ANALYSIS

Consumption dynamics and technological change*/

exemplified by the mobile phone and related technologies

Inge Røpke *

IPL/Innovation and Sustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Matematiktorvet, Building 303 East, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby,

Denmark

Received 17 May 2002; received in revised form 11 November 2002; accepted 26 November 2002

Abstract

The present paper deals with the dynamics underlying the consumption of new commodities, especially mobile

phones, which are among the fastest growing categories of consumption goods in recent years. The paper is based on a

research project regarding households’ first-time acquisition of new consumer goods. The project was basically

motivated by environmental and distributional concerns, and the purpose is first to reveal some important consumption

dynamics at work on the micro level, and second to investigate how respondent families use new technologies, and how

these are eventually integrated into gradual changes of everyday life, thereby influencing consumption dynamics and

environmental impacts of everyday life in the longer term. The exposition of empirical findings is organised according

to a theoretical framework outlining the acquisition and domestication processes, a framework that has emerged

through the analytical process. The study illustrates how consumption drives are deeply embedded in the

considerations, themes and complexities of everyday life, showing few signs of satiation in the short term. Moreover,

our findings on domestication indicate that some environmentally costly trends in everyday life appear to continue.

# 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumption dynamics; New technology; Mobile phones; Everyday life; Environmental impact of consumption

1. Introduction

The present paper deals with the dynamics

underlying the consumption of new commodities,

especially mobile phones and allied technologies,

which are among the fastest growing categories of

consumption these years. From an environmental

point of view these product groups are interesting

for several reasons. In recent years, especially

electronic products have come into the focus of

environmental policies due to a diverse range of

environmental problems (our department has pre-

pared a number of studies on these problems for

the Danish EPA, e.g. Lenau et al., 2002; Legarth et

al., 2001). The production of materials and com-

ponents give rise to toxicity problems, as a number

of hazardous substances are used both in the

materials themselves and as production ancillaries.* Tel.: �/45-45-25-6009; fax: �/45-45-93-6620.

E-mail address: ir@ipl.dtu.dk (I. Røpke).

Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

0921-8009/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00281-1

Some of the substances are emitted in the usephase, while others end up as hazardous waste. A

number of materials in scarce supply are used for

the production of electronics, and large material

flows are set in motion by the extraction of metals

and minerals. In the use phase electronic equip-

ment accounts for an increasing proportion of

energy consumption and contributes to the diffi-

culties of reducing CO2 emissions. The special caseof mobile phones (including batteries and rechar-

gers) has undergone environmental assessments

demonstrating the energy use, the toxicity pro-

blems and the use of materials such as tin, gold,

palladium, beryllium, lithium, and cobalt. Some of

these materials are difficult to recover, so the short

life and large number of mobile phones produce a

relatively heavy environmental impact. A recentreport from Worldwatch Institute (Renner, 2002)

highlights the fact that in some cases, the extrac-

tion of rare materials contributes to the financing

of wars in developing countries while also leading

to serious environmental consequences. One ex-

ample is the extraction of coltan (short for

columbite�/tantalite) in Congo, a material used

for the production of mobile phones as well asother electronic equipment.

From an ecological economics viewpoint, mo-

bile phones and other electronic equipment are

interesting to study. Not only do they account for

a substantial part of our growing consumption and

have severe environmental impacts, but they also

offer possibilities for deepening our understanding

of consumption dynamics and thus for coping withthe challenge of curbing consumption growth.

There is a need for improving this knowledge, as

existing theories of consumption dynamics often

concentrate on other product groups such as

clothes, music, food, furniture etc. that constitute

significant parts of the increasing stylisation or

aestheticisation of consumption (Lury, 1996).

Thus, the main aim of this paper is to elaborateour understanding of consumption dynamics at

the micro level, as well as the forces counteracting

consumption growth at the micro level by focusing

on product groups that are both environmentally

relevant, quantitatively important and related to a

broader range of consumption dynamics than

those usually studied.

The paper includes an account of some results of

a research project on households’ first-time acqui-

sition of novel consumer goods1. The commodities

in point do not have to be new on the market,

provided they are new to the family. The purpose

is first to reveal some of the consumption dy-

namics at work on the micro level, which compel

most consumers in the affluent countries to be

willing contributors to the increasing consumption

in the short term. The second purpose is to

investigate how respondent families use such new

technologies, and how these technologies are

eventually integrated into gradual changes of

everyday life, thereby influencing the consumption

dynamics and the environmental impacts of every-

day life in the longer term.

The main focus is on our findings related to

mobile phones and allied technologies, but find-

ings associated with other purchases are occasion-

ally drawn into play. The study produced a long

list of first-time purchases of consumer goods that

our respondent families had acquired over last 4�/5

years: computer, CD-ROM, internet access, play

station, access to a large number of TV channels,

Discman, CD-shelves, cordless telephone, mobile

telephone, answer-phone, phone number indica-

tor, video camera, microwave oven, mini oven,

ceramic cooker, food processor, waffle iron, min-

cing machine, stepper, roller skates, one-wheeled

vehicle (unicycle), blood pressure monitor, smoke

alarm, large lawn mover, grass border cutter,

sanding machine, solar heating system, high-pres-

sure washer etc. Despite the large number of

products, they represent a relatively small number

of product groups. The dominant groups in our

material comprise first of all media and commu-

nication technologies as well as housekeeping

technologies for kitchen-work. Other major,

though less dominant groups are DIY equipment

and sports equipment.

1 The project ‘Consumers and new household technology in

ecological transformation’ was financed by The Danish

Environmental Research Programme and was carried out

together with Jeppe Læssøe. An extended version of this

paper is available from the author.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188172

It is important to emphasise the explorativecharacter of the paper: the study focuses on

improving our understanding of both short and

long term dynamics, but it does not intend to

answer predictive questions concerning consump-

tion patterns in the West, and whether their future

changes will have positive or negative impact on

the environment. Such questions are briefly

touched upon in the concluding discussion, thoughonly dealt with tentatively. There are two types of

results of the study. One is the theoretical frame-

work of the process of acquisition of new products

and their domestication emerging from the em-

pirical analysis. The other consists of a number of

small additions to the body of knowledge con-

cerning consumption dynamics and domestication.

The most important relate to the strength of thesecurity motive, the phenomenon of doing several

things at a time, the complex negotiation between

parents and children, the impact of historically

constituted images of a product, the dynamics

related to employment and to gift-giving, and the

importance of accessibility as a domestication

theme.

The paper is organised in four sections. First, abrief exposition of the project methodology. Sec-

ond, an outline of the theoretical framework used

to present the results. Third, a presentation of our

empirical findings, and fourth, a concluding dis-

cussion to round off the paper.

2. Methodology

The project is inspired by different theories on

consumption, everyday life and technological

change (see next section). However, we did not

formulate and test any specific hypotheses based

on those theories. More than anything, the study is

explorative and based on semi-structured qualita-

tive interviews using broad questions open to newperspectives (Kvale, 1996). However, our ap-

proach is not purely inductive-phenomenological,

since our pre-existing theoretical knowledge is

reflected both in the interview guide and in the

subsequent analysis of the material. Thus the

approach can be characterised as abductive.

Our material consists of nine in-depth interviews

with Danish families with resident children. Pre-

sumably this group is aware of and interested in

new domestic technologies, and they will typically

experience special consumption dynamics related

to their children. In order to secure a large

variation within the group, we selected families

from both urban and rural areas, from different

housing sectors, and with different backgrounds in

terms of education, occupation and income2. Each

interview took place in the family’s home, when-

ever possible including both adults (and in a few

cases the children), and would last about 2 h.

