new technology in everyday life – social processes and environmental impact

Ecological Economics 38 (2001) 403–422

ANALYSIS

New technology in everyday life – social processes andenvironmental impact

Inge Røpke *Technology and En�ironment Studies/IPL, Technical Uni�ersity of Denmark, Matematiktor�et, Building 303,

DK-2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark

Received 10 December 2000; received in revised form 29 January 2001; accepted 6 March 2001

Abstract

In the environmental debate it is increasingly acknowledged that our way of life has profound environmentalconsequences. Therefore, it becomes ever more important to focus on and to understand how everyday life is formedand how it changes over time. Changing technology constitutes an important aspect, both of changes in everyday lifeand of the environmental impact of everyday-life activities. Technological change is often seen as an important partof the solutions to environmental problems; however, when technological change is seen from the perspective ofeveryday life, this image becomes more complex. In this paper, technological changes are explored from theperspective of consumption and everyday life, and it is argued that environmental impacts arise through the interplayof technology, consumption and everyday life. Firstly, because technological renewals form integral parts of severalof the dynamic forces behind consumption and thus contribute to the growing quantities of consumption, whichcounteract the environmental improvements. Secondly, because some of the technological changes are integrated withthe processes, which change everyday life more profoundly and thus influence the environment in the long run. Thepaper points to the need for further studies of the long-term interplay between new technologies, everyday life andthe environment. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumption dynamics; Technological change; Everyday life

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

1. Introduction

In the environmental debate, it is increasinglyacknowledged that our way of life has profoundenvironmental consequences. Not only is the waywe produce decisive, but also the quantities we

consume and the way we carry out different activ-ities in everyday life. Therefore, it becomes evermore important to focus on and to understandhow everyday life is formed and how it changesover time. Changing technology constitutes animportant aspect, both of changes in everyday lifeand of the environmental impact of everyday-lifeactivities. Technological change is often seen as animportant part of the solutions to environmental

* Tel.: +45-4525-6009; fax: +45-4593-6620.E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Røpke).

0921-8009/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0921-8009(01)00183-5

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 38 (2001) 403–422404

problems because cleaner technologies can con-tribute to less resource intensive and less pollutingproduction. When technological change is seenfrom the perspective of everyday life, however,this image becomes more complex. The purposeof this paper is to explore the interplay of techno-logical change and everyday life and to assess theenvironmental impacts of this interplay. The pa-per has been written as a part of a researchproject on ‘consumers and new household tech-nologies in ecological transformation’.1 The pro-ject includes both a search for theoreticalperspectives that can inspire empirical investiga-tions, and a small qualitative empirical study offamilies’ acquirement and use of new technolo-gies. The present paper is based on availableliterature and seeks to organise different theoreti-cal perspectives into a framework that can inspireempirical studies of the interplay of technologicalchange, everyday life and the environment. Thestructure of the paper is based on the followingquestions and related theories:1. How can technological renewals be perceived

from the perspective of consumption? The dif-ferences between considering the changes fromthe production side and the consumption sideare emphasised here. The point of departure forthe discussion is inspired by the economics ofinnovation.

2. How are technological renewals integrated withdifferent dynamic forces behind the growth ofconsumption? As the research project is espe-cially concerned with families’ acquirement ofnew technologies, special importance is at-tached to dynamics related to families. Theoriesof everyday life and of modern families areemployed in the analysis.

3. How do families integrate the new technologiesinto everyday life, and how can this integrationbe analysed at the micro level? Here the theoriesof domestication of new technology are themain source of inspiration.

4. How can technological changes be in long-termintegrated with more profound social changes atthe macro level? The history of technology isemployed in this discussion.

5. Which environmental impact can technologicalrenewals and the related social changes get inthe short run and the long run, respectively?This last section summarises the results of theformer sections and relates them to the environ-mental perspective.

The idea of the paper is related to the environ-mental problematique, but as the questions abovewill reveal, most of the paper concerns technolog-ical change and everyday life. The background forthis priority is related to my choice of focussing firstof all on the general environmental impact ofgrowing consumption, while the many more spe-cific environmental consequences are not dealt within this paper. Assessments of environmental im-pacts of technological changes of consumer goodsoften concern issues such as the substances embod-ied in the products, the production methods used,the emissions and health effects related to the useof the products, the economic life of the products,possibilities for reuse, waste generation, etc. Obvi-ously, all these aspects of the product life cycle arerelevant in direct assessments of specific products– and it is useful to systematise them – but this taskis not taken up here. Instead it is taken for grantedthat growing consumption as such implies anincrease in the environmental burden. Of course,the environmental impact of this quantity aspect ofconsumption can be counteracted by other changes(discussed in Røpke (2001), Røpke (in press)), butthis does not modify that growth is environmen-tally problematic, other things being equal. There-fore, the focus is on the dynamics behindconsumption growth both in the short run and inthe long run, and in this context the importance oftechnological changes is studied. To deal with theissue of technological changes as integrated withdriving forces behind consumption growth and asintegrated parts of changing everyday life withlong-run environmental effects, it is necessary toturn to the literature that specifically concernsconsumption, technology and everyday life. Typi-cally, this literature does not relate much to envi-ronmental questions, as it has been written forother purposes, but through organising the exposi-tion of these studies from an environmental per-spective, their insights can inform the environ-

1 The project is carried out with Jeppe Læssøe, and isfinanced by The Danish Environmental Research Programme.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 38 (2001) 403–422 405

mental debate. Therefore, the method in this pa-per consists of drawing on especially sociologicaland to a lesser degree economic literature toilluminate issues that indirectly are very importantfor the environment through their impact on thequantity of consumption.

2. Technological changes seen from theperspective of consumption

The nature of a market economy is to generateperpetual technological change – a phenomenonthat is usually discussed from the perspective ofproduction and business. The competition be-tween firms leads to continued efforts both toproduce goods in a cheaper way through newproduction technologies and to renew products sothey differ from other products and can attractcustomers’ attention. In the present context, themost interesting innovations concern the productsand services sold for consumption (and in somecases also process innovations implying radicalreductions in the price of consumer goods). Byfar, the most widespread form of product innova-tion deals with changes of existing products. Insome cases, only marginal changes of design areimplemented, while other cases imply more exten-sive changes that will often be based on theavailability of a new core technology. The conceptof core technology refers to a technology with thepotential of being incorporated in many differentproducts and processes. Core technologies can benew energy technologies (steam power, electric-ity), new technologies for transmission of energy(motor technology), new control technologies (mi-croelectronics), new materials technologies (plas-tic, composite materials), etc. When a new coretechnology becomes available, it is followed by alarge number of subsequent innovations as firmsin all branches examine whether the technologycan somehow be applied to renew their productsand processes. Some core technologies have anespecially large impact because of their generalusefulness, and such technologies play an impor-tant role in the theories of long waves in economicdevelopment (Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi et al.,1988). New core technologies can also be the basis

of the development of completely new consumergoods, but this happens far more rarely. When theintroduction of a completely new consumer goodis successful, it will often be followed by otherinnovations related to the new use, thereby creat-ing a family of associated products.

When innovations and renewals are seen fromthe consumption perspective, a bombardment oftechnological changes appears in all fields. Fromthe perspective of consumption, it is less interest-ing which core technologies the producers applyto renew their products and to develop completelynew ones. It is more interesting how the renewalsinteract with changes in everyday life. While theapplication of a new core technology in the pro-duction of a good can appear to be a radicalchange seen from the perspective of the producer,because a completely new form of expertise isneeded in the firm, the change can be seen asmarginal from the user’s point of view. Con-versely, a good that requires little new expertise toproduce can be related to larger changes in every-day life.

