleunigung. Eine empirische Untersuchung in österreichischen Haushalten (Stand). EMedien Arbeiterkammer Wien. https://emedien. arbeiterkammer.at/viewer/!fulltext/AC12299727/87/. Accessed: 6. Aug. 2020.

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote Sustainable Products and Their Support by Consumers Gerhard Paulinger and Nina Tröger

Abstract

In the field of sustainable product policy, there are a number of proposals, especially at EU level, but also from many stakeholders and scientists, on how the lifespan and reparability of consumer goods could be increased. Ideas include the introduction of a repair label or the definition of a minimum service life for products. This article examines which of these sustainability-oriented consumer policy measures in the area of large household appliances are also supported or rejected by consumers. Subsequently, it is examined in detail which factors influence the approval/rejection of the measures and which types of consumers can be distinguished on the basis of empirical data. This analysis provides an insight into the structuring of the approval of consumer policy measures, indications for political strategies and a starting point for in-depth studies on the connection between subjective life situations and the acceptance and effect of sustainability-­oriented measures. G. Paulinger () Department General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences Krems, Krems, Austria e-mail: [email protected] N. Tröger Department Consumer Policy, Chamber of Labour Vienna, Vienna, Austria e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 M. Jonas et al. (eds.), Repair, Do-It-Yourself and Circular Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40150-4_7

111

112

G. Paulinger and N. Tröger

1 Introduction Sustainable product policy is understood to mean extending the lifespan of consumer goods and increasing their reparability. This is a topic that has increasingly occupied the media,1 consumers,2 but also civil society organisations3 for several years and has also been implemented in the field of education by means of teaching materials.4 Interest groups such as the European consumer protection organisation BEUC (cf. ibid. 2015) and environmental protection organisations have also been drawing attention to the problem of premature obsolescence for a long time. On the part of politics, there are important signals for more resource protection, especially with the Green Deal (European Commission, 2019) and the 2nd Circular Economy Package (ibid. 2020), which will be presented in spring 2020 (see also the introduction to this book volume). In the Austrian government programme, targets regarding the promotion of sustainability of products and measures against obsolescence are anchored for the first time (Austrian Federal Government, 2020). However, this can only be the beginning of a far-reaching “socio-ecological” transformation (cf. Eisenriegler, 2020). Various empirical studies show the fundamental willingness of consumers in Austria to engage in the Circular Economy, but in an EU-­wide comparison there is still a lot of catching up to do. Although 86% of Austrians consider environmental protection in general to be (very) important, this still puts them in last place in an EU-wide comparison (European Commission, 2020a, b, p. 9). This is also accompanied by the assessment that, compared to other EU member states, Austrians believe less that their personal consumption behaviour has an influence on the environment (58% of Austrians vs. 68% on average in the EU) (ibid., p.  37). Nevertheless, they believe that changing their consumption behaviour is the “best contribution to environmental protection” (ibid., p.  50). If we look at individual aspects, particularly in relation to product policy, the life-time of major household appliances is of above-average importance to Austrians (49% vs. 39% on average in Europe) (European Commission, 2014, p. 63 ff.). Furthermore, in an EU comparison, they use their consumer goods for a very long time according to their selfassessment, but tend to buy few second-hand products (European Commission, 2018, p. 57). Compared to other EU citizens, they are less interested in information  One of the triggers for the media debate can be seen in the 2010 film “Buying for the dump”. 2  As the subject of various studies and surveys, see Prakash et al. (2016), Jaeger-Erben and Hipp (2017), Wieser and Tröger (2015), and Weder et al. in this volume. 3  E.g. the re-use and repair network Repanet. 4  See, e.g., current Turek (2019) or Österreichisches Ökologie-Institut (n.d.). 1

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote…

113

about the durability and reparability of products, but at the same time find that this information is difficult to obtain (ibid., p. 82). When buying a product, quality and price are the two most important criteria, followed by durability, reparability, available repair services and environmental characteristics. At the bottom end, the brand and the topicality of the product are ranked (ibid., p. 141 f.). Austrian consumers are in favour of consumer protection organisations campaigning for durability and repairability as well as for more environmental and climate protection in production and trade (Institut für empirische Sozialforschung, 2019). The range of possible consumer policy measures to promote product durability and repairability ranges from information to tax incentives to bans on certain products. Due to this multitude of measures, the question arises, which of them are also supported by consumers. Such an investigation of the consumers’ assessment of concrete political measures is missing so far and will therefore be the subject of the following article. To this end, the following three questions are addressed here: (1) How strong is consumer approval of different consumption policy measures in the area of household appliances? (2) How is the approval structured, which characteristics of consumers and households can explain differences in approval and what role do subjective expectations of household appliances play? (3) Which groups or types of consumers can be identified with regard to the approval of consumer policy measures and which characteristics do they have?