The interviews were taped and subsequently

transcribed. We wrote a detailed summary that

was approved by the family. The material was

coded for statements on consumption dynamics,

inhibiting factors and domestication themes in

relation to a number of different products. For

analysis, we applied an abductive approach, alter-

nating between a phenomenological reading of the

empirical material and drawing on theoretical

inspirations to interpret the statements (Coffey

and Atkinson, 1996).Since the qualitative interview is an unusual

methodology in ecological economics, a few words

should be added on its potential and limitations.

While economic research is often concerned with

establishing quantitative relationships based on

well-defined data, the intention of much socio-

logical and anthropological research (and of this

project) is to understand some phenomena in a

more qualitative way. The focus is on everyday life

activities, and on the cultural setting in which these

activities are carried out. Culture provides us with

‘cognitive tools’: patterns of thought, frameworks

for understanding, ideas*/reflected in the cate-

gories and symbols, we use for thinking (Gulles-

tad, 1992). Some categories are so basic that they

can be used as justifications without needing any

2 Since the project is carried out in only one country, the

results are culturally biased. However, the design of the study

does not permit conclusions regarding eventual characteristic

features of the Danish consumption culture as distinct from the

cultures of other Western societies. Such observations would

have to rely on a comparative study including countries with

different consumption cultures.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 173

justification themselves. Since categories and sym-

bols are shared by large groups of people, they can

be studied through in-depth interviews with rela-

tively few people (see Kvale, 1996, Chapter 13, for

an elaboration of generalisability, reliability and

validity of interviews).

Qualitative interviews are especially suitable

when the intention is to explore aspects of every-

day life that are not well understood and to

uncover new connections that the researcher has

not considered beforehand. The interviews provide

a very rich and varied material with many details

of people’s behaviour, the meanings they attach to

their behaviour, their interpretation of the condi-

tions they face in everyday life etc. When couples

are interviewed together, as in this study, the

interplay between the two adds to the richness of

the information obtained. Some of the insight

provided through the interviews can be claimed to

be of a general nature. However, when it comes to

more specific activities and motivations that could

in principle be treated in a quantitative way, the

material is obviously not representative. There-

fore, it is not possible to draw conclusions regard-

ing, for instance, the spread of a specific practice

or motivation found in the material. In principle,

the material could either comprise examples of a

minority position only, or conversely, completely

overlook a minority position. Both extremes are

counteracted by securing a large variation within

the group of respondents, and we find that we

have indeed very different views represented in the

material, but still such quantitative conclusions are

not possible.

In general, the material is not designed to be

analysed through quantitative methods, and the

results are not suited to formal presentation. The

analysis is a process of interpretation and system-

atisation through coding etc., and the presentation

of the results is organised according to a theore-

tical framework that emerges through the analysis,

as described in the next section. Results from

qualitative interviews are usually presented to-

gether with excerpts from the interviews so that

others can see what the interpretations are basedon. Since such a presentation would require several

pages, the present paper only includes a few

citations3. However, an extended version of the

paper including more citations is available from

the author.

3. Theoretical framework

Prior to the project, and as a part of the first

project phase, we carried out theoretical studies

(Røpke, 1999, 2001c; Læssøe, 1999, 2001). Briefly

summarised, the project draws upon theories from

three different, but partly overlapping fields. First,

since the project focuses on families as the central

unit to be explored, we took inspirations from the

theoretical discussions on the modern family andon everyday life (e.g. Gullestad, 1992; Dencik and

Schultz Jørgensen, 1999). Second, the research

issue regarding the micro-level dynamic forces

underlying consumption made it relevant to draw

on anthropological and sociological perspectives

on consumption (e.g. Douglas and Isherwood,

1980; Miller, 1995; Lury, 1996; Mackay, 1997;

Gronow and Warde, 2001). Third, the researchissue regarding the families’ use of the domestic

technologies in point can be informed by the

sociology of technology, more specifically theories

on domestication dealing with the interplay be-

tween technology and everyday life activities (e.g.

Sørensen and Berg, 1991; Silverstone and Hirsch,

1992; Berg and Aune, 1994; Lie and Sørensen,

1996). Beside these broad fields, this paper drawsupon literature more specifically related to the

actual topic, such as theories on the acquisition of

technological artefacts (e.g. Mick and Fournier,

1998) and theories on the use of telephones and

mobile phones (e.g. Haddon, 1998; Burkart, 2000).

During the abductive process of analysing our

empirical material, all these sources inspired what

we were able to elicit from the material, and howour findings could be interpreted. Through the

analytical process, a theoretical framework has

emerged that makes sense as an organising device

for our findings. Thus the theoretical framework

presented below should be seen as part of our

findings, and not as the starting point of the

3 Respondents are identified by a capital letter followed by

an ‘m’ for male and an ‘f’ for female.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188174

analytical process, though obviously inspired by

the different theoretical fields referred to above.

The framework does not pretend to capture all

conceivable aspects of the driving forces behind

the acquisition of new products and their domes-

tication, only the aspects highlighted in this

specific study are emphasised. Even though the

theoretical framework has thus emerged from our

empirical analysis, it is presented first and used to

organise our account of the empirical findings. In

that sense, the process of exposition differs from

the research process.

The outline of the theoretical framework refers

to Fig. 1, starting from the left hand side and

moving to the right. The itemisation should not be

taken too literally. The story is so complex that its

different aspects are hard to keep apart. In

practice, they are intertwined, and there are more

feedback loops than illustrated. The story is

organised to some extent according to chronology,

from the first meeting with a new product through

acquisition to domestication. Yet several processes

occur simultaneously, and again the feedbacks

complicate the matter.

The outline of the acquisition and domestication

process contains the following points:

1) The precondition for the consumption of new

products is, of course, the introduction of

technological innovations that become known

to consumers through planned marketing

efforts, and also through the presence of

such products in public space, their being

used by others, conversations about them,

media communication of experiences with

product use etc. Gradually, as consumers

become aware of the new technological possi-

bilities, they begin to conceive and interpret

various social situations in the light of the new

possibilities.

2) New products are assessed in relation to the

themes and problematiques of everyday life.

Both motives for buying new products and

resistance to doing so reflect the organisation

of everyday life and the understandings and

values related to the everyday-life actions.

3) The special features of a new product can

imply independent consumption dynamics as

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 175

well as reasons for resistance, and the con-ceptualisations formed of the product and its

possible use will influence the buying deci-

sions. These conceptualisations can be af-

fected by the product’s relationship to older,

related products.

4) In families, decisions to buy new products,

especially more expensive ones, usually require

negotiations between family members. Thisarena of negotiation is important per se for the

individual’s way of formulating his or her

motives and arguments, and the arena also has

an independent importance in a consumption

dynamics perspective.

5) A buying decision can be promoted by special

offers etc., and sometimes new things will

enter a family in ways other than buying.6) First experiences with new products can be

mixed. In some cases the disappointed users

give away the product and thus contribute to

the diffusion process, as other households get

the product without deciding to buy it.

7) Domestication of new products raises new

themes and questions that were not always

foreseen in the considerations prior to thepurchase.

8) In the long run, such domestication processes

can contribute to structural and cultural

changes that have feedback effects on every-

day life and the motives for buying.