As a first step towards a closer look at techno-logical change in everyday life, I have outlined asimple taxonomy for the character of the noveltyvalue of consumer goods – thus only referring totechnical changes seen from the perspective ofprivate final consumption.2 By taking this per-spective, I do not intend to imply that sovereignconsumers are more or less entirely responsiblefor the direction of technical change – it is notmeant as a theory of demand-driven technicalchange. The taxonomy is intended to be a helpfuldevice in illuminating the diversity and the differ-ent aspects of technical changes from the perspec-tive of consumers as a basis for the subsequentexamination of the integration of technicalchanges in consumption dynamics and changingeveryday life.

The taxonomy covers both products and ser-vices that can be bought on the market, eventhough the following refers mostly to productsand only occasionally to services. Services can,however, also be based on technological changes,as in going to the cinema presupposes the film,

2 As I cannot refer to others on this taxonomy, a morethorough exposition is given than is required in the context.


and charter tourism presupposes large and inex-pensive aircraft. The point of departure for thetaxonomy is that something can be new in severaldifferent ways (Campbell, 1992). First and fore-most, something can be new in the sense that ithas not been used before. This form of newness isnot included in the taxonomy, as the focus is onrenewal in the sense of ‘different from before’.Sometimes a product can be ‘different from be-fore’ without having changed at all and withoutany changes in the practical functions of theproduct. This is the case when a well-knownproduct is used to signal a new style – for in-stance, when a cap becomes a hip-hop symbol bybeing worn reversed. In some cases, such a changein the symbolic function of a product is related tochanges in the practical function of the product,for instance, when beer crates are used as book-shelves and test tubes as flower-vases. While thepredominantly symbolic changes can be veryshort-lived, other forms of redefinition of prod-ucts have a more permanent character when theyare related to social changes and sometimes alsoto changes of the original product (a good exam-ple of a process of redefinition is given by Shoveet al. (1998), who analyse the development of thefreezer; another example could be the develop-ment of the lady’s shaver). While the form ofnewness, which only implies a change of the sym-bolic function of the product, is not relevant forthe taxonomy, the more far-reaching form ofredefinition would be relevant to include. Thiswould, however, require much knowledge aboutthe interpretation and use of each product, so thetaxonomy encompasses only visible changes ofproducts. As a special case, such visible changescan include ‘‘reinventions’’, as for instance, or-ganic foodstuffs can be said to be.

When the focus is on products that are ‘‘differ-ent from before’’, these differences can obviouslybe more or less radical. Therefore, I have distin-guished between two forms of difference: in theone form, a known product has been formeddifferently, either by a changed design or by re-ceiving some new features, however, not cruciallychanging the product, while the other form in-cludes completely new products – sometimes sonew that new words have to be found to describe

them. In practice, this differentiation was verydifficult because I could not find reasonable crite-ria to establish whether, for instance, a newcooker with a ceramic top is just a cooker withnew features or a completely new product. Ortake the digital sewing machine, the electronicscales, the electrical screwdriver. Having tried alarge number of examples, I stopped trying todefine this dimension, in spite of the obviousdifferences in the radicality of newness, and lim-ited the taxonomy to a few other dimensions.

Whether the product is well known or new, itcan fulfil either a well-known function or a com-pletely new function. It could be expected thatknown products would always have known func-tions, but this is not the case. Sometimes aproduct, either unchanged or just slightlychanged, acquires a completely new function. Oneexample is adults’ use of roller skates. In recentyears, roller skates have taken on a new functionas a means of transport – this occurred simulta-neously with technical improvements (more re-cently the same development has taken place forthe gliding scooter). It might also be expected thatnew products would typically fulfil new functions,but this is, in fact, more the exception than therule. New products will often replace other prod-ucts that previously fulfilled a similar function –as when the vacuum cleaner replaced the broomand the scrubbing-brush. Sometimes the noveltyvalue of a product is based on the combination ofseveral known functions – as when the watch isequipped with an alarm and renders the alarmclock superfluous. It is a comparatively seldomcase that new products have no real predecessorsand that their use is tied to a completely newfunction. It has to be admitted that the differenti-ation between known and new functions is notcrystal-clear, as the differences appear on a scalewhere the borderline cases can be discussed. Forinstance, in some cases a new product will firstand foremost fulfil a known function, but can beused also for hitherto unknown functions – themobile telephone is an obvious example.

For new products fulfilling a known function,another dividing line is important. Some newproducts fulfil the known function by forming apart of largely the same process as the previous


one: for instance, there is little difference betweenthe way in which one watches black-and-whitetelevision and colour television. For other prod-ucts, the use implies a completely different pro-cess, even though the function is well known: forinstance, this applies to the vacuum cleaner that isused in a different way from the broom and thescrubbing-brush that are replaced.

The taxonomy elucidates the many differentforms of newness. The taxonomy does not directlyconstitute a scale from a lower to a higher degreeof novelty value, but it is, however, reasonable tosay that the technological changes with the great-est potential for becoming integrated with moreprofound social changes will be found in thecategories of new products with new functions ornew products that replace a known function witha new process. The theories of domestication, towhich I will return later, are especially relevantfor these categories.

Just as the novelty value can differ, when it isseen from the production side and the consump-tion side, respectively, the classification of prod-ucts into categories can differ from the twoperspectives. For instance, for housekeeping therewill be a need for products from different produc-tion sectors such as detergents from the chemicalindustry and pots from the metal industry. Insome cases, production sectors and consumptiondomains will overlap, but often this is not thecase. The taxonomy is based on the domains thatmake sense from a consumption perspective.

In Fig. 1, the taxonomy is illustrated by exam-ples from different parts of private consumption.Parts of the examples are historical (printed initalics in the diagram) and can serve as paradig-matic illustrations. Most of the examples aretaken from topical catalogues and advertisementsand can illustrate the broadness of the innovativeprocesses and the scale of the bombardment towhich people are exposed. The products areplaced in the diagram according to my characteri-sation of their novelty value shortly after theirintroduction on the Danish market for privateconsumers. It is important to emphasise that thediagram must be completed for a specific geo-graphical area, as some products are well knownin other cultures even though they are new in a

more local context. For example, the introductionof the wok in Denmark. A product is first in-cluded in the diagram when it is sold to privateconsumers. Many products are initially specialproducts for professional groups and later becomegenerally available, only this later phase is inter-esting in the present context. For example, thecomputer, which has a long history before becom-ing a consumer good, and for a product such asthe echo sounder for angling. Even with theseclarifications, it must be stressed that it is prob-lematic to categorise the products, both becauseof the mentioned borderline cases, and becauseproducts can change position over time when thefunctions are shaped by consumers. A classicalexample is the telephone, which in the beginningreplaced other forms of formal communication,but gradually acquired unforeseen social functions(Mackay, 1997).

When the taxonomy is filled in with topicalexamples, it becomes, as mentioned, illustrative ofthe broadness of the perpetual innovative pro-cesses: renewal pervades everything. Simulta-neously, it becomes clear that many innovationsmust be assessed differently from the producerand the consumer side, respectively. Innovations,which require new producer expertise and newconcepts for product design, can be marginalchanges from the consumers’ perspective whenthey neither change the function of products norstimulate changed processes in the use of theproducts. The relatively modest radicality ofchanges in many areas is related to the phe-nomenon that a well-known product is usuallydeveloped within the framework of a technologi-cal paradigm that set out guidelines for the devel-opment of that specific product (Dosi, 1982;Sahal, 1985). Equipment for hiking and cyclingtours must be lighter and stronger at the sametime, machines for housekeeping must be morelabour-saving (even though they are often used toincrease the quantity and the quality of the serviceinstead), cookers must be easier to clean, do-it-yourself equipment must reduce the need forphysical effort, increase precision, etc. For eachproduct there will be special guideposts for devel-opment, additionally also more general consider-ations and meanings can be identified. Some of


Fig. 1. Taxonomy for the novelty value of consumer goods.


these have played a role for a long time, such asconvenience, efficiency and control, whileothers are relatively new, such as environment-friendliness, which can be integrated in differentproducts, sometimes even in opposition to well-established paradigms.

