Lifesystem: Modeling Ice Skating and Other Social Practices

Published in

CALL4

28 min readOct 1, 2021

The Ecological Approach to Social Practices

Three years ago, my son joined a skate learning program at a local ice skating rink. Thus, I had a good opportunity to watch the program as a participant. When my son stood on the ice on the first day, he didn’t feel uncomfortable. I thought that this should be normal. However, I was wrong.

One day, a new class started. A child cried loudly when he stood on the ice. He wanted to escape from the ice. Her mother grabbed his body and pushed him towards the teacher. The child fell to the ice and cried even worse.

This is the defining movement for me. I realized this is a great opportunity of practicing ecological observation. I started taking pictures and collecting documents. Eventually, I developed a framework to model ice skating and other social practices. The framework is named Lifesystem.

On Sept 21, I introduced a meta-diagram called The NEST Way and mentioned the Lifesystem framework. This post offers more details about Lifeway, Lifeform, and Lifesystem.

Part 1: Theoretical Concepts

1.1 Life and Activity
1.2 The World of Working
1.3 Lifesystem
1.4 Lifeway and Lifeform
1.5 Individual Actions and Social Context
1.6 Individuality and Complexity
1.7 Material Adaptability and Social Adaptability

Part 2: Operational Concepts

2.1 Identify Lifeway, Lifeform, and Lifesystems
2.2 Actor and Group
2.3 Material and Information
2.4 Intention and Resource
2.5 Result and Reward
2.6 The Lifesystem Framework

Part 3: The Application

3.1 The Landscape of the World of Working
3.2 Situated Lifesystem
3.3 Skilled Lifesystem
3.4 Stable Lifesystem
3.5 Scalable Lifesystem

Part 1: Theoretical Concepts

From the perspective of the HERO U framework, I use the following formula to define a knowledge framework:

Concepts + Diagrams + Methods = Knowledge Framework

As a tool for guiding research and reflection, a knowledge framework is a whole that contains concepts, diagrams, and methods. An ideal knowledge framework should contain two types of concepts:

Theoretical Concepts
Operational Concepts

Theoretical Concepts are adopted from Meta-theory or Specific Theory. Some frameworks don’t associate with any theories, they only have operational concepts. Operational Concepts are framework-dependent concepts for guiding research and reflection.

Part 1 introduces several theoretical concepts behind the Lifesystem framework. If you are familiar with these concepts, you can directly jump to Part 2 to find the operational concepts of the framework.

1.1 Life and Activity

The purpose behind the Lifesystem framework is to develop a framework for discussing work-related design innovation and career development from the perspective of the ecological practice approach which is inspired by ecological psychology.

There are at least three ways to understand the concept of “Life”.

Life as Organism: this is the perspective of biological theories.
Life as Practice: this is the perspective of social theories.
Life as Ideal Type: this is the perspective of humanities.

The Lifesystem framework is not for all things of life, but only for the life of working. However, the framework understands “working” in the broad sense. It considers paid work and non-paid work as a whole as a career. It also considers playing as a special type of “working”.

It also echoes the concept of “Activity” from Activity Theory. According to Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi, the founder of Activity Theory Leontiev considered Life as the name of his theory.

Leontiev’s ambition was to translate this general statement into a concrete description of how the first phenomena that can be called “psyche” emerged in history, and how they developed into the current variety of mental phenomena.
To accomplish this goal Leontiev needed a special kind of analytical tool, a concept more general than psyche, that would make it possible to define the context in which the psyche emerges and develops.
An obvious candidate for such a concept is “Life”, since ultimately this is what undergoes evolutionary change. However, this concept is too general and too vague. “Activity,” as we will see below, was chosen by Leontiev as a concept that can provide a more concrete insight into what “Life” is.(Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, p.51–52)

I have been working on the Activity U project as a knowledge curator. I’d like to point out the similarities and differences between Ecological Psychology and Activity Theory.