Already at this stage, it should be noted that the

empirical material of the project is heavier on some

issues than on others. There is a bulk of material

considering express motives, negotiations between

parents and children, and ways of evading the

negotiation arena, while the material is thinner on

the domestication processes, and the long-term

impacts are more a matter of conjecture.

In this exposition, consumption dynamics ap-

pear in multiple forms: in market supply and

offers, the structures and understandings of every-

day life, the function of the family as an arena for

negotiations, evasions of this arena, the diffusion

promoted by first-time experiences, and the con-

tribution of domestication to long-term changes.

In the present context, consumption dynamics are

thus used as a very broad concept. However, the

expressed motives of consumption are not re-garded as consumption dynamics in their own

right, the dynamics are constituted by the condi-

tions and notions underlying such motives, mean-

ing that an outline of the dynamics presupposes

interpretation. Several respondents contribute di-

rectly with interpretations, e.g. regarding condi-

tions in their everyday life that might influence the

formation of their motives for buying differentproducts. But obviously, in analysing the material,

I have also drawn upon a variety of theories as

well as other empirical studies in order to discuss

how to interpret the statements of the respondents.

The concept of domestication themes is used to

denote whatever themes and issues emerge in

relation to a family’s use of a given new product.

Since some families are reflexive enough to foreseesuch domestication themes and include them in

their pre-acquisition deliberations, there is a slide

between the concepts of domestication themes and

consumption dynamics. However, the idea is that

the concept of domestication themes should

mainly sound out some of the aspects indicating

potentially more long-term changes in everyday

life. Just as the motives for consumption requireinterpretation, our respondents’ accounts of ex-

periences with using a new product will require

interpretation in order to be conceived as domes-

tication themes.

4. Empirical findings

4.1. The status for mobile phones at the time of the

interviews

In the first years following the introduction of

the mobile phone, it was, in Denmark as in other

European countries, above all an object acquired

by businesspeople, and it was conceived as a status

indicator in the classical sense. When the inter-

views were carried out (from late 1999 to the endof 2000), the mobile phone had had its day as an

independent status symbol. The differentiation of

mobile phones was now in full swing, so status

could be attached to specific makes, special designs

and new functions, however, among our adult

respondents this form of status was very weakly

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188176

represented, and we only met a limited number offrontrunners.

The period was characterised by massive growth

in the diffusion of mobile phones. It was almost

impossible to avoid confrontation with the mobile,

and especially families with schoolchildren could

hardly avoid dealing with the issue of whether or

not to buy one. In the autumn of 1998, a technical

and institutional innovation had been intro-duced*/the pre-paid cards*/facilitating the

spread of mobile phones to children and youths.

The introduction of pre-paid card ran almost

parallel to that of short message service (SMS),

the option of exchanging mini-messages via the

mobile phone, a function with particular appeal

for children and young people.

The central theme of the massive advertisingbombardment was: ‘Everybody could need a

mobile phone.’ The massive campaigns contribu-

ted to making potential buyers aware of the mobile

as a possibility, and people began to view different

social situations in the light of the new technolo-

gical possibilities. Whenever you had a situation,

where a phone call could have been helpful, yet

was difficult to carry out, you would think in linewith the advertisements: this is when I could have

used a mobile phone. A while ago, that idea would

never have entered your mind, but now a possibi-

lity had been opened. In some cases, a specific

experience was the direct cause of the acquisition,

while others needed several experiences to trigger

an acquisition. On the other hand, the advertising

slogan ‘Everybody could need a mobile phone’also provoked resistance. Several respondents

indicated that they failed to see what they could

use a mobile for.

4.2. Motives and resistance

4.2.1. The adults

It is characteristic of both positive and negative

responses that more than anything they refer tofunctionality. A decisive point in family discus-

sions on whether or not to purchase a mobile

phone is: can it be justified as a necessary

purchase? Such reasoning is not reserved for

telephone technologies, but is recurrent for the

vast majority of new acquisitions. Our material

does include acquisitions justified by pleasure andenjoyment only (microwave oven for popcorn,

adjustable beds, flat-screen television sets), and

there are also examples of acquisitions based on

aesthetical deliberations; yet arguments of func-

tionality are by far the most prevalent.

The definitely most frequently used argument

for purchasing a mobile phone (and an answer-

phone) is the attempt to avoid concern, anxietyand unnecessary insecurity. A fundamental feature

underlying most families’ attempt to prevent

insecurity is ‘knowing everyone’s whereabouts’,

the ability to make agreements and trust that they

are being kept. If for some reason an agreement

cannot be kept, it is important to let the other(s)

know, so that they are not anxious. Changing

circumstances can also bring on a need for moresecurity. For instance, it is not unusual for people

to buy a mobile phone so that their ageing parents

can get in touch in case a problem crops up.

Several mentioned the particular situation of

pregnancy and infants as the one that caused

them to buy a mobile phone, since providing a

greater sense of security. While most respondents

use security and safety as a legitimate argument,one respondent does not take this argument at face

value. He suggests that we are easy prey whenever

manufacturers play cleverly on our need for

security, also because there is an underlying

element of comfort and convenience in wanting a

mobile phone.

Our respondents augment their safety and

security arguments with rather more functionalarguments. The mobile phone can be practical

because it can help make your bustling everyday

life come together and make day-to-day agree-

ments fit in.

Hf: It’s a good thing because we can talk together

during the day. That’s very convenient because we

don’t always get to do it, with two kids and

everything running so fast. Then we have. . . There’s

no one to interrupt us. (laugh) And as I said, then

we’ll sometimes use it during the day to talk over a

few things we didn’t get to talk over in the morning,

or something we are to do during the day, or right

after we get home and that sort of stuff .

Telephone technologies can also enable people

to manage more things at a time. However, in that

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 177

respect, the cordless phone is emphasised with themost enthusiasm. This reasoning, about economis-

ing with time by doing several things at a time, is

found with a number of other products, e.g. having

a stepper so you can exercise while watching TV.

Yet such notion also provokes dislike. A case in

point is a male respondent who is very reluctant to

purchase new things and says, in response to his

wife’s reflections as to the potential practical assetsof mobile phones:

Pm: As I see it, it’ll end up making your life

completely stressed up, utilising your time maxi-

mally so you can’t even spare five or three min for

being yourself and thinking your own thoughts. . .Everything simply has to be top-tuned .

So while the adults’ alleged arguments for

buying mobile phones refer to avoiding concern,making their bustling everyday life come together,

and economising with their time*/though coun-

tered by a few sceptical question marks*/children

see matters completely differently, which will

appear from the following section.