Even though the diagram cannot claim to berepresentative of the current technologicalchanges, it illustrates some dominant technologi-cal trends. A look at the present renewals ofconsumer goods reveals that microelectronics isthe dominant core technology: microprocessorsare integrated into nearly everything from kitchenutensils to sports equipment. Furthermore, mi-croelectronics is the dominant basis for productswith new functions and for new ways of perform-ing known functions, and the computer consti-tutes the core in a large cluster of innovations,especially related to entertainment, media, com-munication and administration. Other core tech-nologies also influence the renewal of manyconsumer goods. New material technologies, inparticular, are included in many products, butthey seldom change the functions of the productssubstantially. However, occasionally they are thebasis for new products such as the surfboard andfor new applications of old products such as rollerskates. The new biotechnology is much discussed,but it still only influences small segments of con-sumer products.

3. Consumption dynamics and technologicalchange

The taxonomy of technological change in con-sumer goods does not in itself suggest which roletechnological innovation plays in the growth ofconsumption. Only a few observations can bemade. Firstly, the renewal of the known productsalong the guidelines of the technologicalparadigms often implies standard improvementsthat encourage new acquisitions, even thoughone’s old possessions are not worn: it is temptingto buy a new self-inflating mat that is both morepleasant to use and weighs less than the old one.Secondly, some renewals render older productsobsolete in the sense that they cannot be used

anymore, so even the reluctant consumers have tosurrender: when all music is issued on CDs, it isdifficult to remain with the vinyl records, and aCD player becomes an immediate need. Thirdly,it is worth noting that the feedback from con-sumers in relation to new products sometimescontributes to further development and thus en-courages additional consumption. Especially inrelation to the introduction of radical innova-tions, the first users have a key role in the transi-tion from niche to mass markets (Reinstaller andKemp, 2000). Initially radical innovations oftenhave very specialised applications or function asstatus goods for the few people who can afford topay the high price. The users in these niche mar-kets become test users for the new product andcontribute to financing improvements and reduc-tions in production costs, so the product is devel-oped for mass marketing.

To gain insight into the interplay of consump-tion and technological change, it is necessary tochange the perspective, to take the point of depar-ture in different consumption dynamics and dis-cuss the importance of technological change inrelation to these.3 In this section, the dynamics arediscussed in relation to first identity formationand then everyday life, relating to the taxonomywhen relevant.

3.1. Materials for identity formation

Before dealing with identity formation pro-cesses as part of consumption dynamics in mod-ern society, a few more general remarks onidentity formation and the importance of materi-ality are pertinent. Identity formation has alwaysbeen related both to the interplay between theindividual and his material surroundings and to

3 In a previous article (Røpke, 1999), I dealt with consump-tion dynamics in more general terms, whereas the focus here isdirected towards aspects that are related to technologicalchange. As in the previous article, I am interested mainly inthe background for consumers’ willingness-to-consume,whereas a closer examination of the consumption dynamicsrooted in business, government, globalisation, etc. are not infocus. This priority expresses an intended limitation of thescope of the article, but it is not meant to suggest that onlyconsumers are responsible for increasing consumption.


the social interplay, in which the individual takespart. In these processes, the materiality is importantin two ways. One is related to the direct sensualexperiences that the individual achieves through hisactivities and his attempts to influence and form hissurroundings. In the direct interplay with thematerial, the individual enters into a practice thatat the same time forms the material and theindividual himself, as humans experiencethemselves through the use of things. The otherimportant aspect of materiality is related to themeaning that humans ascribe to things. Humanbeings need to find their way in the surroundingworld and to make sense of the social universethrough differentiation and classification. Throughsocial interplay meaning is ascribed to the activitiesof everyday life, and cultural schemes of guidanceand orientation are developed that make it possibleto classify events and persons, to find one’s way intime and space, and to distinguish between goodand bad. In this process, material things areintegrated as cultural markers that have thefunction of rendering visible and stabilising thecultural categories. Things are thus parts of acultural information system, which in a sensuousway communicates the cultural categories(Braudrillard, 1975; Douglas and Isherwood, 1980;Gullestad, 1989).

In modern society, the processes of identityformation proceed in ways that encourageconsumption, further stimulated by the constantrenewal. Regarding the active interplay of theindividual and the material world, it ischaracteristic of modern society that few peoplework directly with producing the material things tobe used in everyday life. To a large extent, mostpeople have to buy the things they need, and theyare thus prevented from getting the sensualexperiences and the related knowledge ofthemselves that can be achieved through physicallabour. However, the traditional experiences havebeen replaced by the consumption process, whichcan also be highly creative. Through the things webuy and through the way we arrange and use them,we leave our marks and render visible who we areand what we have done (Csikszentmihalyi andRochberg-Halton, 1981; Miller, 1987, 1997). It isthus characteristic of modern society that

consumption becomes a very important arena formeeting the material, achieving control of it andforming it creatively. The constant renewal ofconsumer goods implies that consumers are offerednew raw materials for their creative work, andmany people find it fascinating to explore the newpossibilities.

Different people are interested in exploring newconsumption possibilities in different fields, butsome trends stand out as especially important. Fora large group of people (strongly represented inScandinavian countries), forming and furnishingthe home makes up a very important part of thecreative work because the home constitutes a base,where the individual has a large influence, andwhere the visible results can sustain the person’sidentity (Nørve, 1991). As both the results and thecreative process are important for the confirmation,this work cannot be done once and for all, so newinspiration becomes a welcomed opportunity. Forthis purpose, new functions are not vital. Foranother large group (with an over-representation ofmen), it is especially attractive to explore newequipment that either offers completely newfunctions or new ways of performing knownfunctions. The fascination is related to theconfirmation the user gets of his competencethrough the achievement of control over the newdevice and the ability to manipulate it. In theexperimental process, there is also an appealingelement of play. This has been studied especially inrelation to the introduction of new media, whereLevinson (1977) has argued that new products inthe beginning have the character of toys. Relatedprocesses can be seen in the first phases of theintroduction of the home computer (Haddon, 1991;Aune, 1996).

The identity formation processes related to thesocial interplay are also closely related tocon-sumption in modern society. Material goodshave been important markers of social position inall human societies and have rendered visible socialgroups and hierarchies (Douglas and Isherwood,1980; Bourdieu, 1984). In the earlier days ofindustrial societies, including the first breakthroughof mass consumption, the individual coulddemonstrate his place in the social hierarchy by thedisplay of status goods – by conspicuous


consumption of especially expensive or raregoods. This mechanism still works, but it is farmore complicated to indicate status goods, and ithas become much more complex to interpret andunderstand the interplay of social relations andmaterial goods. In modern society, the identityformation processes meet with new challenges be-cause the social roles are no longer well definedand the rules and norms for behaviour and ap-pearance are far less clear. As a person’s identityis no longer given primarily by the socio-eco-nomic circumstances, individuals must increas-ingly choose their own behaviour and play anactive role in forming their identity. However,they cannot choose freely, as they are dependenton having their identity confirmed by other peo-ple. The confirmation presupposes communica-tion, and therefore, the expressive andcommunicative side of everyday activities has be-come more important than before. In the processof forming their identity, all persons must com-pose different elements to represent themselves(be ‘bricoleur’) in ways that are possible to haveconfirmed by others in different contexts. Someparts of everyday life have become especially im-portant domains of composition – to such adegree that the communicative expression has be-come relatively independent in relation to thepractical use value of things (Gullestad, 1989,Chapter 5).

The ongoing fight for a confirmed identity andfor an attractive place in the unclear hierarchyconstitutes a dynamic force behind consumption,as the individual constantly has to develop hiscompetence to express himself through things andto keep up with changing meanings. In this trial-and-error process, the useful life of things some-times become very short. The role of newproducts in the social stratification is not as clearas it was in the earlier phases of industrial society.Then it was an obvious part of conspicuous con-sumption to be among the first to acquire themodern goods: the telephone, the refrigerator andthe car. A new product can still get the characterof a status good in the classical sense, as ithappened with the mobile telephone that was asymbol of the successful business person in theintroduction phase, but the rapid diffusion com-

pletely changed the meaning in a very short time.Instead of becoming generally valid status goods,new products now enter into different socialgroups and acquire different meanings. Because ofthe importance of communication, renewals ofvisible products seem to be most suitable for theidentity processes. However, ‘‘visibility’’ can alsobe achieved by talking about experiences with newthings and services (e.g., travelling). As it seems tobe important for the position in the modern hier-archies to demonstrate competence, products withnew functions or related to new processes againappear to be of special interest.

