Synthesis on whether non-monetary circulation devalues things at Brīvbode and how it differs from paid second-hand contexts. Slots into the chapter “What’s in it? Meanings and materialities” (#3S645Y), most directly developing the phrase already in the chapter intro #3HBTNW: “the value regime created by the absence of price.” Could open the meanings half of the chapter, before sections like #ET42F4 (EXCHANGE), #ADHCE8 (MORAL ECONOMY NORMS), #X2Y6B9 (NOT CHARITY – EMPHASIS ON EXCHANGE), and feed into #TEZHUA (stigma) and #G5U4Z2 (#ACCESS TO #VALUED ITEMS).

Core claim: the absence of price does not simply lower or raise the value of circulated things; it produces a different regime of value, which is fragile and depends on practitioner orientation.

Two opposing tendencies in the literature:

(1) The “less care” tendency — Bardhi & Eckhardt 2012, already in Ieva’s draft via #6LKZEJ / #SSRBHE: “consumers taking less care with sequentially accessed goods.” In Brīvbode this manifests as the excess problem: low friction in and out generates accumulation. Alise’s view in #B3Y9D6 captures this. Singapore freecycling (Woon, #8GAK5X) describes the same dynamic as “leakages” in circularity loops, with “greedy snatchers or hoarders.”

(2) The “re-valuation” tendency — Hobson 2016 on Freecycle (#Z7QD9W): “the worth of goods can be increased by looping through different practices, rather than a linear economy based on entropy.” Items “deliberately requested because they are wanted” (#46N4CP); even broken things gain value through reimagination (#73BLCE, #8U3BWR, #8J6YYG). Vaughan et al. milk-bottle stewardship (#6LKZEJ). Persson & Hansson care-and-circularity: swap participation extends care to neighbors and environment (#5PNCVF, #WPRAAL).

Brīvbode-specific value effects from Ieva’s fieldwork:

• Re-singularization without price: where price doesn’t do the valuation work, valuation runs through encounter, fit, biography, serendipity — donors want the thing to find “a good home” (parallel to UK clothes-swap #8BFNRS).
• Detachment as work, not loss: Ita treats Brīvbode as “infrastructure for a personal practice of detachment” (#B3Y9D6). Money’s absence reframes letting-go as moral practice rather than financial transaction.
• Symbolic ambivalence and stigma: grandmothers tell granddaughters to hide the secondhand origin, “saki, ka bija dārgs” (#58M49V). Valentīna compares Brīvbode to going through the trash bin while also praising what she got (#92DVLK). Money’s absence does not automatically destigmatize — sometimes the absence itself is the stigma.

Contrast with paid second-hand contexts:

• OCR (Poshmark/Mercari, Cervellon-style study): sellers price by wear/original price; behave like retail; most cash out rather than reinvest in second-hand (#AKPVUN); may even encourage more indulgent consumption (#2Z6LLS).
• Resale valuation triage (Hjorthol et al., #L26YMA): people stratify divestment routes by anticipated price — peer-to-peer for valuable, consignment for mid-range, donation for low. Brīvbode sits at the bottom of this hierarchy and receives what isn’t “worth” selling.
• Gen Z Finland (#386939): second-hand chosen for thrift, not for being outside the market.
• UK swap events (#EYXFNZ): without money, an implicit social contract regulates value-perception — donors curate “better” items.

Theoretical anchor: Kopytoff/singularization in Hjorthol (#DPPLR4) — commodities acquire personal meaning through social embedding. Gregson & Crewe (cited there): second-hand circuits are non-linear and can question conventional retail valuations. Belk pseudo-sharing (#ECXTXA) gives the counter-frame for resale.

Suggested paragraph for the draft:

“The absence of price at Brīvbode does not so much devalue things as shift the criterion of value from exchange-value to a heterogeneous regime including need, fit, environmental responsibility, biography, and the pleasure of encounter. This regime is fragile: where it is sustained — by donors curating what they bring, by takers framing acquisition as serendipity or care — it can re-value things that price-based circuits had given up on (Hobson 2016). Where it is not sustained, the same low friction that enables circulation enables excess and casual disposal (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012). Other second-hand contexts that retain a price (online clothing resale, consignment, peer-to-peer platforms) preserve a clear metric of worth but, in doing so, tend to behave more like conventional retail — the work of valuation is largely numerical, and the moral-economic re-valuation that Brīvbode makes possible is correspondingly weaker.”