4.2.2. The children-and their negotiations with

parents

In the first turn, teenagers are the ones to wantmobile phones, so they can currently connect with

their friends, be kept posted on where things are

going on, ‘stay tuned’ (Burkart, 2000). The teens’

interest in the mobile phone often wins the

empathy of their parents, not because they are

particularly engaged in the background of their

teenager’s interest in the mobile phone, but

especially because it is in good harmony with theparents’ need to minimise the insecurity that comes

with their teenage offspring’s extended liberty of

action and independent activities. In some cases,

parents are actually proactive and inclined to

equip the young people with mobile phones so

they can get in touch with them. However, such

control reasoning causes some teenagers to oppose

having a mobile phone, since entailing a strongerobligation to keep their parents posted about their

whereabouts etc. (Haddon, 1998a). And obviously

not all teenagers are up to the hassle of carrying

such a device everywhere, paying the running

costs, some find it ridiculous, etc. (Burkart,

2000). Moreover, it should be noted that occa-

sionally the mobile phone’s capability to provide asense of security will backfire since parents are

highly disquieted whenever their teenagers fail to

call (e.g. when the pre-paid card is used up, when

they are out of range, when the battery is depleted,

or the owners forgot to switch on). When the

mobile offer teens extended liberty, the mobile can

be both a cause of their parents’ increased

insecurity and a means to reduce it.The spread of mobile phones among teens also

makes the bigger kids familiar with it, spreading

interest downwards at a remarkable rate through

the age segments, also influenced by the bigger

children’s status among the younger ones. Our

interview material is especially suited to demon-

strate the spread of mobile phones to children aged

9�/15. Owing to research design children’s viewsare presented primarily as interpreted by their

parents, meaning that their representation is

bound to be closely integrated with descriptions

of child�/parent negotiations. Here, we find that a

good deal of conflict matter exists between chil-

dren and their parents. To take a typical example,

here from a wealthy family that could easily have

equipped their children with mobile phones,should they so wish:

Kf: the big one has a mobile phone here. And then

she is the first of our children to get one. And that

was just. . . We were under extreme pressure. I’d

have to say that. (laugh)

I: You mean from her?

Kf: Yes, you can bet on that! And we stuck to our

‘no’ actually for a full 12 months. But then, we do

appreciate that she takes the train back home on her

own, and it can be running late, and she needs some

more freedom, of course. . . So our 12-year-old is

also pestering us, but I’m glad I waited so the bigger

one only had it when she was that old. I guess that

will keep the small one passive, that she can’t have

one until she’s in the ninth or tenth grade. (laugh)

For their schoolmates have them, you know. That’s

for sure, so. . . But that’s where I put my foot down,

definitely. Because there isn’t a need. That’s some

prestige thing, and it doesn’t make sense ’cause

children don’t have a real need (I believe) for calling

as long as they go to school. I don’t buy that one.

It is interesting to note that the children of this

family are extremely well equipped with their own

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188178

TV sets, stereos and cameras. In Section 4.3, I will

return to the special characteristics of mobile

phones that might explain this paradox.

The families’ narratives show us the importance,

the children attach to mobile phones. To the

bigger children, as for the teens, the mobile phone

is vital for ‘keeping in touch’ at all times, while to

the younger children, it is rather a matter of being

able to join the play that unfolds with mobile

phones as a tool, especially in relation to being

able to exchange SMS messages. Another aspect is

that the children aspire to the esteem associated

with owning the most prestigious model.

However, several parents among our respon-

dents were disinclined to fulfil their children’s

wishes for a mobile phone right away. In the

negotiation arena, children will often argue their

case based on the reasoning that it would be fair

enough for them to get a mobile phone when their

friends do. Faced with such notion of ‘fairness’,

parents will often at first question whether the

mobile phone is really all that widespread, they

want to avoid that families are played up against

one another in a mutual forcing up of standards.

Once the rapid spread of mobile phones among

children becomes obvious, their parents have to

make up their minds, whether or not to give way.

Among those who resist the predominant argu-

ment is that their children plainly do not need a

mobile phone, they do not have a true need. In

that event, children of a modern negotiation

family are quick to realise that they will have to

resort to other arguments, and then go for their

parents’ soft spot, the safety issue, by listing

typical situations when they need a phone to call

home and give a message. However our unflinch-

ing parents fail to see the point of that, the children

always being near a phone as it is, and some

parents purchase a shared mobile phone for

precisely that purpose, which the children can

carry along in very specific situations when they

may need one. In that case the children are in

checkmate, since obviously that is not what they

are really trying to achieve.

Steadfast parents are strongly represented in our

interview material; yet it also has examples of the

opposite standpoint, most pronounced in one

family that is particularly favourable to newtechnologies.

4.3. Parents’ attitudes and the characteristics of the

product

The different parental attitudes towards chil-

dren’s wish for a mobile phone have a highly

complex background. A striking feature is that

several parents express considerable animositytowards their children’s use of mobile phones,

their reluctance seems to be a lot stronger than

with lots of other things, a child could wish for.

Opposition springs in part from the fact that today

mobile phone use in public spaces can seem so

obnoxious that people would not want their

children to contribute to the ‘mobile pollution’.

Apart from mobile phone use in public spaces,there are other particular product characteristics

impinging on parents’ opposition. Unlike many

other things that a child might wish, the running

costs of mobile phones are quite heavy. This

means that both adults and children may find it

hard to estimate the financial burden associated

with the purchase, and parents may suspect that

they will constantly be pressured for money to buytop-up cards.

However, our study also indicates that rather

more subtle understandings of the product will

impinge on their opposition. Some steadfast par-

ents will not accept their children’s wish to have

mobile phones because they make great toys, and

because they are ‘in’ right now. Their opposition is

so strong that their children cannot even legiti-mately save up to purchase a mobile phone and

give higher priority to top-up cards than to other

consumer goods. One reason behind such parental

reactions appears to be their own notion of the

mobile phone as a practical amenity, and that they

find it outrageous using that as a toy. As already

mentioned, functional arguments predominate

when parents deliberate whether or not to pur-chase a mobile phone for themselves, and they

tend to generally apply their type of arguments to

a children’s universe. Based on a parental under-

standing, children will need a mobile phone (or

from a different angle: parents will need their

children to have a mobile phone) once they grow

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 179

up to move around at large. That makes the

mobile phone a suitable symbolic ‘object of

transition’: when you enter the ninth grade, or

are confirmed. However, families vary consider-

ably regarding the time such transition takes place.

Families to set it at a late point of time are

typically those in which mothers (in a single case

also the father) stay at home a lot and are

accessible to the children, while families with two

fully employed adults experience the need a lot

earlier. (The phenomenon has been termed ’remote

mothering’, Haddon, 1998a,b; a role previously

played by the traditional hardwired phone, cf.

Vestby, 1994).

The view of the mobile phone as a practical

object, not to be used as a mere toy, is also based

on notions associated with the traditional

hardwired phone. Although the telephone has

been a widespread amenity in Danish homes

for a great many years, many parents have

adopted an ingrained notion from their own

parental home, that one should economise when

using the phone, and not talk any longer than is

‘necessary’:

Bm: the house here has a quarterly phone bill of

DKK 1300 or so. And really that’s not half

as bad, when deducting the subscription rate, and

considering how many we are. So there are lots of

necessary talks, see? And compared with many

others, our children here are quite good about not

misusing the phone, talking with friends and mates

and so on. We don’t have those teenage kids who

sprawl upstairs in their beds and talk for hours on

end with. . .The understandings at play here spring from a

historical inter-linking of telephones with neces-

sity. But, of course, we should keep in mind that

the current cost of telephone use could be con-

siderable, especially when using mobile phones.Whether or not parents are provoked by the

notion of mobile phones used as toys, these are at

least expensive toys. So it lies near that they

are bound to create opposition in families who

strive to keep up time-honoured virtues of frug-

ality in a more general way and wish to insist that

children will not just get anything they care to

point at.