3.2. Domain conflicts and the dilemma of thefamily

The outline of the identity formation processesof the individual can be complemented by abroader perspective, when everyday life is takenas the point of departure. Everyday life can beseen as a meso-level where the individual meetssociety mediated through his or her specific socialrelations and specific activities (Bech-Jørgensen,1994). Two aspects of modern everyday life willbe dealt with – domain conflicts and the dilemmaof the family – as these constitute importantdriving forces behind consumption growth andrelate in a dialectical way to technological change.

It is characteristic of modern society that sociallife has been split and differentiated into differentfields or spheres. The differentiation of societyimplies that each person has several roles throughtheir participation in different and separated foraand activities. In other words, the individuals canbe said to be engaged in different domains in theireveryday life: work, the home and different non-work activities outside the home – all more orless separated in time and space. This divisionimplies that the individual often will experiencedomain conflicts. Every domain has its own logicand demands and is inclined to dominate increas-ing parts of everyday life. Being in one domain, aperson is inclined to let this expand into otherdomains and to forget the demands from thoseother domains. However, when the person latershifts to another domain, the perspective usuallychanges again. The contradiction between the de-


mands from the different domains is a coreconflict in modern everyday life (Hochschild,1997; Holt, 1998). The conflict is embedded inthe time and space that limit the possibilities ofthriving in all domains: work, family, leisure in-terests. The limitations give rise to frustrationsrelated to the tension between the ideal ideasand wishes regarding what to achieve in eachdomain, and the actual realisation.

The domain conflict constitutes a strong driv-ing force behind consumption, as some con-sumer goods promise to relieve the tensions.One possibility is to acquire labour-savingequipment to rationalise the accomplishment oftasks in the home and thereby release time forother activities (what Douglas and Isherwood(1980) call scale-facilitating goods). Historically,much of the released time has been convertedinto increased quantities or better quality of theservices provided in the home—partly the sametype of services and partly new ones that havekept up the workload (Cowan, 1983). However,time has also been freed for leisure activities, atleast in a Danish context (Andersen, 1999).While the labour-saving household technologieshave a long history, it is a relatively new trendto emphasise the possibilities of optimising thetiming between the many tasks and the ‘pack-ing’ of everyday-life activities as frictionless anddensely as possible (Warde et al., 1998). The useof the car is essential in this optimisation pro-cess, just as it seems to be especially attractive,when a technology makes it possible to do morethings at a time, as, for instance, the walkmanand the mobile telephone do – or the new fold-ing pram for jogging that makes it possible toexercise and take care of one’s child at the sametime. A related trend is associated with the de-mand for products and services that offer astrong intensity of experience in a short time.This can be seen, for instance, when the travelbusinesses sell short trips to exciting places,where much can be experienced in a hurry.

Technologies that contribute to ‘packing’ ev-eryday life and to increase the intensity of expe-rience per unit of time could be calledcondensation technologies. The relationship be-tween the domain conflict and technological

change is dialectical, as on the one hand, thecondensation technologies can relieve the confl-ict, at least temporarily. On the other hand, thedomain conflict can influence both the techno-logical paradigms that set out guidelines for thedevelopment of different products and the rela-tive success and failure of different innovations.When condensation features are successfully in-corporated into known or new products, theycan be expected to meet a demand, and in thesecases technological change will act as a stimulusto consumption.

Another significant aspect of modern everydaylife is related to the family domain. In the mod-ern family, there is a fundamental tension be-tween cohesion and separation. On the onehand, the family is very important as a securebase in a world where the individual often hasto face great challenges and uncertainties, andwhere the identity is not given by the socialcircumstances. On the other hand, the liberationof the modern individual from the constrictingbonds of tradition implies a strong urge for in-dividual development, which might put the co-hesion of the family to the test (Livingstone,1992; Dencik, 1996). Simultaneously, to keep thefamily together and to give each member of thefamily possibilities for individual development isa key dilemma in modern family life.

This dilemma is reflected in different impulsesto consume. First, many families constantlywork extensively with forming, furnishing anddecorating the home. The shaping of the homeis part of the individual’s identity formationprocesses, and when the household is a family,the work also incorporates the identity of thefamily. The home becomes the symbolic expres-sion of the unity of the family: when you buildthe home, you build the family (Gullestad, 1989;Lofgren, 1990). This cannot be done once andfor all, but has to be confirmed again andagain. As in the case of the individual workwith identity formation, the constant renewal ofproducts offers a large number of raw materialsto fuel the process. Second, conflicts in the fam-ily can be prevented, and the friction keptdown, if the family has sufficient room andequipment to ensure that one person’s use of


something does not restrict its use by others. Thisis reflected in the growing number of cars, TVsets, CD players, cameras, etc. per household. Inrelation to renewals, some innovations are used inthe effort to consider individual interests, such asfor instance, the video recording of a programmethat cannot be seen right now, and the microwaveoven’s offer of an a la carte kitchen. Third, sometechnologies can bridge the gap between the chil-dren’s demand for independent activities and theirparents’ interest in knowing where they are. Thisgoes, for instance, for the mobile phone. Fourth,some technologies intervene directly in the tensionbetween cohesion and separation in the family.On the one hand, a technology can separate whenthe single family member isolates himself in hisuse of it (listens to music with headphones, playscomputer games alone). On the other hand, atechnology can unite the family, if family mem-bers share the interest, examine new products onthe market, try out the new acquisition, talkabout experiences or even use it together. In thefamily’s effort to keep the difficult balance be-tween cohesion and separation, many good rea-sons for consumption arise. Innovations areespecially relevant when they have a potential toreduce friction in the family, but generally thefamily dilemma seems to be a greater stimulus toincrease the volume of consumption than to influ-ence the character of technological change.

Domain conflicts and the dilemma of the familyare presented here as driving forces behind con-sumption growth. In both cases, consumer goodsoffer a relief of tensions in everyday life, however,the promise does not necessarily hold true. Asmentioned, time-saving devices (including cars)are often used for increasing the quantity andquality of the services provided instead of savingtime. In the same vein, conflict-reducing measuresin the family might move conflicts to other issues– especially because the need for earning theincome for buying the extra equipment, the biggerhouse, etc. sustains the time pressure and thusreinforces the tensions that motivated consump-tion in the first place. Even with an insight inthese mechanisms, they can be quite difficult toescape from, but at least the paradoxes open up a

potential for taking other roads – as some groupshave demonstrated in practice.

4. Integration of new technologies in everyday life

The bombardment of perpetual technologicalchange calls for processes of integration, andthese processes have both functional and symbolicaspects. Things have to find functions in everydaylife, if they are not to quickly disappear again.However, these functions are deeply embedded insymbolic processes. As emphasised above, hu-mans ascribe meaning to things that become partof a cultural information system. The constantrenewal of consumer goods implies that con-sumers are offered new raw materials for thesocial processes of making sense of the world andof forming their own identities.

When a new product suggests a new function ora new way of performing a known function, agreat scope is available for interpretation andpractical integration of the product in everydaylife. In such cases, it becomes especially interestingto follow the process of integration of the technol-ogy in everyday life. Obviously, the designers of atechnology have some ideas of the possible appli-cations and the cultural meanings that can beascribed to the product, and through marketingand the use of other media these ideas are dissem-inated and discussed. However, there is a scopefor consumers to use the technologies in otherways than intended and to ascribe other mean-ings. The scope is typically larger for new tech-nologies, but it applies also to well-knownproducts that can acquire new meanings. Thetransformation and further development of tech-nologies in everyday life are influenced by thesocial structures, circumstances and cultural con-ceptions of households, and through the processnot only technologies are transformed, but alsothe families themselves and their everyday life.4

4 In this paper, the theories on technology and everyday lifeare used mainly to discuss socio-technical change, whereasothers use the theories mainly to discuss how technologies arechanged over time, see, for instance, Appadurai (1986),Mackay and Gillespie (1992) and Pantzar (1997).