At the general philosophical level, both Ecological Psychology and Activity Theory share the same view of the inseparability of human beings and the world. Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi claimed, “In Western thought, the fundamental insight of the inseparability of subjects and objects is expressed, for instance, in the philosophical views of Hegel and Marx, Goethe’s poetry, Brentano’s ‘act psychology’, and the ecological psychology of Gibson.” (2012, p.13)

However, there is an important theoretical difference between Ecological Psychology and Activity Theory. Activity theorists define “activity” as “object-oriented”, according to Leontiev, “Any activity of an organism is directed at a certain object; an ‘objectless’ activity is impossible” (Leontiev, 1981).

Ecological psychologists don’t use “activity” as a theoretical concept, they use “action” and “activity” interchangeably. Ecological psychologist Edward S. Reed (1996) pointed out there are two kinds of actions, “We should thus differentiate between two kinds of activity, performatory and exploratory — because the selective contingencies are very different for the two cases. Exploratory activity, as I call the scanning for and use of information (following James Gibson; see Reed, 1988a) typically does not require the expenditure of a significant amount of force to alter the substances or surfaces of the environment. Instead, it involves the adjustment of the head and sensory organs to the ambient energy fields. These adjustments are typically embodied in cyclic, low-energy, and low-impact movements of the sense organs or the head. The selective advantage thus obtainable is that of having information useful for regulating one’s activity pattern. These latter performatory activities are precisely those cases in which the animal does use significant amounts of force to alter the substances and surfaces of its environment. It is one thing to see or to smell a piece of food, it is quite another thing to obtain it, masticate it, and eat it — and this applies whether one is a dragonfly or a mammalian carnivore.”(1996, pp. 80–81)

One of the important concepts of Ecological Psychology is the concept of Affordance. What’s Affordance? Let’s have a look at the original definition made by Gibson: “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment. (p.119)”

Activity theorists tend to adopt the idea of affordance at the operation level. Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi pointed out, “Affordances are typically interpreted in terms of low-level manipulation with physical artifacts. Therefore, the concept is limited to the level of operations.” (2006, p.81) Bærentsen & Trettvik’s (2002) provided a framework of Affordance levels which suggested the concept of affordance can be extended to levels of actions and activities.

Activity theorists use “activity—action—operation” as three levels of a hierarchy of activity theory. I personally suggested another way to adopt the concept of affordance to Activity Theory. Instead of matching the existing three levels of a hierarchy of activity, the concept of affordance can be considered as a new level for extending the scope of the hierarchy of activity. The operation level can’t cover the meaning of the concept of exploratory action. The exploratory action goes beyond the scope of activity theory. Thus, the “possible level — affordances — exploratory action” combination is a heterogeneous theoretical resource to activity theory.

Why do I add the idea of affordance to the hierarchy of activity and practice? I think the value is it could expand the scope of the hierarchy from “actual” to “possible” because affordance refers to “action possibilities.” Eventually, I develop “logical — actual — possible” as three levels of hierarchy for the Ecological Practice approach. You can find more details here.

In order to apply the Ecological Practice approach to several domains, I need a framework as a bridge to connect theory and practice. This is the reason I want to develop the Lifesystem framework.

1.2 The World of Working

In June, I started working on a new project titled Career Curation: Curativity Theory for Personal Innovation. In fact, this project is about applying the ecological practice approach to study career development. Thus, I started looking for a theoretical approach to define the concept of “Career”.

Moreover, my focus is on a creative career or the career of creative people. I found the Austrian philosopher and social phenomenologist Alfred Schutz’s ideas and his career are perfect for the Career Curation project.

Schutz is a creative theorist whose work applied phenomenology to sociology. His works are recognized as creative projects. However, his life can be considered a creative life too. Though Schutz had a very short teaching career at the Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research, he was not a formal scholar who had a job in a research university during most of his intellectual career. We can say that he was an extremely excellent independent researcher.

According to Helmut R. Wagner who is the author of Alfred Schutz: An Intellectual Biography, “In organizing his time, Schutz gave priority to four sets of relevant interests. Each of them belonged to a different area of concern, each had its own primary relevance, and each formed a relatively self-contained sphere of life. ” Schutz’s four life spheres are family life, business activities, theoretical-philosophical activities, and music.

What I am looking for is close to Alfred Schutz’s concept of “The World of Working” which is the opposite of the world of fantasy and dream. I think the concept “The World of Working” is perfect for defining the concept of “Career” in order to consider paid work and non-paid work as a whole.