4.4. The family as a decision-making arena

In most families, if a mobile phone (or other

rather high-end consumer goods) is to be pur-

chased by ordinary buying, that situation will

make a case for negotiation. Since child/parent

negotiations were already anticipated in a previous

section, this section will focus exclusively on its

purchase by adults. The negotiation situation

springs from the relatively high degree of equality

(distribution of power) within modern families in

which both parties are breadwinners and (though

to varying extents) take their part of household

chores in what has been termed the negotiation

family. The very presence of a negotiation situa-

tion is a phenomenon that will by definition help

to inspire reflections on the purchase of new

objects, since family members have to come up

with arguments. Likely, the negotiation situation

is also a major factor in causing arguments to be of

a predominantly functional nature.One family (Pm and Nf) (who at the time of the

interview had not bought a mobile phone as yet)

describes how ‘she’ will almost invariably take the

initiative to buy something new, while ‘he’ will

resist as long as he can. After many and long-

winded discussions, she will sometimes lose her

patience and just buy the object, despite his

opposition. For instance, she did so with the

answer-phone.Another respondent family (Lf and Sm) would

embrace such novelties with great interest, and the

spouses constantly have such a number on their

requests list that, despite comfortable earnings

they cannot afford them all, far from it. Thus

negotiations are always called for, yet ‘he’ suc-

ceeded in acquiring the mobile phone once there

was what seemed to be a special offer.In a third family (Mf and Jm), both spouses can

veto new acquisitions, not on financial grounds,

since the family is of comfortable means, but

because the couple is very much aware of the

fact that technologies can intervene to change

everyday life and have undesired consequences.

The husband, thus, vetoed buying a dishwasher

(despite the fact that he mostly does the dishes)

and the introduction of a microwave oven took his

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188180

wife quite a while. The mobile phone came in by abypass, which I will get back to shortly.

Right of veto is rare among the respondent

families. Apparently any opposition is dealt with

during the negotiation process: purchasing wishes

seem to prevail over resistance to buying. Of

course, there may be cases where families have to

desist from buying for financial reasons, or

because spouses’ priorities differ, so they have tobe weighed against each other. Yet it would seem

less than legitimate to mutually obstruct purchas-

ing wishes. More often than not such wishes will

be seen to embody a desire for better quality of

life, an endeavour you would not want to keep

another person from which is an interesting

phenomenon in a consumer dynamics perspective.

4.5. Bypassing the arena for purchasing decisions

The interview material provides several exam-

ples of products entering the families in ways other

than straightforward purchase, since there are

central dynamics linked up with family members’

work situation and with gift-giving. In some cases

employers will buy mobile phones for their staff

because they are practical in performing theirwork. A photocopier repair engineer related the

following:

Am: I guess we’ve had a mobile phone for five

years or so. We bought the first one ourselves. . .because I’m on the road every day, and then I had. . .the company had given me a pager; but really it’s

rather more easy if you can sort of talk together.

And then the company was willing. . . If we wanted

to buy one they would pay for subscription. And then

we bought it, and they paid for the subscription.

Hf: Well, and it was only a matter of 6 months

when the company decided they wanted to buy us

mobile phones. . . And all of a sudden we had two, in

point of fact. (laugh)

In our material, this dynamic is particularly in

evidence with computers used for remote working.Moreover many employers have shown an interest

in stimulating their staff’s computer skills and

have also subsidised the purchase of computers

not to be used directly at work; equally some

families bought their own computers in order to

teach themselves and improve their own career

opportunities. In other cases, employers boughttheir staff new products that were rather in the

nature of fringe benefits. For instance, I know of

several cases in which staff received mobile

phones, and our material has an example of a

cordless telephone. Finally new acquisitions are

often inspired by the place of work, where people

can familiarise themselves with new products and

develop a desire to buy them for their own homes.The female respondent referred to above, who

bought an answer-phone despite her husband’s

opposition, had first seen one at her place of work

and was impressed with how ingenious it was.

Gift-giving is yet another aspect that plays a

major role in the diffusion of mobile phones,

answer-phones, cordless phones etc. Advertising

campaigns have certainly also often made it apoint that especially mobile phones are very

suitable gift objects. The respondents mention

several examples of having given parents mobile

phones etc. and of having been given answer-

phones themselves.

4.6. The first experiences

Yet such gifts are not always a success, and noris the mobile phone you bought for yourself.

Occasionally such objects are just stowed away in

a drawer; but often they end up being passed on,

thus spreading further. Especially for mobile

phones several respondents found that they made

phone conversations exceedingly expensive, and

that their technical functionality was inferior. We

found both negative experience and handing-on inthe family where the husband first had his

subscription paid and was later given a mobile

phone by his employer. His wife then took over the

discarded phone:

Hf: Yes, and I then used to have it in the car. . .And really, at some point we found out that we

hadn’t given it a thought what having it actually cost

us. By then it had sat in the glove compartment for

quite a while.

Am: Yes, and when finally needed, it would have

run out of current.

Hf: Since we only paid for subscription and talks

for DKK 0.85 quarterly we simply dropped it. . . For

I never used it. . . I’ve passed it on to my dad.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 181

In some cases, negative user experiences owe tothe fact that they were among the pioneers, or at

least relatively early users of a novel product that

either adds an entirely new function or a comple-

tely different way to carry out a familiar function.

Actually, at that point, the intended use of the

product is not entirely clear and at the same time

the relevant technology tends to have a few

‘teething troubles’, e.g. short battery life. Suchnegative experience makes users more conscious of

requirements to be met by a given product, so they

will have more gratifying experience with any later

purchases.

Nor do gifts always hit the target, as already

mentioned. An old lady who was given a mobile

phone by her son could not really use it, but then

he found a use for it himself:Jm: somehow she couldn’t find out how to use it. . .

She wasn’t sure if there was any current, and she

found it hard to operate. Actually it was a matter of

pressing two buttons. . . but it just didn’t suit her.

That was a stillborn idea, so there was no point in. . .Then there was a subscription left over, and I used it

and found it was quite convenient if I missed my

train.

I: But you really hadn’t considered buying one?

Jm: If I hadn’t bought it for my mother, then I

don’t imagine I’d have one today, either. Well. . .never say never.

The material includes several examples showing

that the dynamics associated with work and gift-

giving apply to other products, that gifts are not

always successful, and that once purchased someobjects are not used very much and will end up in a

corner or be passed on. As for the buying

situation, we should note that dynamics associated

with work and gift-giving can work as ways to

bypass the negotiation and prioritising process,

and in a similar way the circulation of products

not used as foreseen contribute to the diffusion of

new products, also to those who may not haveintended to buy them in the first place.

4.7. Domestication

Already while deliberating the purchase of a

mobile phone it lies near to think over how one

intends to use it, and salesmen and women have

their own notions on how it should be used, just assuch ideas are formed when media present the use

of novel products, not just via advertising, but also

via articles, reader’s correspondence, etc. How-

ever, and in particular for products with novel

functions and products that can carry out familiar

functions in a new way, their users have consider-

able freedom of interpretation, so they may end up

using a product in ways completely different fromwhat its manufacturer had first envisaged. At the

same time, such technologies have a relatively

large potential for becoming parts of changes in

everyday life. Relationships between new technol-

ogies and everyday lives evolve as dialectical

mechanisms: people will have a pronounced sensi-

tivity to any technology that can somehow interact

with the current issues and ongoing changes oftheir everyday lives, and once such technologies

gain foothold, they will in turn contribute to

reinforcing the same processes. In order to deter-

mine how new telephone technologies interact with

key issues and processes of change in everyday life

we can examine the domestication themes that

emerge from the material. It is a rather subtle

matter where to actually draw the line betweendomestication themes and underlying dynamics of

purchase (or non-purchase decisions), since some

domestication themes will already be inherent in

the dynamics. Yet, with such new technologies,

certain aspects will often defy full consideration in

advance, and will only be truly appreciated with

user experience. Based on that very loose delimita-

tion we are able to elicit the three key domestica-tion themes of our material: accessibility, norms of

use, and human contact. Only accessibility is

discussed here.