2 Survey Method and Sample The analyzed data originate from the “Konsummonitor” (Consumption Monitor) project of the University of Vienna and the Vienna Chamber of Labour, in the context of which the consumption of private households in the areas of food, grocery shopping, travel and everyday finances was surveyed in 2019 by means of an online panel survey in several survey waves. The approximately 1100 participating households are part of an Austria-wide probability sample stratified by census district from all Austrian private households with a postal address. The drawn households were invited by mail to register and were contacted by e-mail for topic-centred survey waves and could participate in the surveys until the end of the survey in February 2020. For the analysis of the data, calibration weights were calculated based on the marginal distributions of age, gender (Statistics Austria, 2011), education (Statistics Austria, 2017) and household size (Statistics Austria, 2018) known from official statistics (cf. DeBell, 2018; Pasek, 2018), so that the marginal distribution of the sample corresponds to the population in these characteristics. The following calcu-

G. Paulinger and N. Tröger

114

lations include the cases with the respective calculated case weight. Table  1 provides an overview of the central characteristics of the sample and the variables used later for the modelling. Table 1  Characteristics of the sample unweighted/weighted Gender Male Female Age (in years, categorized) Until 19 years 20–29 J 30–39 J 40–49 J 50–59 J 60–69 J From 70 years Age (in years) Mean (SD) Median (Q1; Q3) Range Education Apprenticeship with vocational school or below School for intermediate vocational education (BMS, HAS) Academic secondary school upper cycle (AHS) College for Higher Vocational Education (BHS, HTL, HAK) Post-secondary courses University Number of household members 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5+ persons Living environment Big city and surroundings (small) town and surroundings Village/rural environment

Unweighted (N = 613)

Weighted (N = 613)

254 341

(42.7%) (57.3%)

288.2 303.2

(48.7%) (51.3%)

5 69 123 97 124 126 46

(0.8%) (11.7%) (20.8%) (16.4%) (21.0%) (21.4%) (7.8%)

17.2 111.3 110.8 93.0 76.4 113.8 64.9

(2.9%) (19.0%) (18.9%) (15.8%) (13.0%) (19.4%) (11.1%)

48.4 (15.0) 46.5 (17.1) 50.0 (35.0; 61.0) 45.0 (31.0; 61.0) 17.0–79.0 17.0–79.0 11

(18.6%)

342.5

(57.5%)

60

(10.0%)

83.3

(14.0%)

63

(10.5%)

38.9

(6.5%)

82

(13.7%)

47.0

(7.9%)

42 240

(7.0%) (40.1%)

14.7 69.0

(2.5%) (11.6%)

140 252 91 85 30

(23.4%) (42.1%) (15.2%) (14.2%) (5.0%)

221.0 180.0 88.5 68.1 36.5

(37.2%) (30.3%) (14.9%) (11.5%) (6.1%)

260 151 188

(43.4%) (25.2%) (31.4%)

228.2 149.0 217.2

(38.4%) (25.1%) (36.5%) (continued)

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote…

115

Table 1 (continued) Unweighted (N = 613) Equiv. Net household income (€ per month, categorized) Until 1000 € 42 (7.4%)  >1000 to 2000 € 238 (41.7%)  >2000 to 3000 € 177 (31.0%) From 3000 € 114 (20.0%) Equivalised disposable income (€ per month) Mean (SD) 2300.7 (1171.8) Median (Q1; Q3) 2023.8 (1500.0; 2833.3) Range 182.9–10,000.0 Financial situation Very good 277 (46.4%) Rather good 195 (32.7%) Middling 100 (16.8%) Rather bad 24 (4.0%) Very bad 1 (0.2%)

Weighted (N = 613) 67.6 303.5 135.3 63.7

(11.9%) (53.2%) (23.7%) (11.2%)

2000.4 1785.7

(1146.3) (1333.3; 2400.0) 182.9–10,000.0 190.0 222.8 131.3 52.5 0.3

(31.8%) (37.3%) (22.0%) (8.8%) (0.0%)

Source: AK Konsummonitor

3 Results The questionnaire contains a set of 12 questions, which were used to ascertain agreement with various consumer policy demands. The measures listed below are important in the context of a transformation towards a circular economy at the political level and primarily include the promotion of the lifespan and reparability of consumer goods. The range thus extends from voluntary measures, through fiscal incentive measures, to bans or legal obligations, and is based on current ideas and potential measures drafted by various actors in the political discourse.