1.3 Lifesystem

The word “Life” is inspired by the term “Lifeworld” from Alfred Schutz while the word “System” is inspired by Anticipatory System Theory.

There are many ways to develop a typology, we can adopt Niklas Luhmann’s approach as a starting point.

Source: The Making of Strategic Realities (Jan-Peter Vos, 2002)

According to Luhmann, there are two types of systems: open system and self-referential system. The above diagram shows the major difference between these two types of systems is the relationship between the system and the environment. For open systems, the system is part of its environment. However, for self-referential systems, the system and environment are exclusive. The term “Welt” refers to a new whole of “system + environment” within the self-referential systems theory.

However, we have more than one choice in the Self-referential Systems theory. According to Roberto Poli, “The theory of autopoietic systems is possibly the best-known result connected with the problem of system’s reproduction. In this regard, it is worth considering that the theory of the autopoietic system is itself in need of further generalizations. The simplest generalization of these is well represented by Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. The second possibility is well represented by Robert Rosen, who some twenty years before the birth of the theory of autopoietic systems proposed what he called (M, R) — systems (from Metabolism and Repair), which subsequently developed into the theory of anticipatory systems [Rosen 1985]. As it results, Rosen’s theory is both more general and more precise than the theory of autopoietic systems.” (The complexity of Self-reference, 2010)

So, we see three types of systems theories:

Open systems theory
Niklas Luhmann’s theory of Social Systems
Robert Rosen’s theory of Anticipatory Systems

Poli also points out the challenge of the application of Luhmann and Rosen’s theories, “The realization of life into actual organisms requires many more details extending beyond (M, R) — systems. The same applies to Luhmann’s social system theory, which addresses only the most basic, the deepest, aspect of social systems. Many more details are needed in order to understand this or that concrete system. ”

I adopt Anticipatory Systems Theory as a foundation to develop the Lifesystem framework which considers the “lifeway — lifeform” hierarchical loops as an anticipatory system. Both Lifeway and Lifeform are parts of a whole which is named Lifesystem.

1.4 Lifeway and Lifeform

The term “Lifeway” is inspired by the ecological psychologist James. J. Gibson’s writing: “The natural environment offers many ways of life, and different animals have different ways of life.” I use the term “Lifeway” to refer to the “human—material” engagement which is related to physical environment and affordance.

The term “Lifeform” is inspired by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s writing: “It is easy to imagine a language consisting only of orders and reports in battle…And to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life…Here the term ‘language game’ is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity or a form of life.” I use the term “Lifeform” to refer to the “human-human” engagement which is related to social environment and supportance.

The pair of concepts of “Lifeway — Lifeform” was developed in 2019 when I was working on the book Curativity: The Ecological Approach to General Curation Practice. In 2020, I developed the concept of “Supportance” and the “Affordance — Supportance” hierarchical loops.

The above diagram presents my design for the “Affordance — Supportance” hierarchical loops. Why do I emphasize the distinction between natural environments and social environments? There are at least four important aspects that we can’t ignore:

Rational agency
Language engagement
Ownership
Remote presence

Physical artifacts and animals don’t have rational agency. They also can’t negotiate through language such as text. Artifacts don’t claim ownership of environments and affordances, however, humans consider ownership as a critical right for social life. Finally, humans can remotely be presence by adopting emerging communication technologies.

According to Gibson, “This is not a new environment — an artificial environment distinct from the natural environment — but the same old environment modified by man. It is a mistake to separate nature from the artificial as if there were two environments: artifacts have to be manufactured from natural substances. It is also a mistake to separate the cultural environment from the natural environment as if there were a world of mental products distinct from the world of material products. There is only one world, however diverse, and all animals live in it, although we human animals have altered it to suit ourselves. We have done so wastefully, thoughtlessly, and, if we do not mend our ways, fatally.” (1979/2015, p.122)

Gibson doesn’t agree with the distinction between the artificial environment and the natural environment. I follow his stance and consider natural/physical/technological environments as a whole. However, we have to notice Gibson’s idea of “one world, however diverse.” In order to discuss the complexity of one world, we need a concept such as ‘social environment’ to describe the diverse context of social life. Thus, I believe that there is a need to adopt the ‘social environment’ as a new unit of analysis while retaining the basic philosophical stance behind Gibson’s ecological psychology.