4.7.1. Accessibility

Faced with new technical options that enable

communication anytime, anywhere, and the op-

portunity to delay communication, users have tocope with the issue of having to decide when and

how they wish to be accessible. During the process,

social norms of accessibility are formed, a negotia-

tion process taking place right now. Several

respondents are acutely aware that they want to

control their own accessibility. For instance, a

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188182

male respondent explains why he will use hismobile phone for outbound calls only:

Jm: It’s that sense of stress. Now, I take the

hydrofoil every day, and I can really see how tough

it is on people having one (a mobile phone). They’ll

sit there, having to call their wife and sweetheart and

mistress and secretary. . . that’s the stressful lifestyle

that a mobile phone will give you. . . Many people

have asked me, ‘Don’t you own a mobile phone?’ I’m

kind of hard to reach. . . so actually, for many of

those I know, it would be practical if I did have a

mobile phone; but I just won’t do it, it’s no good. . . I

don’t want people to be able to talk to me, when they

want to. It’s got to be when it suits me. And that’s

where the mobile phone doesn’t work. . . And as soon

as (I can see that in the others). . . as soon as people

find out they can call you, then you can’t turn it

back off. You know, you can’t take the liberty of

saying, ‘I don’t feel like talking now’. That’s kind of

implicit in the lifestyle of living with a mobile

phone. . .There is a broad consensus that being able to

ward off communication is acceptable in some

situations, whether you are weeding in your

garden, at the Zoo with your family, need toconcentrate on your work, or the family is having

their evening meal. As for the old hardwired phone

there is a widespread social norm that you cannot

allow yourself to ignore the phone if you are in.

Some people would like to disregard that norm

because they want to control their own accessi-

bility, while others hesitate at going to such

’extremes’, also because they could miss something(‘if we pull out the plug there’s bound to be an

important call’). This is in good concord with the

fact that several express their enthusiasm with the

cordless phone, since it guarantees they will not

miss a call while in the garden. And then, if you

would rather not miss anything and would still like

a bit of peace, you may use the answer-phone as a

‘line of defence’; but still you have to keep in mindthat it will annoy some callers, and some explain

that they still cannot help being drawn by the

phone. Experience with the social norms asso-

ciated with the hardwired phone could explain

why some are wary of the demands imposed by

owning a mobile phone. Some have no qualms

turning it on and off at their convenience (and are

also prepared to unplug the hardwired phone),while others feel the mobile phone will build

expectations in colleagues, relatives and friends

that they are supposed to be accessible. To those

people, an ‘on’ mobile phone is a slippery slope

not to be ventured onto, if they want to have a

little peace and keep their stress levels in check.

The severity of the problem depends on one’s

sensitivity to the expectations of others, and onone’s own habit formation: once you have ‘turned

on your accessibility’ you may find it difficult to

‘turn it back off’. Some choose to control their

accessibility by being very restrictive about hand-

ing out their mobile phone number. We found this

to be the case in some families who had primarily

purchased the phone as a means to reduce

insecurity. Selectivity in whom you choose to beaccessible to is also possible with the number

display: it enables you to see who is calling, and

then decide if you want to answer the phone.

Others may find such number displays offensive,

since sorting one’s calls is considered impolite

(Mick and Fournier, 1998).

When used as gifts mobile phones, answer-

phones etc. may indicate that the giver wants therecipient to be accessible, even though the latter

does not necessarily want to. As mentioned, this is

the case with parents’ demands on children and

teenagers, including an element of control, but is

also seen among adults. It can be quite compli-

cated to explain why your mobile phone has been

off for an extended period. In relation to answer-

phones we found a peculiar form of social controlin our material:

Nf: old days, when people would tell you, ‘I’ve

simply called you ten times’. . .Pm: Yes, it’s sure a little telltale.

Nf: And then you’ll say, ‘Why didn’t you leave a

message on my answer-phone?’ Ehhhhrr. . .! Then

they’re left there blushing, see? So the communica-

tion where you pretend you’ve done something. . .Apart from demands on the accessibility of

others (mostly family members), aimed to reduce

insecurity, none of our respondents said they were

displeased with others being inaccessible. But, still

they are awake to the pressure of others expecting

them to be accessible, and aware that such

pressure may conflict with their own wish to

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 183

control their accessibility. Thus, we did notdirectly find what Ling et al. (1998) termed ‘the

Goretex principle’*/it is great for others to be

accessible to me, but it is not quite so great for

myself to be accessible at all times*/yet we found

a more indirect expression of similar concerns. At

the same time, we found that more people are

pleased with new options of handling their acces-

sibility by direct asynchronous communication.While a letter takes long to arrive and, therefore,

implies a considerable time delay in communica-

tion, a telephone conversation will take place

without any delay whatsoever. Answer-phones, e-

mail etc. constitute an intermediate form, asyn-

chronous like the letter, yet where time delays can

be minute and are controlled by the recipient. As

we all know, the reverse side of such communica-tion is that it contributes to an immense increase in

communications, meaning that users may gradu-

ally have to face new challenges in terms of

controlling their accessibility. Yet those issues are

beyond the scope of what the present material can

illuminate.

5. Discussion and conclusions

This section will elaborate the interpretation of

our empirical findings, also drawing upon the

interviews regarding other products and referring

to different theoretical perspectives. Furthermore,

it will consider aspects where the study might

contribute something new, and where it raisesissues deserving further research. The discussion is

structured largely in line with Fig. 1; moreover it is

divided into two parts summarising our primary

research issues: First the short-term consumption

dynamics and second the longer-term perspectives

regarding everyday life.

5.1. Consumption dynamics

The present study could leave the impression

that people are very practically minded, given their

pronounced focus on functional motives for buy-

ing new objects. However, several cautionary

aspects should be observed: the interview situation

calls for that type of arguments, and so do the

terms of family negotiations. Furthermore, in theirpresent phase, mobile phones no longer have the

novelty value that they had some years ago, which

could be one of the major reasons why we do not

find the fascination and interest in playing accom-

panying the exploration of new artefacts (Levin-

son, 1977).

Our respondents’ functionality motives go be-

yond the merely practical, since also reflectingsome important themes and values of everyday

life. In relation to the mobile phone, three

significant motives emerge: in these families most

weight is given to the motive of avoiding insecur-

ity; yet other motives also play a role, e.g. the need

for co-ordinating activities during the day and the

need to use time effectively, getting things done on

the move and managing to do more things at atime. One interpretation of such motives relates

them to the fragmentation of everyday life, to the

mobility needed for ever more geographically

separated activities, and to the high level of

activity characteristic of modern everyday life. In

previous papers, we have discussed these charac-

teristics as a domain conflict (Røpke, 2001c;

Læssøe, 2001). In their everyday lives, individualsare engaged in different domains: work, home and

different non-work activities away from home*/

all more or less separated in time and space*/and

the contradictions between the demands of the

different domains constitute a core conflict in

modern everyday life (Hochschild, 1997). When-

ever technologies promise to relieve the tension

between ideal notions and wishes regarding whatto achieve in each domain and their actual

realisation, the domain conflict will constitute a

driving force behind consumption. The fragmen-

ted life calls for organisation and co-ordination,

arrangements and agreements, mutual confidence

and reliance both inside and outside the family,

and in this context the mobile phone offers a

means of communication that can make it all runmore smoothly.