Several theories try in different ways to concep-tualise this double transformation process. Anumber of authors (summarised in Lie andSørensen (1996)) use the concept of domesticationwith a metaphorical reference to the process inwhich wild animals were once domesticated byman. Now the technologies, which designers handover to us, have to be tamed so they can fit intothe household. Other authors use the expressionthat technologies are culturally ‘encoded’ throughtheir design and marketing and that consumersthen have to ‘decode’ them (concepts introducedby Hall and Moores, here from Mackay andGillespie, (1992), Mackay, 1997). In the designprocess, some ‘preferred readings’ are encoded,but there is a scope for interpreting them differ-ently. The coding of technologies in the designprocess emanates from different sources: the spe-cific form of thinking and the technical back-ground of designers, the actors’ ideas about howthey can pursue their economic interests, the ideasabout the users and their situation. The ideas ofthe users’ needs are thus only one element amongothers, and in addition, these ideas can be ratherpeculiar (Berg, 1991; Miles, 1991). Therefore, it isnot surprising that new technologies can belikened to ‘wild animals’.

When a household acquires a new object andbegins to use it, several different processes ad-vance more or less simultaneously. These pro-cesses can be organised in a micro levelframework as follows. On the one hand, a numberof concrete and visible things happen, and on theother hand, some less transparent processes goon. At the concrete level, the family first considersthe potential acquisition, information is gathered,and the object must be bought. Then follows thefitting in of the object in everyday life: it must beplaced in the space of the home that is alreadyconstructed and meaningful and now maybe hasto be changed, and furthermore, it must be fittedtemporally into the family routines that mighthave to change, and a pattern for use and mainte-nance has to be established. In the beginning, thefitting in of the new object will call for attention,but gradually it becomes part of the routines anda more invisible part of everyday life.

Simultaneously with these concrete activities, anumber of less transparent social and culturalprocesses go on (the outline is inspired by Silver-stone et al. (1992), but their theoretical categoriesare not used, and contributions from several otherauthors are integrated). First, the family meetstechnology through the marketing efforts,through discussions in the media and throughconversations with others. Sometimes a new tech-nology is first introduced in the public sphere(e.g., the general public in the US got its first tasteof air conditioning at the cinema, (Wilhite, 1999),or people get to know it in relation to their work.Often some socially dominant ideas are formedabout the importance, the possibilities of applica-tion and the qualities of a technology, and theseideas constitute an influential input to the family’sown considerations regarding the desirability ofacquiring the technology. Among the ideas mightbe notions of status. The role of new products inthe social stratification is not as clear as it was inthe earlier phases of industrial society when it wasan obvious part of conspicuous consumption tobe among the first to acquire the modern goods.A new product can still acquire the character of astatus good in the classical sense, as happenedwith the mobile telephone that was a symbol ofthe successful business person in the introductionphase, but the rapid diffusion completely changedthe meaning in a very short time. Instead ofbecoming generally valid status goods, new prod-ucts now enter into different social groups andacquire different meanings that are negotiatedparallel with the domestication processes.

Second, the technology interplays with the so-cial structure, the values and attitudes of thefamily. The power-balance inside the family atfirst influences what is acquired. As the familymembers have different roles and tasks and differ-ent access to leisure time, they often have differentpriorities regarding purchases (Haddon, 1991;Livingstone, 1992; Meyer and Schulze, 1994). Af-ter the purchase, the gender and age differences,as well as the differences in status in the family,influence the establishment of the patterns of useand maintenance. This is reflected in who hasaccess to use the object and when, whether any-body restricts the access of others to use the


object, whether there are restrictions on the formof use, how the patterns are negotiated, howcontrol is exercised, etc. Sometimes the assimila-tion of technologies can change the traditionalpower balance, e.g., when children are more com-petent in the use of a new technology than theirparents. The technology also integrates with thedisplay and shaping of values in the family, forinstance, in relation to assessing how it is goodand bad to use different technologies. Culturalbeliefs can be transformed, for instance, in rela-tion to the gendering of technology: as an exam-ple, a new way of functioning for a knownproduct can catalyse changes in the gender divi-sion of labour and the conception of what eachsex can do.

Third, the technology enters into the externalpositioning of the family. Through its spatial plac-ing, the technology is displayed for visitors anddemonstrates the family’s priorities, values andtaste as well as its material resources. Some prod-ucts are bought just as much for their appearanceand compatibility with the dominant aestheticrationality in the home as for their functionalusefulness. As family members do not necessarilyagree on how it is desirable to position the family,the fitting up might also for this reason breedconflicts. The family positions itself not onlythrough the physical display, but also throughconversations with others outside the home, asexperiences with a technology can be an impor-tant contribution to status. Much positioning,however, concerns the individual family member,independent of the rest of the family, as manytechnologies enter into the identity formation pro-cesses (cf. Vestby (1994), on the importance oftechnologies for the positioning of boys).

Domestication processes are specific for eachfamily and each person, but the processes willhave common features related to the social themesthat dominate the everyday life of many familiesin a given period of time and in a given (group of)countries. The domestication processes concernmany social themes, as can be seen from thequestions discussed in the literature and in thepublic debate: Will watching television replaceother social activities in the family? Will the mi-crowave oven contribute to the end of the family

meal? Does the mobile phone imply more or lesscontrol with the children? The social themes men-tioned above in relation to consumption dynam-ics, such as domain conflicts and the familydilemma, reappear here as themes for the domes-tication processes. In this way, social patterns areestablished on the macro level.

5. Changing everyday life

New things appear every day; they are domesti-cated in interplay with different social themes,and everyday life constantly changes gradually. Isit possible in this incessant stream of change todiscern qualitatively different patterns on themacro level so that it makes sense to say thateveryday life has changed in a more profound andcoherent way in a long-term perspective? Histori-cal experience suggests that a description of pat-terns can be reasonable. For instance, Cowan(1983) has described how the urbanised homedeveloped in interaction with a number of newtechnologies for housework. The cooker, the re-frigerator, the vacuum cleaner and the washingmachine made their entry into small privatehomes concurrently with the disappearance ofdomestic servants, and these technological devicescontributed to making possible the organisationof housework inside the framework of the nuclearfamily where the husband, and to a large extentalso the children, were occupied outside the home.

This historical example can be used to suggestsome characteristic features related to the emer-gence of a new socio-technical pattern in everydaylife. The many new household technologies couldbe perceived as constituting a fundamental tech-nological renewal and at the same time a clusterof technologies, both from the technical point ofview and from the social. From the technicalpoint of view, the new household technologieswere based on the appearance of the electromotorand on the supply of electricity to the households.The electromotor was a basic innovation, a coretechnology that firms could apply in the change ofmany different products. It was a precondition forthe diffusion of the new products that the socio-technical systems related to electricity were or-


ganised, so large-scale political and organisationalefforts were also necessary preconditions. The po-tential of the new technologies could be realisedonly after a lengthy process. Seen from the con-sumption perspective, the new technologies meantradical renewals, as they implied completely newways of performing known functions. Simulta-neously, the new technologies could be perceivedas a cluster, because they all related to the labourprocesses in the home such as cooking, washingand cleaning, and because they could interplaywith some central social themes of the periodrelated to the emergence of a new type of family.The new pattern developed in the interplay withan extensive public discourse concerning how tomake household work more effective and con-cerning the new role of the housewife as an emo-tional centre of the family and in the upbringingof the children. The discourse of efficiency wasreflected in the emergence of a new scientificdiscipline, home economics (Landstrom, 1998).