Once we move the unit of analysis from the natural environment to the social environment, we can make a distinction between the concept of Affordance for discussing the natural environment and a brand new concept for discussing the social environment. Furthermore, we can form a hierarchical loop of ‘Affordance — a new concept’ and discuss the relationship between the two layers because the discussion of ‘taking affordances’ also needs to consider social conditions.

From the perspective of the ecological practice approach, I believe the concept of Supportance is a perfect notion as a new unit of analysis for developing a new social theory that goes beyond the scope of ecological psychology.

The Lifesystem framework considers the “Lifeway — Lifeform” hierarchical loop and the “Affordance — Supportance” hierarchical loop as a whole system that defines a new unit of analysis.

1.5 Individual Actions and Social Context

Can we just use Individual Actions and Social Context without coining new terms such as Lifeway and Lifeform?

It is very hard to give a perfect definition to simple but important concepts such as “Action” which is the core of “Practice theory”, “Behavior psychology”, “Sociology”, “Activity Theory” and many more academic disciplines. James V. Wertsch reviewed Habermas’s typology of actions in his book Voices of the Mind, “In considering the relation between the actor and the first world of physical objects or physical states, Habermas (1984) notes that ‘since Aristotle the concept of teleological action has been at the center of the philosophical theory of action…In teleological strategic models of action, the relationship between actor and world is judged in terms of truth and efficacy…A second concept of action outlined by Habermas focuses on the relationship between the actor and Popper’s second world(…). This is the concept of ‘dramaturgical action,’ which is grounded primarily in Erving Goffman’s (1959) notion of the ‘dramaturgical metaphor.’…For Habermas the action-theoretic translation of Popper’s third world (…) produces ‘normatively regulated action’…As Habermas also notes, the normative concept of action has given rise to the role theory that occupies such an important place in sociology. The central criterion for judging an action according to the normative concept of action is neither truth nor efficacy on the one hand nor sincerity, truthfulness, or authenticity on the other…Although Habermas draws extensively on accounts of all three types of action, he has found it necessary to propose a fourth type, namely, ‘communicative action.’ ‘the concept of communicative action refers to the interaction of at least two subjects capable of speech and action who establish interpersonal relations.’…In contrast to the first three types of action, each of which is oriented primarily to one of the three worlds proposed by Popper, communicative action is simultaneously oriented to all three. Furthermore, in contrast to the criteria used to judge each of the first three types of action, communicative action is judge according to the criterion of reaching understanding.” (Voices of the Mind, p.9-11)

It’s clear that Habermas wants to present his idea of communicative action by developing a typology of action. As Wertsch argued, “My comments on Habermas’s analysis of types of social action hardly do justice to the set of complex issues he addresses. Yet even in this very brief overview, it is clear that different accounts of action arise from quite different sets of assumptions about what is to be described and explained. In addition, these assumptions are tied to particular ideas about what analytic techniques and units are appropriate.” (Voices of the Mind, p.11)

The Lifesystem framework is part of the Ecological Practice approach which is inspired by James J. Gibson’s Ecological Psychology. The starting point of the approach is Gibson’s idea of Affordance and the potential level in general. Since I only consider the “perception — affordance — action” loop for the first loop, it is hard to use “individual actions” to describe the first loop because Individual actions refer to both perception actions and non-perception actions.

The distinction between percept and concept defines the distinction between Lifeway and Lifeform. This is the basic assumption behind the Lifesystem framework. This is also the reason that I don’t want to use Individual Actions and Social Context.

1.6 Individuality and Complexity

The Lifesystem framework is also inspired by several thinkers’ writings about individuality. I realized the issues of individuality and complexity should be understood as a dynamic and reciprocal process. Social appropriation of individuality is the foundation of social complexity.