Tölg’s dissertation #8EVNK8 frames circular consumption, following Hobson et al. (2021), as a scaling-up of consumption work (Wheeler & Glucksmann 2015a): “even if a household already practised waste sorting and recycling… they also need to enact further practices such as repairing broken belongings or sharing household tools. These increased levels of consumption work in the CE can further contribute to an unequal distribution of labour in terms of gender, class and employment forms” (#XRXFBJ). She also echoes the time-pressure angle via Sutcliffe (2022) — a citation Ieva could pick up.

This directly backs Ieva’s framing in the Consumption Work section #CBG5TD, especially #WF8XZV (Wheeler & Glucksmann + Hobson et al.) and the gender point in #RB4EPF / #HX7HN9. Tölg is another supporting citation there, not just the paraphrase-quote already in #4UFGF6.

Key move Tölg adds that Ieva could borrow: she explicitly situates the consumption-work problem as a product of retail markets being still configured for linear modes, so more work gets pushed onto households. This is a nice bridge for Ieva’s argument about brīvbode as a semi-public site (#B9RXQU) — brīvbode is one form of infrastructure that absorbs some of that work publicly (volunteer curation, sorting, quality-checking) instead of leaving it in private hands. That reframes brīvbode as a partial answer to Hobson et al.’s unequal-distribution problem.

The selected block #WANVX9 — “consumption work is gendered and unevenly distributed… Women doing divestment labour for neighbours — Absorbed sustainability labour” — sits at the heart of her Chapter 5 argument and picks up the theoretical scaffolding built in #B8QEVJ, #WF8XZV, #B9RXQU, #HX7HN9, #RB4EPF, #TEW7K8.

Closest corpus support, from most to least central:

1. Arunachalam, Lindsay, Raven & Lane 2025, Friends, family and circulation (#K8DC8S, #94LGLY, #DJFFHY, #AEWRQC, #LJVXKK) — this is the paper she wants. Their survey of 2,700 Australian households finds:

   • “gendered, class-based and life-stage differences in sharing practices” (#K8DC8S);
   • young women especially circulate clothing through friend/kin networks (#DJFFHY);
   • “Sustainability labour is carried out alongside, and as part of, everyday practices of care – whether this is circulating goods between households…” (#LJVXKK) — almost a paraphrase of her own #WANVX9 line.
   • They also cite Lindsay, Reynolds, Arunachalam, Raven & Lane 2024, “Household Sustainability Labour and the Gendering of Responsibility for Low Waste Living” in their references (#8CVSTR) — that’s the primary source Ieva has flagged as “[second-hand source that I should check]” in #RB4EPF. She should replace the second-hand citation with either the 2024 Sociology paper directly or the 2025 Environmental Sociology piece above. They reference Organo et al. too.
   • They also cite Farbotko, Domestic Environmental Labour: An Ecofeminist Perspective and Lane, Arunachalam, Lindsay & Humphery 2020, “Downshifting to Care” (#8CVSTR) — both are natural supplementary citations for the “absorbed sustainability labour” argument.

2. Tölg dissertation (referenced in #4UFGF6) — practice theory + care + “ongoing accomplishment…effort, coordination, engagement” conceptualised as consumption work (Hobson et al.). This is the practice-theoretic twin of her argument. The already-quoted #4UFGF6 paragraph works.

3. Holmes, Diverse economies of provisioning (#XFTWX2, #VYLM7R) — home clothes-swap and food coffee-club cases where circulating things is women’s sociality + labour, explicitly citing Clarke (2001) on children’s clothing circulation as “women’s social spaces.” The rhubarb/jam/jar re-circulation story (#VYLM7R) is a lovely miniature of exactly the kind of “absorbed” labour Ieva is describing.

4. Kuppinger, Second-Hand Cultures (#DLQYN3, #BBWESD) — foregrounds that non-market/household care work accounts for 30–50 % of global economic activity and is “rarely recognized, or even shunned.” Macro-scale frame for her micro observations.

5. Le Normand et al. (UK swaps) (#C93JHW, #BMRY7D) — contrast: they describe the competences of swapping without asking who does the behind-the-scenes curation work. A useful foil — Ieva can position her contribution as extending their account by attending to gendered labour.

Concrete drafting suggestions:

• Replace the “[second-hand source]” flag in #RB4EPF with Lindsay et al. 2024 directly (Sociology 58(5): 1061–1082) — and add Arunachalam et al. 2025 as a secondary cite.
• Consider adding Farbotko 2018 (ecofeminist domestic environmental labour) as an explicit theoretical peg for “absorbed sustainability labour,” which is currently a phrase without a clean citation.
• For the semi-public extension argument (#B9RXQU), the Holmes cases are the closest empirical precedent — she can cite Holmes to show that others have attended to labour/sociality in non-domestic swap/share spaces, even if not through the consumption-work vocabulary.