When the task is to assess whether we todayface similar, more profound changes of everydaylife related to the present technological changes, itwill be relevant to include a number of circum-stances: Do we have a technological push in theform of new core technologies that will inspirefirms to seek new possible applications? Are thereany central social themes in everyday life callingfor technology-based answers? Do the two sidesfit each other? Do we have a current political andorganisational process that can provide the in-frastructural preconditions for the diffusion of thetechnologies? Is there a public discourse legitimis-ing the new technologies? Taken together, theanswers to these questions may indicate whetherchanges in the patterns of everyday life are on theway.

6. The environmental perspective – conclusions

This last section summarises the results of theformer sections and relates them to the environ-mental perspective. The main question is whichenvironmental impact technological renewals andthe related social changes can have in the shortterm and the long term, respectively.

The paper takes its point of departure in therapid technological change characterising marketeconomies. When these changes are observedfrom the production side and assessed in an envi-ronmental perspective, the contribution to envi-ronmental improvements is often emphasised.First, the positive environmental impact resultsfrom changes in production processes so the prod-ucts can be provided with an ever-decreasing in-put of energy and materials and with lesspollution. Second, the final products are increas-ingly designed to contain reduced quantities ofmaterials – seen over a longer period, the weightof many consumer goods has been reduced (forinstance radios, telephones, furniture). Both pro-cess and product changes imply lower energy- andmaterial-intensities and thereby also cost reduc-tions for the producers. Sometimes, the weightreductions follow from a transition to new prod-ucts with the same function, for instance, thereplacement of vinyl records with compact discs,which requires more radical shifts in technologythan ordinary economising. This aspect is empha-sised by Freeman (1992) who argues that mi-croelectronics in combination with new materialshas a great potential for saving materials andenergy at the level of individual products. Asenvironmental management gains ground, and asenvironmental regulation is tightened, so theprices of energy and resources to a larger extentreflect the social costs of using them, the trendtowards decreasing energy- and material-intensi-ties can be strengthened. In relation to this devel-opment, it is much discussed whether theenvironmental gains will be more or less neu-tralised by the so-called rebound effects, as thereduced resource use simultaneously implies de-creased costs and prices and thus stimulates in-creased sales. Several mechanisms of reboundeffects are discussed (Benner et al., 1997), but thisissue is outside the scope of this paper.

What I would like to emphasise here is thepoint that most technological changes are moti-vated by completely different motives than envi-ronmental considerations – as the businessliterature illustrates, most product development ismeant to increase sales. As mentioned above, animportant way to renew consumer goods is based


on the use of new core technologies: historically,the electromotor was used for mechanising partsof the housework (vacuum cleaner, washing ma-chine); later battery-power was introduced for awide range of consumer goods from the tooth-brush to toys and the screwdriver, and in recentyears, the computerisation of goods from camerasand toys to sewing machines has taken over. Thepositive environmental trends mentioned abovethus co-exist with trends towards adding newfeatures to products such as electrification andcomputer control, which can easily increase thedemand for resources, at least in relation to theuse of the products. It is true that environmentalimprovements in recent years have become a salesargument in some cases, but this is marginalcompared to the dominant marketing strategies(see below). When technological renewals are ob-served from the consumption side and assessed inan environmental perspective, the ever wideningof the range of consumer goods is the most out-standing phenomenon: known products are differ-entiated, specialised products are developed forevery conceivable purpose, new products for hith-erto unknown activities appear. The ever-increas-ing selection of goods tends to increase resourceconsumption – at first just because of the provi-sion and presentation of the selection.

Add to this that the technological renewals ofconsumer goods become integrated in differentconsumption dynamics so demand is simulta-neously stimulated. Why do the producers suc-ceed in tempting consumers to increaseconsumption through technological renewals? Themost obvious answer is standard improvementsthat give functional reasons to buy somethingnew. Furthermore, obsolescence can make goodsunusable, even though they are not worn out.These simple observations can be supplementedby more complex consumption dynamics intowhich technological changes are integrated. Inrelation to the exploration of these dynamics,reference is made to a taxonomy of renewals seenfrom the consumption side, distinguishing be-tween products with known and new functions,and in the first group between products that areused in known processes or require new processesin the household. The consumption dynamics canbriefly be summarised as follows:

(1) Consumption has become an importantarena for meeting the material and for havingsensual experiences – an arena where consumerscan simultaneously form their identity throughcreative processes. All forms of renewal offer pos-sibilities of creative consumption, as they can beincluded in rearrangements, new furnishings, etc.,but creative processes related to exploration andplay are especially stimulated by products withnew functions or new processes.

(2) Consumption plays an important part inidentity formation processes in modern societieswhere social roles are not given. Confirmation ofidentity presupposes communication, implyingthat the expressive aspect of consumption be-comes important. The fast renewal processes chal-lenge consumers to keep up their ability to expressthe identity they want to have confirmed throughownership or use of new products. For instance,status goods constantly change. As competence isimportant to demonstrate, products with newfunctions or using new processes are especiallyinteresting.

(3) Consumption offers a relief of the tensionsbetween the demands from the different socialdomains in which people in modern societies areengaged. Technological changes that promisetime-saving or ‘‘packing’’ of activities (condensa-tion technologies) stimulate consumption. Suchproducts will often be related to new processes ornew combinations of known processes.

(4) Consumption also interacts with the familydilemma related to the simultaneous pursuit ofkeeping the family together and of giving eachmember of the family possibilities for individualdevelopment. Some renewals stimulate consump-tion as they can unite the family through commonactivities or reduce friction between family mem-bers, whereas other technologies can constitute athreat to cohesion. In the latter case, the individu-al’s consumption motives come into conflict withfamily interests.

In some cases, these consumption dynamics canbe related to environmental improvements. Someconsumers find their identity in environmentallyfriendly behaviour, and they constitute a nichemarket for specific technological renewals, such asproducts that make processes in the home less


energy- and resource-demanding, for instance,water-saving showers and energy-saving refriger-ators. A good example of such a niche marketis the Danish market for energy-saving bulbs (il-lustrative of the theory put forward by Rein-staller and Kemp (2000)). In the beginning,these bulbs were very expensive and had sometechnical defects, so they were only installed bya small group of pioneers. This niche marketcombined with encouragement from the publicauthorities established the basis for gradualtechnical improvements and a drastic reductionof production costs, so now the bulbs are soldto larger groups of consumers who are not nec-essarily profiling themselves as environmentallyfriendly consumers. The diffusion of energy-sav-ing bulbs thus has much in common with thediffusion of status goods – even though it hasbeen much less dynamic than the diffusion ofmobile telephones in the same period. Some en-vironmentally friendly consumers are also ac-tively engaged in fitting up their homes inenvironmentally benign ways and enjoy havingcreative experiences through the installation ofsolar units, wood-burning stoves and insulation.But, unfortunately, only a very small segment ofconsumers are encouraged by the consumptiondynamics and the new technological possibilitiesto reduce their environmental impact.

In general, the integration of technologicalchange in consumption dynamics contributes togrowth in material consumption that does notmake household processes less resource-demand-ing, and this growth increases the pressure onthe environment. This trend is currently beingreinforced by changes taking place on the pro-duction side. As described by Sonntag (2000),more than ever firms are competing on fasterproduct cycles and adaptation to specific cus-tomer demands. The development away frommass production started in the 1950s, whenToyota took the first steps away from dedicatedequipment that was considered to be the basisfor achieving economies of scale in mass pro-duction. Toyota introduced quick-change tool-ing, which gave the equipment much greaterflexibility and became the basis for reapingeconomies of scope. When this technology was

later combined with information technologies, itbecame possible to achieve a much higher de-gree of product differentiation and to accelerateproduct cycles. This proved to be a very strongcompetitive device, and due to this co-evolve-ment of technology systems and markets, cycletime emerged as a principal competitive factorin today’s firm strategies. Even though flexibleproduction systems can reduce costs, it remainsa dilemma to recover plant and equipment costswhen product and process lifetimes are short-ened. The obvious solution for each firm is toachieve fast growth – so it becomes decisive toincrease consumption. The fast product cyclescan be illustrated by Hewlett Packard’s depart-ment for computer systems, which gets morethan half of its earnings from products thatwere launched the previous year (Nordstromand Ridderstrale, 1999). Seen from the perspec-tive of consumption, this development appearsas an ever-faster introduction of new productsthat very quickly render the older generationsobsolete. This dynamic force is vividly illus-trated by the renewals of mobile phones,presently with the introduction of the WirelessApplication Protocol, which is known will beovertaken in a short time with better integrationbetween the phones and the Internet.