According to R.Keith Sawyer (2005), “The theoretical connections of socioculturalism to both Marxian theory (through Vygotsky) and to pragmatism have been widely noted (e.g., Cole 1995b, 112). The pragmatists Dewey and Mead elaborated the process ontology of Whitehead and Bergson, contributing to the sociocultural emphasis on practices and processes.” (p.127)

This section will introduce a processual approach to sociology from Andrew Abbott who is an American sociologist and social theorist working at the University of Chicago. Abbott’s works follow a special theme: the elaboration of a processual approach to the social world. In 2016, Abbott published a book titled Processual Sociology which is a collection of essays. The processual approach rejects the major traditional views of the social world such as the sociology of Durkheim, the Marxian social conflict theory, and the symbolic anthropology promoted by Clifford Geertz and David Schneider.

According to Abbott, “A processual approach begins by theorizing the making and unmaking of all these things — individuals, social entities, cultural structures, patterns of conflict — instant by instant as the social process unfolds in time. The world of the processual approach is a world of events. Individuals and social entities are not the elements of social life but are patterns and regularities defined by lineages of successive events. They are moments in a lineage, moments that will shape the next iteration of events even as they recede into the past. The processual approach, in short, is fundamentally, essentially historical. ”(p.x)

The first chapter of Processual Sociology is The Historicality of Individuals in which Abbott argued that “the common theory of ‘levels’ of the social process — biology, personality, social structure, culture or whatever other series we may use — is fundamentally mistaken. There are no levels. Social entities and forces are not larger than individuals. They are just a different kind of pattern defined on events, which are the true substrate of the social process. ” (p.1) According to Abbott, “…the historicality of the individual is in its first sense biological. Biological individuals carry forward with themselves a huge mass of historical experience, written quite literally in and on their bodies. The historicality of individuals is in its second sense memorial. It arises in the peculiar concentration of memory in biological individuals…What is different is that the memory of individual humans is concentrated in their biological selves in a way that the memory of social structures is not…the individual memorial self is less diaphanous than are the memorial selves of social structures…persons as legal beings have roughly the same historial endurance as do corporations, which are after all personae fictae.” (p.7)

Abbott’s argument is not alone. In 1997, Derek Layder published Modern Social Theory: Key debates and new directions and presented his social domains theory. Layder suggested four principal social domains: Psychobiography (including self-identity), Situated activity, Social setting (including fields), and Contextual resources. Layder argued that “we must also understand the self as a historical emergent and have some means of tracing and registering its ever developing nature. The notion of ‘psychobiography’ points to the development of the self as a linked series of evolutionary transitions, or transformations in identity and personality at various significant junctures in the lives of individuals. In this sense psychobiography traces the life ‘career’ of an individual and ties together both the subjective and the objective facets of an individual’s experience (Hughes 1937).” (p.47)

He also pointed out, “Durkheim’s ideas suggest that modern societies provide the social conditions under which individuation flourishes. The notion of psychobiography complements this by adding a psychological dimension. It stresses that individuality is not only a matter of social pressure towards specialization and the expression of differences. It indicates that over their life careers, individuals have quite different social experiences and are entangled in webs of social relationships that are unique both in terms of their quality and in terms of the personalities and behavioral patterns of those involved in them…If, as sociologists, we want to understand people as real, fully rounded human beings, we must understand them in their unique individualities — only in this way will we avoid viewing them as mere reflections of social influences. Thus we must look to the reverse side of the social arena to understand the specific configurations of real people that popular the ‘back regions’ of social life…By identifying psychobiographies as a unit of analysis, we are concentrating on the intersection or join between two fundamental features of the human social world.” (p.51)

I also mentioned Gibson’s “social mind” in the article The Concept of Supportance. In a biography titled James J. Gibson and The Psychology of Perception (1988), Edward S. Reed uses The Motives of a Social Realist as a title for a chapter that describes Gibson’s early ideas. According to Reed, “American social thought is largely built around the myth that isolated individuals exist in, and sometimes fight against society. In the drafts for his never-completed book on socialization, Gibson attacked this theory from the outset. ‘The great fallacy of the older group theorists was in believing that the group thwarted and cramped the individuality of a member, and the individual tended to rebel against this oppressive influence. The truth is that the function of the group is to develop individuality in its members. Only in a group can a person become highly individualized’ (1.25, 1932). A self cannot be a ‘personal possession.’ In a way strikingly reminiscent of Baldwin (1897), Gibson argued that the ‘self is not something private, incommunicable, or knowable, only by itself. It arises as a ‘reflection of the discovery of other selves’ and in connection with group life’ (3.48, 1960). The self is both a person’s way of acting among other people and his or her awareness of social relations. Although the awareness of the self is difficult to make explicit, ‘that does not mean that the self is inner and secret. On the contrary, it is one of the most public aspects of personality, expanding and contracting with public esteem’ (3.48, 1960)”. (1988, p.59)

