Materializing Energy

James Pierce, Eric Paulos

Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 15232 USA
{jjpierce,paulos}@cs.cmu.edu

“saved” and “wasted”. Energy—in the most general sense

ABSTRACT
Motivated and informed by perspectives on sustainability of the term, as well as the more limited and commonplace
and design, this paper draws on a diverse body of scholarly usage as a commodified and usable resource—is without
works related to energy and materiality to articulate a question a matter of fundamental importance. Whatever it
perspective on energy-as-materiality and propose a design is, energy is deeply implicated in all material and
approach of materializing energy. Three critical themes are immaterial aspects of our being, including the quality of our
presented: the intangibility of energy, the everyday lives and experiences; our bodily and
undifferentiatedness of energy, and the availability of psychological “energy” and well-being; global conflict and
energy. Each theme is developed through combination of war; the exercise of political “power”; and the sustainment
critical investigation and design exploration, including the of planetary resources and our world. Energy is strange in
part because it can be difficult to say what kind of matter it
development and deployment of several novel design
is, or if it can properly be considered matter at all.
artifacts: Energy Mementos and The Local Energy Lamp. A
framework for interacting with energy-as-materiality is Approaches to design and sustainability often implicitly or
proposed involving collecting, keeping, sharing, and explicitly distinguish between energy and material. Within
activating energy. A number of additional concepts are also HCI a number of works have dealt with sustainable
introduced, such as energy attachment, energy engagement, interaction design as it relates to, on the one hand, the
energy attunement, local energy and energy meta-data. Our consumption of material goods (e.g., [3,14,21,31]) and on
work contributes both a broader, more integrative design the other the consumption of energy (e.g., [5,9,22,23,29]).
perspective on energy and materiality as well as a diversity However, notwithstanding the work of Backlund et al. [1]
of more specific concepts and artifacts that may be of and Mazé and Redström [19], HCI and interaction design
service to designers and researchers of interactive systems have not significantly and explicitly engaged integrally with
concerned with sustainability and energy. energy and materiality.1 The design approach proposed and
employed here is one of materializing energy in everyday
Author Keywords life. Broadly this means rather than approaching energy as
Sustainability, energy, materiality, design, design theory immaterial (as incorporeal and/or inconsequential) instead
approaching energy as material in both the more objective
ACM Classification Keywords but also more significant senses of the term. In order to
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): develop a perspective on energy-as-materiality we draw on
Miscellaneous. a diverse selection of scholarly works related to materiality
and energy, as well as materially explore energy-as-
INTRODUCTION materiality by engaging in the design and deployment of
Energy is a strange matter. According to physicists energy both novel and commonplace design artifacts.
can neither be created nor destroyed. Even stranger,
Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that energy and mass We build on Redström’s notion of “technology as a
are one and the same. Yet ordinary language speaks to the material in design” [24] and Backlund, Gustafsson,
contrary: energy is “produced” and “consumed”; “used”, Gyllenswärd, Ilstedt-Hjelm, Mazé, and Redström’s notion
of “energy as a material in design” [1, p. 6]. However, in
addition to approaching energy as a material in design
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for (something that designers shape) our work importantly
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, 1
to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior Outside of HCI Elizabeth Shove, for example, has more explicitly taken
specific permission and/or a fee. into account relationships among materiality, energy, and sustainability in
DIS 2010, August 16-20, 2010, Aarhus Denmark her sociological investigations of the “social organization of normality”
Copyright © 2010 ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-0103-9, 2010/08 - $10.00. [27].See also Yolande Strengers’ work within HCI on smart-metering [29].
proceeds from an understanding of energy as a material of emerging technologies with the strong potential to disrupt
design (something designed into existence) and energy as the current sociotechnical regimes of energy, technologies
material that designs (something that gives shape to human such as renewable microgeneration, microgrids, demand
existence and experience).2 response systems, smart metering and dynamic pricing
schemes to name but a few of the most prominent. While
Our approach is grounded in a belief that sustainable
these types of interventions are often positioned as
interaction design can benefit from and indeed likely
sustainable “solutions” less attention is paid to the
requires substantially rethinking what energy is, how we
potentially unsustainable structures these interventions
use energy, and how we relate to and live with energy. Our
might knowingly and unknowingly help sustain. We argue
work is in part critical in that we challenge unchallenged
that designers and researchers of interactive systems should
assumptions about energy in design. For example,
be mindful of the ways new technologies and the impetus
approaches to designing behavioral interventions to
surrounding them could be shaped to more profoundly re-
promote domestic electricity conservation often implicitly
shape social expectations and practices in the direction of
assume if not explicitly take as a matter of immutable fact
sustainability. For example, consider renewable
that electricity is readily and relatively cheaply available,
microgeneration such as solar photovoltaic, wind, and
that electricity is accessed through household outlets and
combined heat and power generation. Environmental
delivered to us by large centralized systems of energy
psychologist Patrick Devine-Wright articulates one vision
production and distribution, and that individuals are
of microgeneration and “decentralized” energy systems as
physically and emotionally distanced from the consumption
sites for the emergence of new behavioral, social, and
and certainly the production of their electricity. While our
political paradigms of energy:
approach is critical in challenging these types of
assumptions it is also exploratory in the search for desirable It is likely that decentralized generation from homes and
sustainable alternatives. As such, our critical stances are buildings, along with local power plant such as small-scale wind
taken as points of departure for conceptual exploration, farms or district heating systems with CHP plant, will represent
material actualization, and theoretical articulation of such very different contexts for energy behaviour in the future.
Deployment of micro-generation and smart-metering
alternatives. Far from offering a single prescriptive design
technologies will transform buildings into power stations and
strategy or a set of clear and actionable “solutions”, what offer unprecedented opportunities for ‘in sight and mind’ energy
we are offering is perhaps most importantly an alternative systems. These devices not only challenge accepted ways of
of “energy alternatives” for design (as distinct from the imagining or talking about energy generation and supply, such as
technological panacea of “alternative energy”). While the utility of the concept of ‘power station’ in a decentralized
critical reflection and provocation are employed as methods energy future…but are also likely to substantially raise the
as well as intended outcomes of our exploration and inquiry salience of energy issues in everyday life, making people more
a potentially opposing goal underlies our work: to transform aware of how heat and power is generated, supplied and
extraordinary scenarios of sustainability into the ordinary, consumed, and closing the current awareness gap between
personal energy consumption and the consequences of such
and to allow radically sustainable ways of being to
consumption for environmental problems such as climate change.
materialize as our normal ways of being. [6, p. 72]