Besides being part of consumption dynamicsand growth, technological changes are also inte-grated in long-term social changes that can haveimportant environmental impacts. In particularproducts that have new functions or require newprocesses in the households have a potential tobe integrated in changes of everyday life. Forthese products, there is also great scope for dif-ferent symbolic interpretations and practicalways of integration into everyday life. Eventhough the products are encoded by design andmarketing, the domestication processes can leadto different applications. The domestication the-ories focus on the many different processes tak-ing place on the micro level when newtechnologies are introduced in households.How the technologies are formed through thedomestication, and how the life of the familiessimultaneously changes depends on many cir-cumstances such as how the family meets the


new technology, which ideas the technology isassociated with in the public sphere, how thetechnology interplays with the power balanceand the values in the family, and how the fam-ily uses the technology in external positioning.Domestication processes are specific for eachfamily, but the processes will have common fea-tures related to the social themes that dominatethe everyday life of many families in a givenperiod of time. The different themes touchedupon in relation to consumption dynamics reap-pear here as social themes in the domesticationprocesses. In this way, social patterns are estab-lished on the macro level.

The paper suggests that it makes sense to dis-cern qualitatively different social patterns in theincessant stream of change. Based on a histori-cal example, some characteristic features relatedto the emergence of a new socio-technical pat-tern in everyday life are isolated. These featuresshould not be interpreted as stages in a linearprocess, as they appear more or less simulta-neously, integrated in a complex process. Whenbasic changes take place, the following featureswill possibly be found: a new core technology isapplied, new infrastructure has to be provided,new functions and new processes are introducedin households, the new technologies can be saidto cluster when seen from the consumption per-spective, the technologies relate to central socialthemes of the period, and an extensivepublic discourse on the new technologies takesplace. No doubt, fundamental changes in thesocio-technical patterns of everyday life canhave decisive environmental impacts, however, itis impossible to generalise about the nature ofthese impacts. This question can only be dis-cussed in relation to a concrete historical situa-tion. Therefore, I will use the present intro-duction of information technologies in everydaylife to illustrate how the question can be dis-cussed, but it is important to emphasise that thefollowing is only meant as an illustration. First,it must be discussed whether profound changesof the socio-technical patterns of everyday lifecan be expected to materialise, and then thepossible environmental effects of such changescan be considered.

On the one hand, there seem to be good ar-guments to say that information technologieswill be integrated with new socio-technical pat-terns in everyday life, considering the differentfeatures related to the emergence of new pat-terns. Information technology is obviously acore technology constituting a strong technologi-cal push and influencing a large number ofproducts. Both new processes and completelynew functions are introduced, and a major clus-ter of related technologies is developed. A reali-sation of the potential of the computer and therelated telematics is dependent on profoundchanges of the socio-technical systems, andmuch political and organisational attention isfocussed on the transformation of these systems.Extensive educational efforts are necessary to es-tablish the conditions for widespread diffusionof the new technologies, both on the productionside and in relation to consumers, who mustgradually adapt to a new ‘technological lan-guage’ where the user communicates with tech-nology in a new way. The public discourse onthe integration of the new technologies is wide-spread, reflected in supplements to newspapers,programmes on radio and television, etc. Thegovernment has published several reports on thenew challenges, schools are committed to usethe computer in classes, tax allowances are givento support the acquisition of computers for tele-work. The dominating ideology perceives thecomputer as a must for every family and thediffusion of information technologies as a pre-condition for withstanding international compe-tition.

On the other hand, there might also be somelimitations in the potential of information tech-nologies which are related to their present fieldsof application and their possibilities to interplaywith important social themes of the period. In-formation technologies currently relate mostly tocommunication, media, entertainment and ad-ministrative activities in the home – these arethe areas where it makes sense to speak of aclustering of technologies from the perspectiveof everyday life. Microelectronics is used inmany other products, for instance, in the tech-nologies related to housework, but the extent of


renewal in this field is not yet radical. Therefore,some of the ideas concerning the future applica-tions of the technologies still seem rather futuris-tic. The idea about ‘the intelligent home’ (alsocalled ‘the smart house’) is already old, but, asdescribed by Berg (1991), it is predominantly atechnician idea, which is only marginally related towhat house-holds are engaged in. The householdsare certainly ready to try the new technologies andto use them for the tasks they can think of, butmore profound changes presuppose that the tech-nologies can interplay with the main social themesfor households, and in this respect ‘‘the intelligenthome’’ seems inadequate. At the moment, thepotential for profound changes of everyday life inrelation to the new technologies seems to be re-lated to the development of new shopping patternsand to a much more extended use of telework, asthese issues bring in the domain conflicts. How-ever, it is still difficult to assess to what extentthese changes will materialise. It is worth remem-bering that predominantly social innovations canbe more important for the handling of domainconflicts than the technological solutions (for in-stance, the present experiments where child careinstitutions supply new services to parents whocan pay for shopping, washing and food delivery).

The discussion above of changes in socio-techni-cal patterns of everyday life is thus inconclusive.Therefore, an assessment of possible environmen-tal effects would become even more preliminary,so I will only mention one illustrative issue. Indiscussions of the potential of the computer to bepart of social changes with a positive environmen-tal impact, it is often emphasised that much trans-port can be saved, for instance, in relation totelework. However, some investigations indicatethat the result of telework can be that employeesmove further away from their workplace whenthey do not have to commute every day, so thetotal transport is not changed (Transportradet,1996). Furthermore, the general impression is thatbetter communication has been a significant cata-lyst in the physical mobility of people, in particu-lar over continental and trans-continentaldistances. This emphasises that a potential forenvironmental improvements will not automati-cally be realised.

Currently, it seems to be a speculative endeav-our to assess the direction of the future changes ofeveryday life related to information technologies,and how these changes will influence consumptiongrowth and the environment. To improve the basisfor passing pure speculation, it will be importantto have more empirical studies both of the socialforces promoting the new technologies at themacro level and of the domestication processes inhouseholds. Whereas the paper must remain in-conclusive regarding the long-run environmentalimpact of the present technical changes, it is worthrecalling the previous conclusion that in the shortrun the integration of technological change inconsumption dynamics contributes to growth inmaterial consumption and thus increases the pres-sure on the environment. There are good reasonsnot to treat new technologies in consumption asan indisputable good, as it is often done, forinstance, when the new information technologiesare discussed, and when public policies are decidedupon in this field. If the environmental perspectiveis to influence the practical shaping and integra-tion of the new technologies, it is time to take amore proactive stance and to consider how theIT-related changes can take place in an environ-mentally responsible manner and without con-tributing to a burst in consumption.

Acknowledgements

The paper is written as part of a project onConsumers and New Household Technology inEcological Transformation, which is carried outtogether with Jeppe Læssøe, and this paper owesmuch to discussions with him. Previous versions ofthe paper were presented at the Fourth Conferenceof the European Sociological Association, 18–21August 1999, in Amsterdam, and at the ThirdInternational Conference of The European Societyfor Ecological Economics, 3–6 May 2000, in Vi-enna. The paper has benefited from commentsfrom participants at these conferences, especiallyfrom the discussants Lotte Holm and JochenMarkard, and from the referees Mario Cogoy,John Lintott and Robert Rattle. I am very gratefulfor all help and interest.