Gibson’s social mind is similar to his theory on perception. Reed says, “Gibson’s later work on perception showed how individuals can obtain veridical information through their own actions. We are able to see for ourselves, Gibson asserted, despite the blinders of accepted proprieties. Thus Gibson’s social theory mediates between a form of social determinism and a form of pure individualism. The norms of the group do have an effect on individuals, but they cannot predetermine an individual’s acts.” (1988, p.65)

It’s clear that Gibson was looking for a third way which is behind social determinism and pure individualism. The concept of Supportance echoes such a great vision. If we want to escape from the conflict of control and autonomy, we should adopt a new concept in order to keep balance. At the epistemological level, it is better to adopt the neutral monism approach to solve the contradiction between self and others. If we accept the limitations of individuality, then the concept of Supportance points to a way of reciprocal intersubjectivity.

The Lifesystem framework echoes Gibson’s third way because it considers Lifeway and Lifeform as a whole which is a basic unit of social complexity.

1.7 Material Adaptability and Social Adaptability

The newest development of the Lifesystem framework is a pair of concepts: Material Adaptability and Social Adaptability.

As mentioned above, I started applying Curativity Theory and the Ecological Practice approach to discuss Career Development and Personal Innovation in June. You can find my rough ideas from a Miro board below:

Curativity Theory for Personal Innovation

Career Curation and beyond

miro.com

The concept of Career should be understood as both subjective and objective, thus we need a framework that respects the development of individuality and the dynamics of social complexity.

From the perspective of personal career development, the Lifesystem framework needs some concepts for discussing competence. Following the distinction between percept and concept, the distinction between Affordance and Supportance, and the distinction between Lifeway and Lifeform, I developed the pair of concepts of Material Adaptability and Social Adaptability.

Material Adaptability refers to a person’s competence in the actualization of affordance and material engagement while Social Adaptability refers to a person’s competence in the actualization of supportances and human engagement.

Part 2: Operational Concepts

The above discussion reviews a set of theoretical concepts. However, we need a framework for discussing the structure and dynamics of Lifesystems. Thus we need operational concepts for guiding research and reflection. Part 2 will introduce several operational concepts. I will unfold the whole framework with the ice skating case.

2.1 Identify Lifeway, Lifeform, and Lifesystems

First, we need to identify Lifeway, Lifeform, and Lifesystem from real life. For this case, Lifeway is Ice Skating. As a “human—material engagement”, Ice Skating means a person glides over a smooth surface covered in ice with ice skates which are a pair of shoes with attached metal blades.

This is a great example for discussing the concept of Affordance. Gibson gave a classical example of Affordance in his book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception:

If a terrestrial surface is nearly horizontal (instead of slanted), nearly flat (instead of convex or concave), and sufficiently extended (relative to the size of the animal) and if its substance is rigid (relative to the weight of the animal), then the surface affords support. It is a surface of support, and we call it a substratum, ground, or floor. It is stand-on-able, permitting an upright posture for quadrupeds and bipeds. It is therefore walk-on-able and run-over-able. It is not sink-into-able like a surface of water or a swamp, that is, not for heavy terrestrial animals. Support for water bugs is different. (1979/2015, p.119).

Ice Skating is about the surface too. However, it is a case of an affordance system which means several objects offer an affordance or a set of affordances. A smooth surface without ice skates doesn’t offer an affordance for traveling fast. As a lifeway, Ice Skating needs a specific environment (a smooth surface covered in ice) and a specific object (ice skates). We have to notice that a smooth surface still offers affordances such as walking and running. But, we don’t call them Skating.