Electrification: Dominant and emerging energy regimes We offer this scenario of a “decentralized energy regime” 4
In this paper we focus primarily but not exclusively on employing local and domestic renewable microgeneration
electricity as a form of energy of central importance in as but one of many in which to consider reconsidering
contemporary everyday life and society and of particular assumptions informing sustainable interaction design and
relevance to HCI and interaction design. Electrical devices HCI research, such as the assumption that there exists an
and systems not only demand energy in order to operate but ever-increasing (and unsustainable) demand for energy, or
in operating as so are implicated in the enormous and ever- that it does not matter to people where their energy comes
increasing demand for energy. Further, interactive products from. We believe that such a decentralized energy system is
and systems can be said to mediate our perceptions of and one important yet largely overlooked emerging context on
relationships with and within our world—and with energy.3 which HCI and interaction design research and practice can
It follows that interactive technologies can be designed to focus and in doing so help shape emerging technologies in
mediate action and perception in sustainable or order to re-shape our material, social and cultural
unsustainable ways. Particular attention is further made to

2
See Tony Fry for an ontological understanding of design as a “relational
ensemble”: "Put succinctly, designers design in a designed world, which
arrives by design, that designs their actions and objects, or more simply: 4
we design our world, while our world designs us.“ [11, p. 5-6]. In fact, Thomas Edison and company’s initial system was relatively
decentralized, consisting of many “central-station” supply centers located
3
See Don Ihde [10] and Peter-Paul Verbeek [30] on the technological within major cities. See Thomas Hughes’s comparative historical account
mediation of perception and action. of the evolution of electrical power systems from 1880-1930 [15].
conditions into those capable of being sustained. 5
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First
we offer a description of our methodological approach,
which relies on a combination of theory and design. The
following sections of the paper are then organized
according to three critical themes: (i) the intangibility of
energy, (ii) the undifferentiatedness of energy, and (iii) the
availability of energy. Each of these sections articulates a
Figure 1. What is energy? Objects used to engage
dominant and too often uncritically accepted position of participants in a discussion around energy and materiality.
energy and proposes alternative perspectives by way of
combining theory and material design exploration.
probes—to prompt reflection and discussion around the
material artifacts, abstract concepts they might embody or
METHODOLOGY
inspire, and other issues around participants’ practices,
The aim of our research is much less about understanding
understandings, and feelings related to energy. We then
current interactions, experiences, and practices around
collectively analyzed the conceptual ideas that informed
energy than with developing concepts that may be used in
and emerged through the design of the artifacts, the artifacts
service of designing sustainable future interactions,
themselves, and the data we obtained from participant
experiences, and practices around energy. Nonetheless we
engagement. Put another way, we engaged theoretical
wanted to give our theoretical and design concepts a
concepts, designs, and observation in a dialogue. What
material basis in order to ground our own thinking as well
emerged from this dialogue was a rich set of design
as the presentation of our ideas. In order to achieve these
theoretic concepts and conceptual design ideas that we
aims we synthesized a methodological approach drawing on
present in the remainder of this paper.
various research and design approaches that, despite their
differences, are apparently united in seeking to overcome
THE INTANGIBILITY OF ENERGY
the traditional dichotomies of thought/action and
A common observation among designers and researchers
reflection/production, including research through design
interested in sustainability and energy is that energy is
[33], reflective design [26], critical design [8], and cultural
“invisible”. A number of research, design, and art projects
probes [13].
have attempted to render “invisible” energy “visible” with a