The fragmentation and the longer distances

increasingly concern children’s lives as well, even

at a relatively young age (Haddon, 1998a). This

phenomenon adds to the time pressure of the

parents’ lives, since the children often have to be

accompanied, picked up, etc. The mobile thus

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188184

becomes part of the service system for the children:‘Call me when you want me to pick you up.’ This

demand from one domain of everyday life points

to yet another important theme of modern family

life: many parents seem to accept this pressure,

because they are very ambitious on behalf of their

children, they want them to have a rich life with

many experiences and to develop many different

capabilities. The present study especially highlightsthis aspect in relation to computers, as several

respondent parents invest in computers, software

etc. to stimulate their children.

In relation to the fragmented life, it is worth

emphasising that the cohesion of the family is still

highly valued. This is obvious from the reflections

of our respondents in relation to their use of, e.g.

computers and the microwave oven. In previouspapers, we discussed this in relation to the family

dilemma, the fundamental tension between cohe-

sion and separation in modern families. The

individual needs the family as a secure base, yet

at the same time searches individual development,

which could put the cohesion of the family to the

test (Livingstone, 1992). The role of the mobile

phone can also be interpreted in the light of thisfamily dilemma and with inspiration from Camp-

bell’s theory of daydreaming (Campbell, 1987). In

practice, many families find it difficult to combine

the many individual activities with realising, at the

same time, their own ideal conception of the

family being together. But, then the mobile offers

help to keep up a virtual community, supporting

the family dream. This aspect is illustrated in theadvertising slogan ‘Connecting people’ and in

commercials featuring Daddy, who from his hotel

room abroad is calling home to wish his little

daughter good night. Along the same line of

reasoning, partners may choose to stay in virtual

contact, because unable to realise their ideal of

being together, and because, in a world of many

opportunities, their relationship is under constantthreat and, therefore, needs to be confirmed again

and again.

In the interviews, the motive related to security

and peace of mind appears to be a central one, and

in my view our respondents’ preoccupation with

the issue goes beyond the needs related to the

fragmented, mobile and busy life of parents and

children, as well as the dream of the family beingtogether. The security motive is very strong, also in

families that are not very busy. It would seem

puzzling for people living in a relatively secure

world to be that preoccupied with short-term

safety issues. Why do many people arrange

themselves in ways that will cause them to feel

uneasy at the slightest deviation? Bauman sug-

gested that the modern risk societies imply thatpeople feel insecure in a more general way, but

since most risks are completely beyond our own

control we tend to concentrate on the risks that we

can actually do something about. Occasionally the

mobile phone can be used to prevent accidents, yet

in most cases the use of the mobile is more about

securing the peace of mind. Why do many people

respond with spontaneous anxiety instead ofguessing at more plausible explanations for such

deviations? In this context, it is interesting to note

that none of our respondents seem to be concerned

with the health risks that could or could not be

involved with mobile phone use. Maybe this type

of potential risk is far too abstract vis-a-vis the

concerns of everyday life?

The discussions between parents and childrenraise the interesting issue of the children’s sociali-

sation as consumers. Childhood researchers have

pointed out that toys and gadgets have come to

play a more central role for children today than

they did a few decades ago (Jessen, 1999). In the

past, playing could be based mainly on a kind of

formula, whereas today toys and gadgets are

needed as activating devices. However, it can bedifficult, also for children, to judge which things

will actually be good for playing, so they tend to

wish for nearly everything and try it out, stuffing

their shelves with all the things that turned out not

to work. The importance of consumption in

children’s lives mirrors its importance in the lives

of their parents. Yet the time-honoured virtues of

thrift etc. survive in the parent generation, even inwell-paid families, as reminiscences of less affluent

times. In a consumption dynamics perspective, it

could be interesting to delve more deeply into the

question: will the old virtues completely disappear?

Which effects can be foreseen in children, who

grow accustomed to high levels of consumption

already at an early age?

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 185

The motives for buying many different productswill reflect themes of everyday life such as those

considered above. However, different products

tend to bring up different themes and to reflect

them with different weight, as illustrated by the

present study. Some themes are more narrowly

related to specific products or groups of products,

and both motives for buying and resistance to

doing so are influenced by specific product char-acteristics and historically derived understandings

of the product. Once a product is diffused, and

most people become habituated to it, those under-

standings will gradually change and their historical

legacy tend to fade away. In the case of the mobile

phones, this can be expected to reduce the present

resistance demonstrated by some respondent fa-

milies.The arena of family negotiations can limit the

phenomenon of impulse buying; yet our study

demonstrates that it is quite difficult to interfere

with the wish of other family members to buy

something, unless the economical constraint is

decisive. Compared with much other literature

on consumption dynamics, the findings of this

study emphasise more strongly the significance ofdynamics related to employment and gift-giving in

terms of bypassing traditional purchasing deci-

sions and the arena of family negotiations. The

study also illustrates how both dynamics, com-

bined with the first experiences in using the new

product, can initiate a cycle of gift-giving and

second-hand purchases from friends and family,

thus stimulating the diffusion process. Of course,this kind of dynamics is much more relevant for

some types of products than for others, but our

findings may also indicate that especially work-

related dynamics are becoming more important

and could make an interesting topic for further

studies.

When assessed from an environmental perspec-

tive our findings on short-term consumptiondynamics are not very encouraging (the conclu-

sions from Røpke, 2001a,b are reinforced). The

study finds few signs of satiation and illustrates

how consumption drives are deeply embedded in

the considerations, themes and complexities of

everyday life. Obviously not all new products are

equally successful; still when a family resists some

kinds of products, they are usually attracted bymany others. Interestingly, the families showing an

interest in teaching their children the time-hon-

oured virtues of thrift etc. were not in general

reluctant towards consumption. The same goes for

the respondent family, in which the parents could

veto any acquisition that they expected to have

negative impacts. A general theme of restricting

consumption only very seldom appeared on thefamily agenda.

5.2. Longer-term perspectives

In the longer run, the domestication processes

imply that (surviving) new products are integrated

in everyday life, and in the case of mobile phones

they seem to develop quickly, from a relatively

unusual ‘nice-to-have’ product and into well-integrated ‘necessity’. Once you own one*/and

have passed through the first stages of potentially

frustrating experiences*/you will find new ways of

using it, and you get accustomed to the possibi-

lities offered by the technology. And once a new

technology becomes widespread, the infrastructure

of society as well as social institutions etc. will

often develop along with the diffusion, whichsometimes implies that getting that new product

becomes even more imperative. For instance, the

closing-down of public telephones can further

promote the use of mobile phones, as seen in the

UK. Another example is the need for mobile

phones in areas with high unemployment rates,

e.g. certain parts of Spain, where the mobile is

indispensable if one is to be available for jobopportunities.

In addition to this general observation on the

integration of new technologies in everyday life, it

is worth considering, whether the integration of

the mobile phone could point towards changing

socio-technical patterns with long-term environ-

mental impacts. Of course, this is necessarily

rather a matter of conjecture, but a few remarkswill be made as an interpretation of the domes-

tication themes.

The rapid diffusion of the mobile phone seems

to indicate that it fits into some general trends in

modern everyday life, maybe being part of basic

changes in the fabric of everyday life. As already

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188186

mentioned, the mobile phone will smoothen com-

munication in busy families with fragmented and

mobile lifestyles. The domestication themes related

to the codes of conduct for mobile phone use as

well as management of accessibility suggest that

these lifestyles are being developed further. Some

rules of conduct consider the management of the

boundary between public and private, and this

whole issue becomes ever more important, when

people are more on the move (Haddon, 1998).