I found there are several Lifeforms at the ice skating rink. For example, one-to-many teaching, one-to-one coaching, birthday party, couple dating, free practice, formal performance, etc. Each lifeform refers to some special type of supportances from others. A student needs supportances from teachers or coaches, a host of a birthday party needs supportances from friends, a girl needs supportances from her boyfriend, and a performer needs supportances from audiences.

A student is following a line on the surface.

The above discussion has presented the list of theoretical concepts of the Lifesystem framework. The rest of the article will introduce a set of operational concepts. I use the pair of concepts of “Lifeway — Lifeform” as a principle to separate “Subject-Object” and “Enter—Exit” into eight operational concepts.

2.2 Actor and Group

The concept of Subject is separated into Actor and Group. The concept of Actor is located at the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Group is located at the loop of Lifeform. The Actor refers to the primary subjects while the Group refers to secondary subjects.

For the skating learning program, the Actor refers to teachers and students. The Group refers to parents and family members, front desk staff, ice technicians, audiences, etc.

The local ice skating rink is part of a large local shopping mall and it is close to a food court. There are many restaurants around the rink. Thus, we should consider audiences as part of the Group. Originally, we are audiences. Then we transformed from audiences to participants. We can adopt Roger Barker’s concept “Zone of Penetration” to understand such transformation.

2.3 Material and Information

The concept of Object is separated into Material and Information. The concept of Material is located in the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Information is located in the loop of Lifeform.

Since Lifeway is defined as “human—material” engagement, we need to distinguish Primary Materials from Secondary Materials. For example, the primary materials are Ice Skates and the Surface because they define the Lifeway. However, we should notice that there are other materials such as helmets, knee pads, gloves, etc. We can consider these things as secondary materials because Lifeway is not defined by them. In other words, secondary materials are optional, not essential.

The concept of Information refers to language, signs, knowledge, rule, etc. It is about the content of the “human—human” engagement. For example, one of the above pictures shows a line on the surface. This line is a sign for guiding students to practice. For the student, this line is her object. For the “teacher-student” engagement, this line is their communicative content.

2.4 Intention and Resource

The concept of Enter is separated into Intention and Resource. The concept of Intention is located in the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Resource is located in the loop of Lifeform.

The concept of Intention refers to an actor’s motivation and objective. This is a complex topic. The major difference between the ecological practice approach with goal-oriented action theories is that the former emphasizes exploratory actions while remaining the importance of performatory actions. Also, I consider the dynamics of Intention since the Lifesystem is a whole. I use given intention and emergent intention to discuss the dynamics of intention. The emergent intention may lead to the change in a lifeway and a lifesystem.

The concept of Resource refers to various types of resources such as family resources, etc.

2.5 Result and Reward

The concept of Exit is separated into Result and Reward. The concept of Result is located in the loop of Lifeway while the concept of Reward is located in the loop of Lifeform.

The concept of Result refers to the final outcome of a lifeway. One useful way is to distinguish between three types of outcomes: product, by-product, and meta-product. The product refers to the intended outcome within the original objective of lifeway and the by-product refers to the unintended outcome beyond the original objective of lifeway. The meta-product refers to the transformation of self as the outcome of lifeway.

The concept of Reward refers to the feedback from the lifeform. It emphasizes the importance of supportances offered by a group to which the actor belongs.

2.6 The Lifesystem Framework

The above diagram is the final outcome: the Lifesystem framework.

The framework considers the “lifeway — lifeform” hierarchical loops as an anticipatory system. The “Actor — Group” relationship can be considered as the “Self — Other” relationship. Thus, we can connect the Anticipatory Activity System to the Lifesystem framework. You can find more details about Anticipatory Activity System here.

Part 3: The Application

The purpose of the Lifesystem framework is to develop a framework for discussing work-related design innovation and career development. It is close to Alfred Schutz’s concept of “The World of Working”.

3.1 The Landscape of the World of Working

I consider Lifesystem as a basic unit of analysis of the World of Working. In order to understand the structure and dynamics of the World of Working, I developed a typology of the Lifesystem and the diagram below.

