Practice Theory, Work, and Organization

Davide Nicolini (2013): Practice Theory, Work, and Organization. An Introduction, Oxford University Press, x + 222 pages, ISBN 978-0-19-923159-1DOI[To be announced]Practice theory seems to be both a very influential and at the same time a rather neglected source of influence on working life studies. It is only with this special issue on practice-based approaches to working life studies that this journal deals explicitly with practice theoretical perspectives on working life. But a more thorough review of working life studies soon revels that many investigations have been inspired by the works of Anthony Giddens, Pierre Bourdieu, discourse analysis, cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), ethnomethodology or Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger's studies of learning in communities of practice. Although different sources and theoretical strands inspire these studies, they seem to have one thing in common: They have an interest in understanding and describing actors' activity, interactions and performances. In short, they seek to understand the practices that actors (re)produce in working life. Viewed from this perspective, it is a warranted claim that working life studies are immensely inspired by theories of practice. However, one could claim that such a perspective just juxtaposes loosely related and random coupled theories. Is it useful, or of interest at all, to couple such diverse theories just because they all-in one way or another-deal with practice? Davide Nicolini thinks so.Nicolini sets out to demonstrate that all the before-mentioned theoretical stands do not only have in common that they deal with activity, action, and work, but they also have much more in common. The theories are also united in stressing that social life must be understood and investigated as a material and corporeal reality where activity transpires. They are all preoccupied with allowing room for the individual actions of actors, and they are all skeptic about rationalist and reductionist explanations of conduct (homo economicus) and sociological accounts that see action as rule or norm governed (homo sociologicus). Instead, they strive to understand individual action as both structured and emergent and creative. All the mentioned theories object to representationalist construals of knowledge, meaning, and discourse. Our access to reality is always mediated through our social and corporeal activities. Finally, Nicolini makes clear that all the theories stress the importance of focusing on power relations, conflicts, and interest. Practice is thus perceived as a field of tensions where actors produce and reproduce differences and inequalities. By focusing on the practices in working life-and not separately on the individual practitioners-practice theory envisions a relational and dynamic perspective that encompasses the complexity of working life. It fosters a sensitivity that can accommodate both the routines of working life and the breaches of routine.Nicolini traces the roots of practice theories back to Aristotle and Marx's different concepts of Praxis and to the modern philosophies of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Nicolini call attention to Wittgenstein and Heidegger as the modern fathers of the practice theoretical perspective in philosophy and social science. Wittgenstein demonstrated that conceptual understanding always presupposes a fundamental unarticulated practice, and Heidegger showed us that being-in-the-world is foremost a matter of practical and unproblematized coping in action. Both Wittgenstein and Heidegger opposed the Cartesian worldview that separates the thinking and perceiving subject (res cogitans) from the exterior world (res extensa). Practice theories thus decline to accept the modernist perspective that actors are isolated and decoupled individuals that through their actions seek to interact with one another and the world. The point of departure for an analysis should lean on the opposite premise. …