There is an increasing need for being able to create

private space in the midst of public space, as

epitomised by the car, which is used as a mobile

‘living room’ where you can listen to music, drink

coffee, chat with family and friends and sometimes

even watch television while queuing. The mobile

lifestyle implies that people tend to both work and

keep up social contacts everywhere, and the

complicated management of this lifestyle can be

stressful, as reflected in the need for managing

one’s accessibility. Such management of accessi-

bility can be expected to produce a quasi

balance of power. For instance, the mobile phone

opens up to last-minute changes of arrangements;

yet this flexibility will occasionally also involve

wasted time for some of those involved, meaning

that it becomes a question of who has enough

power to request flexibility at the expense of

others. On the whole, the classic paradox*/that

time-saving technologies sometimes imply more

time spent*/could evolve into a related paradox of

flexibility-creating technologies developing into

straitjackets.The socio-technical development, in which the

mobile can be seen as a core symbol, continues the

trends towards increased fragmentation, mobility

and individualisation, trends that have proved to

be environmentally costly in the past. Even if

many people meet these trends with ambivalent

feelings, there are few indications that they will

slow down. A conclusion of the present study

could thus be that if we would like to see

consumption growth curbed in the rich

countries*/before it is eventually forced upon us

by pressure from the outside*/then we are facing a

formidable challenge, both in the short run and the

long run.

Acknowledgements

The present paper was prepared as part of a

project on ‘Consumers and new household tech-

nology in ecological transformation’, carried out

together with Jeppe Læssøe, to whom I am deeply

indebted for our discussions. Previous versions of

the paper have been presented at the fifth Nordic

Environmental Research Conference in Aarhus,Denmark, 14�/16 June 2001 and at the Frontiers 1

Conference of The European Society for Ecologi-

cal Economics in Cambridge, UK, 4�/7 July 2001.

I am grateful for many inspiring comments from

participants at these conferences, especially from

Suzanne Beckmann, Bente Halkier, Joseph Mur-

phy, Jesus Ramos-Martin, Lucia Reisch and John

Thøgersen. My sons, Andreas and Peter Røpke,have been very helpful in providing information,

material and ‘participant observations’. Finally, I

am grateful to the three referees who have

encouraged me to clarify the arguments.

References

Berg, A.-J., Aune, M. (Eds.), 1994. Domestic Technology and

Everyday Life*/Mutual Shaping Processes. Proceedings

from COST A4 Workshop in Trondheim, Norway, October

28�/30, 1993. EC Directorate General Science, Research and

Development, Brussels.

Burkart, G., 2000. Mobile Kommunikation. Zur Kulturbedeu-

tung des ‘‘Handy’’. Soziale Welt 51, 209�/231.

Campbell, C., 1987. The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of

Modern Consumerism. Blackwell (Basil), Oxford.

Coffey, A., Atkinson, P., 1996. Making sense of qualitative

data. Complementary Research Strategies. Sage Publica-

tions, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi.

Dencik, L., Schultz Jørgensen, P., 1999. Børn og familie i det

postmoderne samfund. Reitzels Forlag, København.

Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1980. The world of goods.

Towards an Anthropology of Consumption (First published

1978). Penguin, London.

Gronow, J., Warde, A., 2001. Ordinary Consumption. Har-

wood Academic Publications, Berkshire.

Gullestad, M., 1992. The Art of Social Relations: Essays on

Culture, Social Action and Everyday Life in Modern

Norway. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.

Haddon, L. (Ed.), 1998. Communications on the move: the

experience of mobile telephony in the 1990s. COST 248. The

Future European Telecommunications User, Mobile Work-

group. Telia, Sweden, and The European Commission.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188 187

Haddon, L., 1998a. An agenda for research on mobile

telephony. In: Haddon, L. (Ed.).

Haddon, L., 1998b. The future of mobile telephony based on

current and recent experiences. In: Haddon, L. (Ed.).

Hochschild, A.R., 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes

Home and Home Becomes Work. Metropolitan Books,

New York.

Jessen, C., 1999. Interpretative communities. The reception of

computer games by children and the young. English version:

http://www.carsten-jessen.dk Danish version: same home-

page and Tidsskrift for Børne- og ungdomskultur, nr. 39.

Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative

Research Interviewing. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,

California.

Legarth, J., Gregersen, J. and Erichsen, H., 2001. Miljøspeci-

fikationer for elektroniske tele- og dataprodukter. Arbejds-

rapport for Miljøstyrelsen nr. 2. Miljøstyrelsen (Danish

EPA), Copenhagen.

Lenau, T. et al., 2002. Miljørigtig udvikling i produktfamilier�/

en handbog. Miljønyt nr. 67. Miljøstyrelsen (Danish EPA),

Copenhagen.

Levinson, P., 1977. Toy, Mirror, and Art: The Metamorphosis

of Technological Culture. Et Cetera, June: 151�/167.

Lie, M., Sørensen, K.H. (Eds.), 1996. Making Technology Our

Own? Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Scan-

dinavian University Press.

Ling, R., Julsrud, T. and Krogh, E., 1998. The Hytte and

mobile telephones in Norway. In: Haddon, L. (Ed.).

Livingstone, S., 1992. The meaning of domestic technologies: a

personal construct analysis of familial gender relations. In:

Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. (Eds.), Consuming Technologies.

Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. Routledge,

London/New York.

Lury, C., 1996. Consumer Culture. Polity Press, Cambridge,

UK.

Læssøe, J., 1999. Mobilitetsbehov, kulturelle læreprocesser og

bæredygtighed. Transportradet, Copenhagen.

Læssøe, J., 2001. Technology, everyday life and growth in

material consumption. Forthcoming in an anthology on

environmental sociology. Aarhus, 14�/16 June.

Mackay, H., (Ed.), 1997. Consumption and Everyday Life.

Sage Publications and the Open University, London.

Mick, D.G., Fournier, S., 1998. Paradoxes of technology:

consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies.

Journal of Consumer Research 25, 123�/143.

Miller, D., (Ed.), 1995. Acknowledging consumption. A review

of new studies. Routledge, London/New York.

Renner, M., 2002. The Anatomy of Resource Wars. World-

watch paper 162. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.

Røpke, I., 1999. The dynamics of willingness to consume.

Ecological Economics 28, 399�/420.

Røpke, I., 2001a. The environmental impact of changing

consumption patterns: a survey. International Journal of

Environment and Pollution 15, 127�/145.

Røpke, I., 2001b. Is consumption becoming less material? The

case of services. International Journal of Sustainable

Development 4, 33�/47.

Røpke, I., 2001c. New technology in everyday life�/social

processes and environmental impact. Ecological Economics

38, 403�/422.

Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., (Eds.), 1992. Consuming Technol-

ogies. Media and information in Domestic Spaces. Routle-

dge, London/New York.

Sørensen, K.H., Berg, A.-J. (Eds.), 1991. Technology and

Everyday Life: Trajectories and Transformations. Report

No. 5: Proceedings from a Workshop in Trondheim, May

28�/29, 1990. Norwegian Research Council for Science and

the Humanities, Oslo.

Vestby, G.M., 1994. Constructing Childhood: Children Inter-

acting with Technology. In: Berg and Aune.

I. Røpke / Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 171�/188188