Section 2.3 (#J9C3FP, #CWU2MR, #S5Z6TE, #3JB9W3, #TEWGYD) makes two related moves: (a) practice theory was built for mainstream unreflexive practice, but can be stretched to “alternative” practices (Speck & Hasselkuss et al.); (b) quiet sustainability (Smith & Jehlička 2013) describes practices with environmental benefit that practitioners don’t narrate as such.

Smith & Jehlička source passages worth quote-mining:

• Definition passage: “Quiet sustainability is defined by practices that result in beneficial environmental or social outcomes, that do not relate directly or indirectly to market transactions, and that are not represented by the practitioners as relating directly to environmental or sustainability goals. Cultures of sharing, repairing, gifting and bartering characterise quiet sustainability.” (#YJA4V6) — the strongest candidate quote for her section 2.3. The non-market and sharing/gifting/bartering language maps onto brīvbode almost word-for-word.
• Post-socialist / CEE context (#NH2DUC, #K5TQYN) — directly relevant because Ieva’s participants “trace their orientations towards reuse and frugality to generational experience rather than any sustainability agenda” (#3JB9W3). Latvia extends Smith & Jehlička’s geography.
• Policy / nurturing argument (#PTWXU3, #8CBZRD) — useful for any policy/discussion paragraph she writes on whether brīvbode needs protection.

Parallel “alternative-practice” treatments in the corpus:

• Spaargaren & Fraanje, What future for collaborative consumption? — programmatic case for using practice theory specifically on collaborative/non-hegemonic consumption. Good cite in her #CWU2MR paragraph.

• Holmes, Diverse economies of provisioning (#EYKQ9N, #8AGLQQ, #R88SPB) — argues explicitly that clothes swaps / food groups are “ordinary” not new, and should be read through embedded everyday practice rather than “alternative economy” framing. Parallels Ieva’s claim (#S5Z6TE) that brīvbode draws on ordinary household practices in an unusual institutional form.

• Arunachalam, Lindsay, Raven & Lane, Friends, family and circulation (#K8DC8S, #DJFFHY, #LJVXKK) — argues informal family/friend goods circulation is “overlooked” in sustainability research; these are quiet-sustainability-shaped practices carried out under the sign of care/kinship rather than environmentalism. Close cousin to Smith & Jehlička but in an Australian second-hand context.

• Kuppinger, Second-Hand Cultures (#DLQYN3, #BBWESD) — frames global reuse/repair/sharing/care as largely unrecognised work; resonates with quiet sustainability’s claim that these practices deliver outcomes without being badged as sustainability.

For #TEWGYD (not collapsing quiet and articulated sustainability): Arunachalam et al. also find that younger/eco-conscious participants articulate sustainability while older/kin-network participants don’t — a direct empirical analogue.

Ieva’s section 2.2 (#YUQV84) hinges on Warde’s (2005) claim that consumption is “not itself a practice but rather a moment in almost every practice” — and then she extends consumption with Evans (2020) to include devaluation, divestment, disposal / attachment–detachment (#GR8X4W, #QSG322).

Direct echoes of exactly this move in the corpus (useful to show she is in a well-formed lineage):

• Fuentes et al., The Assembling of Circular Consumption (#FT2E3J) — opens by quoting the same Warde sentence verbatim: “consumption is not itself a practice but is, rather, a moment in almost every practice” and then builds a sociomaterial account of circular consumption where divestment/reuse are treated as further moments. Clean citation precedent.

• Tölg, The (im)possibilities of circular consumption (#Y74W3E) — treats Warde’s paper as “launching” the practice turn in consumption studies and motivates her dissertation with the same move. Tölg is already cited; this particular passage would anchor Ieva’s 2.2. paragraph on Warde.

• Evans (2020), After Practice? — the paper she already uses for the six-moment scheme. Relevant methodological extension in #6CZJ8D and #VSXTLT: Evans argues that “following the thing” through the moments of consumption, especially divestment, is what rescues practice theory from its production-bias and lets it engage cultural biographies. This is the hinge that ties Warde → Evans → Appadurai/Kopytoff in her 2.4. section (#EF7E4G) — she can quote it to justify the move.

• Beswick-Parsons, Evans & Jackson 2025 (referenced #AY32HD) — already flagged in her thesis (#3DENN9) as doing exactly the “decanting / stock management / recirculating” decomposition of reuse moments. Strong peer for her empirical chapter.