References

Andersen, I.-E. 1999. Hvor travlt har vi? Working paper.Teknologiradet, Copenhagen.

Appadurai, A., 1986. (Ed.) The Social Life of Things. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Aune, M., 1996. The Computer in Everyday Life: Patterns ofDomestication of a New Technology. In: Lie, M.,Sørensen, K.H. (Eds.), Making Technology Our Own?Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Scandina-vian University Press, Oslo.

Bech-Jørgensen, B., 1994. Nar hver dag bliver hverdag.Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.

Benner, et al., 1997. Rebound effects in energy saving. ReportNumber 97117 from CEA, Consultants on Energy and theEnvironment, Rotterdam.

Berg, A.-J., 1991. He, She and I.T. Designing the Home of theFuture. In: Sørensen, K.H., Berg, A.-J. (Eds.), Technologyand everyday life: Trajectories and Transformations. Re-port No. 5: Proceedings from a Workshop in Trondheim,May 28-29 1990. Norwegian Research Council for Scienceand the Humanities, Oslo.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of theJudgement of Taste. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Braudrillard, J., 1975. The Mirror of Production. Telos Press,St. Louis.

Campbell, C., 1992. The Desire for the New: Its Nature andSocial Location as Presented in Theories of Fashion andModern Consumerism. In: Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E.(Eds.), Consuming Technologies. Media and informationin domestic spaces. Routledge, London and New York.

Cowan, R.S., 1983. More Work for Mother. The Ironies ofHousehold Technology from the Open Hearth to the Mi-crowave. Basic Books, USA.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E., 1981. The Mean-ing of Things. Domestic Symbols and the Self. CambridgeUniversity Press, UK and USA.

Dencik, L., 1996. Familjen i valfardsstatens forvandlingspro-cess. Dansk Sociologi, No. 1.

Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technologicaltrajectories. Research Policy 11, 147–162.

Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L.(Eds.), 1988. (Eds.) Technical Change and Economic The-ory. Pinter Publishers, London.

Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1980. The World of Goods.Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. PenguinBooks, London First published 1978.

Freeman, C., Clark, J., Soete, L., 1982. Unemployment andTechnical Innovation. A Study of Long Waves and Eco-nomic Development. Pinter Publishers, London.

Freeman, C., 1992. The Economics of Hope. Pinter Publishers,London.

Gullestad, M., 1989. Kultur og hverdagsliv. Pa sporet av detmoderne Norge. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Haddon, L., 1991. Researching Gender and Home Computers.In: Sørensen, K.H., Berg, A.-J. (Eds.), Technology andEveryday Life: Trajectories and Transformations. Report

No. 5: Proceedings from a Workshop in Trondheim, May28-29 1990. Norwegian Research Council for Science andthe Humanities, Oslo.

Hochschild, A.R., 1997. The Time Bind: When Work BecomesHome and Home Becomes Work. Metropolitan Books,New York.

Holt, H., 1998. Ønsker vi overhovedet at arbejde mindre?Social Kritik 59/60, 45–51.

Landstrom, C., 1998. National strategies: the gendered appro-priation of household technology. In: Hard, M., Jamison,A. (Eds.), The Intellectual Appropriation of Technology.Discourses of Modernity, 1900–1939. The MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Levinson, P., 1977. Toy, Mirror, and Art: The Metamorphosisof Technological Culture. Et Cetera, June: 151–167.

Lie, M., Sørensen, K.H., 1996. Making Technology Our Own?Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Scandina-vian University Press, Oslo.

Livingstone, S., 1992. The Meaning of Domestic Technologies:A Personal Construct Analysis of Familial Gender Rela-tions. In: Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. (Eds.), ConsumingTechnologies. Media and information in domestic spaces.Routledge, London and New York.

Lofgren, O., 1990. Consuming interests. Culture & History 7,7–36.

Mackay, H., Gillespie, G., 1992. Extending the Social Shapingof Technology Approach: Ideology and Appropriation.Social Studies of Science 22, 685–716.

Mackay, H., 1997. Consuming Communication Technologiesat Home. In: Mackay, H. (Ed.), Consumption and Every-day Life. Sage Publications and The Open University,London.

Meyer, S., Schulze, E., 1994. Families’ Acceptance of NewTechnologies. Results of a Longitudinal Analysis in Ger-man. In: Berg, A.-J., Aune, M. (Eds.), Domestic Technol-ogy and Everyday Life – Mutual Shaping Processes.Proceedings from COST A4 workshop in Trondheim, Nor-way, October 28-30, 1993. EC Directorate General Science,Research and Development, Brussels.

Miles, I., 1991. A Smart House is Not a Home? In: Sørensen,K.H., Berg, A.-J. (Eds.), Technology and Everyday Life:Trajectories and Transformations. Report No. 5: Proceed-ings from a Workshop in Trondheim, May 28-29 1990.Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humani-ties, Oslo.

Miller, D., 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption.Blackwell Publishers, UK and USA.

Miller, D., 1997. Consumption and its Consequences. In:Mackay, H. (Ed.), Consumption and everyday life. SagePublications and The Open University, London.

Nordstrom, K.A., Ridderstrale, J., 1999. In: Funky Business.BookHouse Publishing.

Nørve, S., 1991. The Home-Materialized Identity and House-hold Technology. In: Sørensen, K.H., Berg, A.-J. (Eds.),Technology and Everyday Life: Trajectories and Transfor-mations. Report No. 5: Proceedings from a Workshop inTrondheim, May 28-29 1990. Norwegian Research Councilfor Science and the Humanities, Oslo.


Pantzar, M., 1997. Domestication of Everyday Life Technol-ogy: Dynamic Views on the Social Histories of Artifacts.Design Issues 13 (3), 52–65.

Reinstaller, A., Kemp, R., 2000. Consumption dynamics in aworld of technological regimes. Paper for The Third Inter-national Conference of The European Society for Ecologi-cal Economics, Vienna 3–6 May.

Røpke, I., 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume.Ecological Economics 28, 399–420.

Røpke, I., 2001. The environmental impact of changing con-sumption patterns: a survey. International Journal of Envi-ronment and Pollution 15, 127–145.

Røpke, I. Is consumption becoming less material? The case ofservices. International Journal of Sustainable Develop-ment, in press.

Sahal, D., 1985. Technological guideposts and innovationavenues. Research Policy 14, 61–82.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Southerton, D., Strandbakken, P.,Warde, A., 1998. Freezer sociology. A comparison offreezing technology and everyday life in the UK, Finlandand Norway. Paper for the ESF TERM ProgrammeWorkshop: 27–29 March 1998, Centre for the Study ofEnvironmental Change, Lancaster University.

Silverstone, R., Hirsch E., Morley D., 1992. Information andCommunication Technologies and the Moral Economy ofthe Household. In: Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. (Eds.), Con-suming Technologies. Media and Information in DomesticSpaces Routledge, London and New York.

Sonntag, V., 2000. Sustainability – in light of competitiveness.Ecological Economics 34, 101–113.

Transportradet, 1996. Distancearbejde og teleindkøb-kon-sekvenser for transporten. Notat 96-09, Transportradet,Copenhagen.

Vestby, G.M., 1994. Constructing Childhood: Children Inter-acting with Technology. In: Berg, A.-J., Aune, M. (Eds),Domestic Technology and Everyday Life – Mutual Shap-ing Processes. Proceedings from COST A4 workshop inTrondheim, Norway, October 28-30, 1993. EC DirectorateGeneral Science, Research and Development, Brussels.

Warde, A., Shove E., Southerton D., 1998. Convenience,schedules and sustainability. Paper for the ESF TERMProgramme Workshop: 27–29 March 1998, Centre for theStudy of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.

Wilhite, H., 1999. Energy research on consumption andlifestyles: international experiences and new directions. Pa-per for Seminar on Energy and Lifestyle, Copenhagen11–12 October.

new technology in everyday life – social processes and environmental impact

Documents