3.1 Approval of Consumer Policy Measures In the following section, various political measures demanded by experts are presented and put into relation with the results of the consumption monitor survey. Figure 1 shows the acceptance on the part of the consumers surveyed. Measures such as quality labels or consumer information can contribute to the promotion of sustainable purchasing decisions. However, many actors are calling for mandatory information on reparability or the (minimum) service life (BEUC,

116

G. Paulinger and N. Tröger

Fig. 1  Approval of consumer policy measures. (Source: AK Konsummonitor, calculations with case weights)

2019; European Environmental Bureau, 2016; Öko-Institut e. V., 2019; Oehme et al., 2017). At the European level, the practicality and feasibility of a repair label is being discussed in concrete terms (Cordella et al., 2019). In the future, a label on the packaging could inform consumers about the reparability of a product. Such measures receive a high level of approval among the respondents5 – the introduction of quality labels to provide information about the life-time is approved “very much” or “rather” by 87%, a quality label for reparability by 82% of the respondents.

 Agreement with the measures was surveyed with the question “How much would you agree with the following consumer policy measures?” on a 5-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). 5

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote…

117

Legally binding guarantees on the functionality of products over a longer period of time, the reparability of goods and ensuring the long-term availability of spare parts are further demands of the actors (ibid.). These measures increase the pressure on manufacturers to produce more durable products. For consumers, the change in supply increases the certainty of purchasing a durable product on the one hand and the chance that it can still be repaired after a long period of use on the other. Legal measures to oblige companies, such as a 5-year warranty period (89% agree “very much” or “rather”), to guarantee spare parts and software updates over a period of 10 years (85%) and to guarantee the repairability of the devices produced (80%) meet with high approval from the respondents. Only the introduction of an even more far-reaching 10-year guarantee on appliances is received with some scepticism, with only around half of respondents agreeing “very much” or “rather” (55%). A more far-reaching political step would be bans. Such a ban on products that are designed to be short-lived is called for more or less explicitly (e.g. in the form of a minimum lifespan) by various actors* (BEUC, 2019; European Economic and Social Committee, 2013; Oehme et  al., 2017; Öko-Institut e. V., 2019). A ban on appliances with a short lifespan was agreed to by 77% of respondents. In addition to legal obligations, the design of taxes also offers further possible state incentive measures to make repairs more favourable for consumers compared to new purchases and thus increase the service life of products. In addition to reducing repair costs for buyers, e.g. in the form of reduced tax rates or indirectly through deductibility via income tax or through repair subsidies (ARGE Rohstoffe, 2019; European Environmental Bureau, 2016; Oehme et al., 2017), tax relief for companies can also be considered. The Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) has analysed the effects of various tax measures with regard to repairs (tax reductions on repair services, tax deductibility and repair subsidies) – there is no conclusive assessment of which measure would be most recommendable, as many different factors would have to be taken into account (Köppl et al., 2019). Around three ­quarters of respondents agree with such tax measures: the tax deductibility of repair costs (75%), the reduction of VAT on spare parts and repair services (80%) and likewise the tax relief for companies that produce or offer durable equipment (80%). Another form of incentive measure to extend product lifetimes would be to promote new business models, such as lending or sharing appliances (Eisenriegler, 2020; Oehme et al., 2017; Tröger et al., 2017) – this consumption policy measure is agreed to by around 41% of respondents, which is comparatively the lowest figure among the measures surveyed, but the proportion of the undecided middle category is also by far the highest here (31% partly/partly).

