Perhaps, then, new grounds for social critique might be established. Older forms of critique tended to work back from bad consequences to the identifi cation of specifi c causes, and then to recommend intervention to eliminate or modify the causes. Th is rather simple positivist chain of rea- soning towards eff ective intervention has had little practical success. Th e reasons include value dissensus, unintended consequences, institutional interdependencies, as well as the many uncertainties involved in estab- lishing a causal explanation in complex collective contexts. An inevitably unpredictable future, a consequence of the openness of social systems to innovation and adaptations of conduct, renders social engineering hazard- ous. Nevertheless, even if our interventions are not entirely predictable in their consequences, we can identify means to distinguish good from bad institutions, and the tendencies for diff erent types of institutional arrange- ment to encourage virtuous rather than evil conduct. Towards this end, I will consider whether theories of practice can off er a fresh perspective. I will suggest fi rst that we might locate implicit, tacit or immanent critique in everyday practical activities. People who are not tasked with the duties of academics or intellectuals often behave in the course of their everyday lives as if they were disappointed or discontented with their patterns of consumption and we might listen to them more attentively (see Section 3 ).
Second, we may mine the specifi c and distinctive explanatory qualities of theories of practice for engaging in critique of consumption (Section 4 ).
3 Everyday Practice as a Locus of Critique
A modest, initial, potentially convincing strategy might be to examine reservations about consumer culture held by the population at large.
Our knowledge of how ordinary people feel about the merits and
disadvantages of consumer culture is insuffi cient. I suspect that discontent and dissatisfaction is more widespread among the public than is usually imagined. Cross ( 2000 ) suggests so. Nevertheless, most people would be reluctant to give up the level of comfort that is routinely supplied and guaranteed through the economic arrangements and technological capacities of late modern societies (Lebergott 1993 ). Also, they prob- ably appreciate some of the psychological benefi ts which Lane ( 2000 ) describes as arising from the activity of purchasing in relatively uncon- strained ways through the market mechanisms. In the absence of suf- fi cient systematic data, we might consider how people currently orient themselves towards matters of consumption.
Consumption behaviour comes to critical attention in practical con- texts in the course of grumbling, complaining and organising. Grumbling is a form of personal and private activity through which people, in an individual capacity, assess and act upon the quality of their experience as consumers. Th ey refl ect on goods and services, compare stories with friends, moan, reject items and repudiate suppliers by vowing ‘never again’. Th is mix favours exit over voice and individual over collective response. However, sometimes this extends to making formal com- plaints, to commercial actors—producers, retailers, service agencies—or to state regulatory agencies. Th is, too, remains a largely private function, although because regulatory bodies and companies count and classify complaints, evidence of discontent may enter public discussion. More impactful is organisation through parties, movements, associations and campaigns which involve the collective identifi cation of a set of problems and a collective response using a wide range of strategies and tactics to infl uence the consumption and exchange of commodities.
Everyday critique of consumer experience can be found in the common grumblings of people about various episodes and experiences associated with living through a consumer culture. It is often said, variously, that Christmas is a materialist ritual; children have far too many things and too many material aspirations for their own good; fast food is disgusting;
companies are greedy; there is too much choice in this world; in simpler times we made our own entertainment and we were happy; supermar- kets and shopping malls are soul-destroying and to be avoided whenever possible; and so on. Evidence for such views can be found in qualitative
interviews and in surveys suggesting that many dimensions of managing markets—the procedures and arrangements surrounding purchase, service delivery and material possessions—are troublesome for ordinary people.
People often grumble from the point of view of seeing themselves in the role of ‘the consumer’. Some may be aware that that cooperation, gift rela- tionships and self-provisioning off er gratifi cations denied them in episodes of market exchange, even though such exchanges less easily permit exit.
Th e incoherent grumblings about the inadequacies of market exchange are elaborated in the widespread process of complaining. Sociology might fruitfully pay greater attention to acts of complaining because it can be a tactic in collective consumer mobilisation. It might also better exploit the potential of complaining behaviour, not for purposes of practical busi- ness management, for which there is already plenty of advice, but rather to improve understanding of codes of everyday conduct. For the content of complaints reveals the norms and standards the complainant believes appro- priate to the circumstance. Expectations of appropriate conduct are made manifest when people express disappointment or claim redress. Th e poten- tial for a dispute between producer and consumer over whether aspects of, for example, a particular meal—the dishes, service or atmosphere—are acceptable is an ideal source of evidence about what is expected (Warde 2015 ). Th e use of common and diff erential languages and rationales by restaurateurs and customers when conducting their negotiations (about, for example, whether the wine is corked or the meat cooked) makes explicit the values, conventions and standards around which they may agree or disagree.