• Holmes, New spaces, ordinary practices (#EYKQ9N, #8AGLQQ) — empirically tracks clothes swaps and food-sharing as “ordinary practices of circularity and sharing” embedded in everyday life rather than as standalone acts of consumption. Holmes reads this through Pahl/Clarke + diverse economies rather than Warde, but the analytic gesture is the same: dissolve the consumer/consumption object into a practice-moment. #XFTWX2 is a lovely parallel passage on a home clothes swap where the “slow” materiality of clothing structures women’s sociality — very close to what brīvbode does.

Section 2.4 (#HNSV7X, #6K34J5, #9UPZX7, #VTZBLR) stitches practice theory to Appadurai/Kopytoff’s regimes of value and cultural biographies of things, and names brīvbode as a site of decommodification.

Strongest corpus support:

• Bohlin & Appelgren, “Growing in Motion” (#Y6XUMS, #4FNMPN, #BWVFBY, #Z8TCQR, #WNXDZH, #K2DJX6, #3LN59Q) — this paper is exactly the theoretical conversation Ieva wants. They argue circulation itself is a “culturally generative force” that produces second-hand objects as a hybrid category — neither commodity nor gift — by extending Appadurai/Kopytoff with the idea that things grow through circulation. Several directly-usable framings:

  • “second-hand things form a hybrid category, combining the commodity and the gift form” (#3LN59Q) — supports her one-liner “not waste, not commodity, not gift in a classic sense” (#JQY59P).
  • Critique of Kopytoff as method rather than theory of value (#Z8TCQR) — she can cite this to justify why she also needs practice theory, not just commodity biographies.
  • The Thompson rubbish-theory footnote (#4C97VV) is worth a one-line cite.

• Evans 2020 (#6CZJ8D, #VSXTLT) — makes the methodological case for “following the thing” as a bridge between practice theory and commodity biographies, explicitly citing Miller (1998) on de-commodification of market goods into material culture. This is the scaffold for her 2.4.

• Wilhite, Body, Things, Habits (#SAPZFW) — anthropological framing that picks up Appadurai/Kopytoff together with Akrich’s scripts and Gell’s agency. Useful if she wants one paragraph that materialises the regimes-of-value argument (objects as active), though probably surplus to requirements.

• Bohlin solo, “It will keep circulating” (#ZJUEY4) — listed in the corpus, not yet mined; very likely a second example of decommodification/letting-go at Swedish second-hand markets. Worth a quick skim before final draft.

• Kuppinger, Second-Hand Cultures (#DLQYN3) — via Gibson-Graham, frames second-hand/reuse/repair/care as “spaces of difference” beyond capitalist valorisation; good backing for brīvbode as decommodification + alternative economy, if she wants to cite a book-length synthesis.

Relevance for her argument: Evans + Bohlin & Appelgren together give her the theoretical license to combine “follow the thing” methodology with a practice-theoretic account of circulation — which is what she does implicitly throughout chapters 4 and 5.

The thesis grounds its practice-theoretical apparatus in Shove, Pantzar & Watson’s (2012) three-element model – materials, competences, meanings (#A6PHZ4, #8KE56J) – and treats change as re-combination of these elements (#42V6JX). Ieva explicitly defers the “rules as a fourth element” debate (Gram-Hanssen; Kropfeld) and folds rules into competence (#MPXYVC, #TG7RTN).

Closest analogues in the corpus — papers that use the same 3-element frame on strongly adjacent empirical objects:

• Le Normand, Henninger et al. 2023 on UK clothing swapping events (#RBB8UE) — programmatically adopts “Shove et al.’s (2012) framework as the lens for exploring swap events, namely, by unravelling the individual elements which are part of swapping practice and impact the voluntary disposition of garments.” They then walk through how re-framing swaps (as destinations for pre-loved rather than dumping grounds) reconfigures each of the three elements in turn (#C93JHW, #BMRY7D). This is the nearest empirical counterpart to brīvbode in the whole corpus; worth citing as a precedent that the 3-element frame can carry an analysis of swap events.

• Duarte, Silva & Costa 2024 on clothing sharing (#XC3KN6, #8Q3AAD) — another 3-element operationalisation, with dinner-service (#DB7WVF) used as a teaching example. They emphasise that practice is constituted when practitioners form links between the three elements through repetition, and that sustainability interventions work by reconfiguring those links (#J83M6C). Useful methodological precedent for how to “show” the three elements with interview material.

• Kropfeld 2023, “Lifestyles of enough” (#4U32FC, #NY3DHK, #7K7YB8, #3J5X66) — the paper Ieva cites on rules; a literature review that aggregates sufficiency practices through the SPT elements and complains that materials/competences are under-described. If she wants to position her empirical chapter as a response to that gap (especially for clothing/second-hand), this is the cite.