118

G. Paulinger and N. Tröger

3.2 Modelling Attitudes Towards Consumption Policies In the next step, the approval of these consumption policy measures is explained in multiple linear regression models by socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and the households.6 Tables 2 and 37 show the results of the linear regressions8: The effect of gender on approval is predominantly small for all measures. Women agree slightly more than men with the measures on the introduction of a 10-year guarantee period and the promotion of new business models. The differences between the age groups are higher: With increasing age, the agreement with the majority of the measures mentioned increases. Especially the mean approval of the group of theover 60-year-olds is predominantly and statistically significant above the values of the reference category of the up to 29-year-olds. The effect of education is not uniformly directed. Only in the case of individual measures the differences to the reference category are significant. The case of the promotion of new business models comes along with a higher level of education. With regard to living environment and household size, no uniform patterns are identifiable. The financial situation of the households, which was surveyed by the equivalent income9 and the subjective classification of the financial situation,10 has a stronger effect. On the one hand agreement with a selection of the measures (tax relief for companies, tax deductibility of repair costs, 10-year warranty period, new business models) decreases with increasing income. On the other hand agreement with increased taxation of appliances with a short service life, the introduction of a statutory 5-year warranty period and also the promotion of new business models (such as lending, renting, sharing) is far and statistically significantly above the conditional estimates for the reference category “very good” when the financial situation is poor. It can be seen that the approval of the various consumption policy measures is not uniform and homogeneous. It varies very differently with the socio-demographic characteristics of consumers and households depending on the content and type.

 The linear regression models for the individual consumption policy measures are calculated using the statistical software R (R Core Team, 2020) and the survey package (Lumley, 2020). 7  The exact wording of the items of each policy measure can be found in Figure 1. 8  The estimated coefficients can be interpreted as the partial effect of the respective characteristic in scale units of the dependent variable (scale: strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)), in each case controlling for the other explanatory characteristics. 9  Calculation of equivalised disposable income using modified OECD scale. 10  Question wording: How does your household manage on this income? 6

(Constant)

0.17 0.36 0.42 0.69**

50–59 J

60–69 J

From 70 year

0.19 −0.22

0.14 −0.00 0.02

College for Higher Vocational Education

Post-secondary courses

University

−0.06

−0.22

Village/rural Env.

−0.12 0.51* 0.68**

−0.01 0.34 −0.13

3 persons

4 persons

5+ persons

−0.73*

0.07

From 3000 €

−0.10

−0.27 553 0.131/0.093

Rather/very bad

Number of cases

R2/R2 corrected

Source: AK Konsummonitor, calculations with case weights

−0.04

−0.30

Middling

0.154/0.117

550

−0.13

0.08

Rather good

0.076/0.034

538

1.34**

−0.13

−0.04

0.18

−0.52*

−0.19

Financial situation: Very good (ref.)

0.40

−0.21

−0.20

 >2000 to 3000 €

0.28

0.31

0.41

0.00

−0.06

0.26

0.40

0.27

0.105/0.066

549

0.62

0.07

−0.18

−0.07

−0.23

−0.03

−0.13

0.56

0.12

0.02

0.13

0.10

0.24

0.17

−0.10

−0.08 −0.07

0.32

−0.01

0.71

0.92***

0.58

0.44

0.47

−0.12

3.60***

Ban on short life

0.69*

0.04

0.60

0.04

0.35

0.35

0.16

−0.08

 >1000 to 2000 €

Equivalised disposable income per month: Up to 1000 € (ref.)

0.16

0.07

2 persons

Number of household members: 1 person (ref.)

−0.12

−0.13

(small) town and env.

Living environment: Metropolis and surrounding area (ref.)

−0.18

−0.04

0.17

−0.24

−0.40

Academic secondary school upper cycle

1.07***

0.53*

0.60*

0.32

0.43

0.16

School for intermediate vocational education

Educational attainment: Apprenticeship with vocational school or below (ref.)

0.21

40–49 J

0.23

3.06***

3.93***

4.40***

30–39 J

Age (in years, cat.): Up to 29 years (ref.)

Female

Gender: Male (Ref.)

Tax relief for Increased tax on providing long-life short life

Label life-time

Table 2  Multiple linear regression (OLS) of attitudes towards political measures (Part 1)

0.115/0.076

553

0.63*

0.26

0.11

0.14

−0.03

0.25

−0.18

0.16

0.05

0.10

0.13

0.12

0.28

0.09

0.14

0.00

−0.24

0.64***

0.54**

0.37

0.22

0.11

0.02

3.83***

Statutory 5-year guarantee

0.165/0.127

537

−0.10

−0.11

0.18

−0.40

−0.62*

−0.26

−0.46

0.39

0.41

−0.27

−0.05

0.13

0.41*

−0.13

0.38

0.05

−0.26

1.22***

1.06***

0.38

0.87***

0.21

0.34*

3.13***

Statutory 10-year guarantee

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote… 119

(constant)