Complaints formalise grumbling. However, when orchestrated as a collective venture aimed at changing practices, complaining may consti- tute a proto-political act. It may or may not engender collective mobili- sation, and it may or may not be diverted into institutions for dealing with individual cases of maltreatment, but it has a role in political life which constantly challenges the neo-liberal insistence that markets can look after themselves and that politics therefore can be limited to ensur- ing the legal preconditions for making and enforcing private contracts in economic exchange.
A third, more general, explicit, eff ective and empowering form of every- day expression of dissatisfaction with consumption arises through social movements. Some have been specifi cally directed at consumption, and
the terms on which goods and services are sold in markets. Gabriel and Lang ( 1995 : 153) usefully remind us of the evolution of consumer and cooperative movements since the mid-nineteenth century. Th ey identi- fi ed ‘four waves of Western consumer activism’. Th e fi rst took the form of the cooperative movement, a nineteenth-century ‘working-class reaction to excessive prices and poor quality goods’ (ibid.). Th e second wave was concerned with ‘enabling consumers to take best advantage of the mar- ket, rather than trying to undermine the market through co-operative action or political agitation and lobbying’ ( 1995 : 158): value-for-money was a key slogan, and informing and educating the individual consumer was the principal strategy. Th e third, of which Naderism was emblematic, was founded on more general and sustained critique of the corporations and their behaviour, and the fourth involved the search for radical alter- native forms of consumption consistent with environmental objectives.
In the twenty-fi rst century these impulses are manifest in movements for political consumerism and environmental protection. Many other move- ments, not specifi cally focused on consumption, also contain incidental elements of critique of the patterns and organisation of consumption.
Disputes over what should be freely sold on the market (body organs, sexual services, wives, guns) are among the concerns of feminist, human- itarian and religious movements, and anti-globalisation protests target social inequality and injustices associated with the operation of labour markets, global poverty and sustainable development. Th e critiques upon which the strategy and tactics of social movements are founded are likely to be more general, intensive and passionate, more confi dent, less nego- tiable, less open to compromise, and less divisible than those which pass muster in the academy. Social movements do not need social scientists to speak for them, though this might sometimes be the case for groups of individuals who lack resources, a voice, or the respectability which would permit others to take their case seriously. Th e critical, imaginative, mobil- ising and prefi gurative roles of social movement actors supply an essential momentum for social change (Yates 2015 ).
Sociology might, then, give exposure to the views of the good life which are present in grumbling, complaining and organising, without either endorsing or condemning the actors involved. It might formulate more coherent and rational critiques of social arrangements than are possible for social movements in the heat of battle. Sociological analysis
already includes describing, clarifying, explaining origins, and evaluating movement activity. Sociology might show the extent to which diff erent movements share critical understandings of social arrangements; might extract from the propaganda of movements a core of ‘truth’ or ratio- nal diagnosis whose accuracy might be evaluated. Th is is the role that Bauman ( 1987 ) named ‘the interpreter’. To give publicity without tak- ing sides; and to pay special attention to giving publicity to those actors who are least able to speak clearly for themselves to relevant audiences.
Th us, social science might probe the ambivalence of consumer culture in ways neither arbitrary nor motivated by political partisanship. Th e task is to express the concerns of sections of the population and through their analysis help ordinary people to understand better their predicament and articulate strategies for social improvement.
4 Mining the Distinctive Qualities of Theories of Practice
If theories are alternative lenses on the social world, we might expect to see some distinctive properties of that world by applying theories of practice.
Five of their features are relevant and worthy of remark. First, theories of practice avoid holistic analysis and therefore general condemnation of con- sumption. But they do imply alternative foundational options for evaluat- ing consumption. Second, they accord values a much-reduced role in the understanding of consumption. Th ird, they off er a particular explanation of sources of happiness and contentment. Fourth, they suggest diff erent ways to change behaviour, by allocating social responsibility for consumption patterns. Finally, although I lack the space to develop the idea fully, critique might be analysed as itself a practice, involving the examination of how cri- tiques are composed, and on the basis of which understandings, procedures and engagements specifi c performances are successfully mounted.