• Fuentes, Närvänen & Mesiranta (Assembling of Circular Consumption) (#CLPVK6, #2DETUS) — narrative case (Ann’s clothing swap party) walked explicitly through materials, competences, meanings, and flags “considerable consumer work” involved in reselling. Useful as a bridge between the 3-element model and consumption-work vocabulary.

Relevance for selected block #WANVX9: when making the gendered-distribution argument, Duarte et al. and Le Normand et al. both treat “competence” thinly — they describe skills but don’t ask who bears them. That is precisely the gap Ieva’s consumption-work extension fills, and she can say so.

Reading pass through the draft of Chapter 5 #8B58LN (“What does it require?”). Key analytical moves in the chapter and the papers that back them up:

Bumblebee / collectively sustained #ZF8R4S, #MD9PTT, #43JTZG

• Holmes 2018 #XFTWX2: clothes swaps are “an extraordinary form of economy, through the deployment of ordinary practices” — direct parallel to the bumblebee metaphor. Also #R88SPB on circularity/sharing as “age-old” practices “badged in original and organised forms.”
• Le Normand et al. 2023 #TBPJS6 is the direct peer paper — community-based enterprises enacting swap as social practice: #PRMXV8, #NE8BDC.

Gendered, distributed consumption work #WANVX9, #NYV5ER, #CJ4SZM, also LĪGA #EU3EU3 and DIVESTMENT NETWORKS #GAF5TZ

• Arunachalam et al. 2025 #SJ3K7R — survey evidence: women 60–88% more likely to give/lend/receive clothing from kin #XE35T5, #6KRVNV, #S5KT5H, #Z4U4AN. Conclusion #LJVXKK, #DJFFHY: kin/friend circulation is “overlooked sustainability” labour carried out “alongside, and as part of, everyday practices of care.”
• Fuentes & Tölg 2025 #AVNZLE — bridges “It partly overlaps with care” #VV3GYC: #5W4VGS “demanding and gendered consumption work… considered more meaningful if it allows consumers to deliver care” — explains why volunteers do it despite Jana’s puzzle #EFYYPG. Also #VLD88Z on gendered care enactment.
• Lindsay et al. 2024 “Household Sustainability Labour” referenced second-hand at #RB4EPF — should be chased directly.

“No away” / museum of overflow #AEHHUQ, #H39VUX, #HFUMN9, #ZDU7CF

• Maycroft 2009 #R9KEKQ is the key ref. #TGEZDL: “bottlenecks and backlogs of goods can be seen to be a ‘normal’ constituent of contemporary consumption/divestment practices” — Brīvbode as visible manifestation of this normal bottleneck. #RLG2M4 on how orthodox consumers push stuff “outwards” (attics, garages, fly-tipping) to preserve “visible” domestic space — Brīvbode inverts this by making the overflow publicly visible.

Curation as situational skill #MD9PTT, #FZTHH7, #5A5K3L, #WVK5LA

• Le Normand et al. #XYP9F5: organiser “valuing” items creates judgement-free environment and shapes what participants bring and feel — the Alise filter from the participant side. #VGSNF4: “swap bag” as extension of curation into the household = parallel to CONSUMPTION AND DIVESTMENT WORK IN HOUSEHOLD #3AYA88 and DECLUTTERING #KY5ETY.

Sufficiency lifestyle of volunteers #C6YN4G

• Kropfeld #QWH9YU #LFU4P5: tools, shared spaces and community events are material-competence enablers for sufficiency lifestyles. Argue Brīvbode is infrastructure that makes sufficiency sustainable as a practice (not just an individual disposition). Aligns with Marta’s “sadraudzēties ar lietām” quote #J3CSXM.

Implicit norms / negotiating practice #4TYRY7, #2GLSV9, #GACB3A

• Le Normand #BMRY7D, #PPDNKM on “implicit social contract” among swappers — same territory as ENCOURAGING EXCHANGE NORMS and the reseller/not-charity material.

Suggested priority for Ieva (deadline-constrained):

1. Arunachalam et al. 2025 #SJ3K7R — highest ROI, directly backs the gender-labour claim with citable evidence, short (13pp).
2. Fuentes & Tölg 2025 #AVNZLE — 1 quote plus conceptual framing for the care/meaning paragraph.
3. Maycroft 2009 #R9KEKQ — 1-2 quotes for “no away” passage, reframes overflow as normal.
4. Le Normand et al. #TBPJS6 — peer comparison, cite for curation + implicit social contract.
5. Holmes 2018 #XATD2A — already cited elsewhere; reuse #XFTWX2 as a framing line if the bumblebee paragraph gets polished.