0.27 0.49* 0.54** 0.80***

50–59 J

60–69 J

From 70 years

0.14 0.19 0.09 0.16

Academic secondary school upper cycle

College for Higher Vocational Education

Post-secondary courses

University

−0.04

−0.28

0.11 0.37

4 persons

5+ persons

0.01 0.18

−0.21 −0.31

From 3000 €

0.07 554 0.160/0.123

Rather/very bad

Number of cases

R2/R2 corrected

Source: AK Konsummonitor, calculations with case weights

0.03

−0.58*

Middling

0.132/0.094

553

0.31

0.11

0.05

Rather good

Financial situation: Very good (ref.)

0.16

−0.17

 >2000 to 3000 €

0.40

 >1000 to 2000 €

Equivalised disposable income per month: Up to 1000 € (ref.)

0.34

−0.01

3 persons 0.40

0.14

0.18

2 persons

Number of household members. 1 person (ref.)

−0.13

−0.13

Village/rural Env.

0.178/0.142

0.096/0.055

539

0.17

−0.32 550

0.21

0.30*

−0.39

−0.39

−0.14

0.20

0.07

−0.09

−0.08

−0.13

0.01

0.02

0.23

0.22

0.12

−0.03

0.39

0.23

0.20

0.25

−0.09

0.08

4.21***

VAT reduction on spare parts and repair

−0.05

0.18

−0.12

−0.38

−0.18

0.15

0.44*

0.19

−0.08

−0.05

−0.10

0.25

−0.05

−0.09 0.05

0.36*

0.07

−0.23

1.13***

0.96***

0.70**

0.47*

0.23

0.18

3.87***

Availability spare parts and software (10 y)

0.21

0.31

−0.12

0.89***

0.64**

0.14

0.31

−0.12

(small) town and env.

Living environment: Metropolis and surrounding area (ref.)

−0.18

School for intermediate vocational education

Educational attainment: Apprenticeship with vocational school or below (ref.)

0.03

40–49 J

0.11

4.20*** 0.16

3.67***

Label repairability

30–39 J

Age (in years, cat.): Up to 29 years (ref.)

Female

Gender: Male (ref.)

Guarantee on repairability

Table 3  Multiple linear regression (OLS) of attitudes towards political measures (Part 2)

0.141/0.102

530

−0.11

−0.04

0.24

−0.84*

−0.52*

−0.07

0.65*

0.62*

0.40

0.31

−0.48*

−0.37*

0.01

0.03

0.148/0.109

534

1.34***

−0.20

0.14

−0.59*

−0.11

−0.08

0.32

0.22

0.75**

0.03

−0.28

−0.10

0.36*

0.62*

0.07

0.38 0.13

−0.01 −0.23

0.52*

−0.04

−0.38

0.21

0.11

0.16

0.19

0.16

0.35

−0.03

0.35*

2.83***

Promoting new business models

−0.18

0.13

4.25***

Tax deductibility of repair costs

120

G. Paulinger and N. Tröger

Incentives, Guarantees, Prohibitions? Consumer Policy Measures to Promote…

121

Fig. 2  Importance of certain characteristics when buying household appliances. (Source: AK Konsummonitor, calculations with case weights)

The age of the respondents and the financial situation of the households prove to be the comparatively strongest influencing factors here. In a further step, in addition to the socio-demographic variables, surveyed attitudes towards household appliances are included as explanatory variables in the models (see Fig. 2).11 This tests whether the subjective importance of a long service life and reparability in the purchase of household appliances is also positively associated with the approval of corresponding political measures. It is also tested whether the importance of state-of-the-art technology has a negative effect on approval. An assumption behind this would be that the desire for the latest technology is associated with frequent replacement purchases and therefore at least indifference to durable lifetime. A negative relationship between price and approval of the demands is expected and explained by the fact that measures could lead to possible price increases, for example by banning short-lived but often low-priced devices. Some of the expected correlations are also reflected in the empirical results (see Tables 4 and 512): The subjective importance of durability and reparability has a strong positive effect on the approval, consistent with the respective relevant measures. With the importance of lifespan, the agreement on the introduction of a quality label informing about the lifespan of appliances as well as on a ban of appliances with a short lifespan increases significantly and strongly (b = 0.59 and 0.60, respectively, p