The typology of Lifesystem sets four types of lifesystems:

Situated Lifesystem
Skilled Lifesystem
Stable Lifesystem
Scalable Lifesystem

By using these four types of Lifesystems, we can apply the Lifesystem framework to discuss various types of social structures. Let’s use Ice Skating as an example of Lifeway and discuss four types of Lifesystems.

3.2 Situated Lifesystem

The characteristics of a Situated Lifesystem are minimal time scale and minimal space scale. For example, a kid occasionally skates for fun. It is not a routine such as a learning program that has a planned schedule. The Lifeform of the Situated Lifesystem is very simple.

3.3 Skilled Lifesystem

The characteristics of a Skilled Lifesystem are a short time scale and a small spatial scale. It is a person-centered routine practice with a clear goal of improving skills. For example, a kid joins a skating learning program. The lifeform of Skilled Lifesystem is more complex than Situated Lifesystem, however, its social complexity is still low.

3.4 Stable Lifesystem

The characteristics of a Stable Lifesystem are a long time scale and a big spatial scale. While the above two types of Lifesystems adopt the person-centered perspective, Stable Lifesystem moves to the institution-centered perspective. For example, there is a business entity behind the local ice skating rink. If we choose this type of Lifesystem for our research, then the primary member of the Group should be the owner and managers of the local ice skating rink.

3.5 Scalable Lifesystem

The characteristics of the Scalable Lifesystem are a large time scale and a large spatial scale. It is usually not restricted by the geographical environment. It involves complex and diverse social operations. For example, Figure skating is a typical competitive sport. Figure skaters compete at various levels from beginner up to the Olympic level (senior) at local, regional, sectional, national, and international competitions. Figure skating involves performance, media communication, professional judgment, business development, etc.

These four types of Lifesystems are not isolated but connected together as a network of social practice.

A Long Journey

The pair of concepts of “Lifeway — Lifeform” was born from the process of writing Curativity in 2018. In Oct 2020, I developed the concept of Supportance. In Nov 2020, I combined the “Lifeway — Lifeform” hierarchical loops and the “Affordance — Supportance” hierarchical loops and named the whole Lifesystem.

The pair of concepts of “Subject-Object” was inspired by Activity Theory. The Lifesystem framework is also inspired by Yrjö Engeström’s work the Activity System model (1987) and Elizabeth Shove’s Dynamics of Social Practice (2012).

Yrjö Engeström’s purpose is to develop a framework for studying organizational innovation. Elizabeth Shove’s purpose is to develop a framework for conducting consumer research. My purpose behind the Lifesystem framework is to build a bridge between the ecological practice approach and a creative career or creative life.

My studio CALL stands for Creative Action Learning Lab. I have developed several frameworks for creative actions:

Feb 25, 2020: Action-based Creativity #1 The Pinwheel Framework
June 16, 2020: HERO U — A New Framework for Knowledge Heroes
July 8, 2020: The NICE Way and Creative Actions
May 25, 2021: Personal Innovation as Career-fit
July 23, 2021: The Career Theme Canvas
Aug 15, 2021: The Organization-for-Opportunity Framework
Aug 30, 2021: The Path of Creative Life
Sep 27, 2021: Possible Practices: Attach, Detach, and Opportunities

From creative opportunities to creative actions, from creative actions to a creative life. This track points out that the individual creative life is my primary creative theme.

On July 4, 2021, I finished a 64-page thesis titled The Epistemology of Domain which aims to offer a brand new theory about Domain. On July 5, 2021, I sent an email with the thesis to a friend. At the end of the email, I used the following three keywords to summarize my three major theoretical creations.

Opportunity: The Ecological Practice Approach
Objective: Project-oriented Activity Theory
Outcome: The Epistemology of Domain

Later, I used the Tripartness diagram to re-organize these ideas. I also adopted the pair of concepts “Lifeway — Lifeform” to the diagram. Finally, I made a new framework for discussing career development.

This led to a new project of writing a new book! I added the above diagram to the Career Curation board and started writing! I have written 106 pages for the first draft in Chinese. However, I stopped the project in July because I realized that I have to read Alfred Schutz’s books since I used his concepts “Lifeworld” and “The World of Working” for the framework.

This article almost ends the long journey of the ecological practice approach. The Lifesystem framework is the final piece of the approach. The theoretical work is done.