Broadly our method consisted of the following. We ideated goal of promoting “energy awareness” and motivating
many design concepts and progressively refined several energy conservation behavior (see, e.g., [22]). It has been
conceptually related sets of new and existing physical argued that energy invisibility and energy unawareness are
design artifacts with the aim of expanding the range of in fact two major consequences of material progress within
interactions, practices, and experiences commonly the last century [28]. However, the energy we use daily to
associated with energy in everyday life. Theoretical ideas power our devices, homes, and cities is not simply
from various literatures—especially literature from perceptually invisible but also intangible. We are unaware
philosophy of technology, design theory, material culture of energy largely because it does not have (and is not
studies, sociology and anthropology—guided the designed to have) a strong tangible presence in our lives.
development of our design concepts; likewise our design The various material technologies that provide us with
concepts helped us interpret, challenge, and develop energy effectively distance us from the material production
theoretical ideas. We then presented the design artifacts to of energy and even the consumption of energy in many
participants and moderated discussions around them. 1-2 ways. Our relationship to electricity, for example, is limited
hour semi-structured interviews were conducting with 5 primarily to plugging a cord into an outlet. Our relationship
participants recruited through student classifieds and with energy as well as most infrastructural technologies
personal acquaintances. Each session was conducted in our supporting it may said to be constituted in what philosopher
lab or the participant’s home and involved 3 sets of design of technology Don Ihde describes as a background relation
artifacts: (i) everyday “energy things” (Figure 1), (ii) [10]. Through background relations, technologies are
Energy Mementos (Figure 2), and (iii) the Local Energy present to us only to the extent that they help shape the
Lamp (Figure 3). However, it must be stressed that we did context of our experience; we do not directly and
not aim to evaluate our design artifacts per se or to collect consciously experience them. In the remainder of this
or analyze data using qualitative research methods in a section we develop this notion of energy as intangible by
rigorous manner, but rather we used them as tools—or investigating diverse conceptualizations of energy.
Emerging through these investigations we propose the
notion of energy-as-materiality and further outline a simple
5
See also, for example, Yolande Strengers’ work within HCI on smart- framework for designing interactions with energy-as-
metering demand management systems as a design opportunity to shape materiality involving collecting, keeping, sharing, and
sustainable comfort and cleanliness expectations and practices [29]. activating energy.
Energy as a concept participants included: What is energy? What does that word
What is energy? The modern word energy derives from the mean to you? Sort these things according to “energy” and
Greek word ἐνέργεια (a term resisting straightforward “not energy” (Figure 1). Is this energy different from that
definition yet often simply translated as “actualization”) energy?
first used by Aristotle. However, the concept of ἐνέργεια
has little apparent relevance to the modern physical concept Our participants were far from having a single clear and
of energy [17, p. 25]. Possibly first used by Bournoulli in shared conceptualization of energy. Each participant in fact
1717 [17, p. 111], the modern use of the term energy in expressed multiple, sometimes conflicting, understandings
physics denotes a scalar quantity describing the amount of of energy. For example, one participant described energy as
work that can be performed by a force. According to this something that “is everywhere” and “all around us” but
definition, energy is an attribute of physical objects and later claimed that certain objects, such as a bottle of glue,
systems and subject to the law of conservation of energy. were probably not energy. Another participant explicitly
While physicists have a relatively well-defined meaning of distinguished between two notions of energy: energy as a
the term energy, popular uses of the term are more diverse physical force and energy as a “something we [humans] can
and less precise. As social psychologists Stern and Aronson put into some activity.” For another participant, “you can’t
and colleagues point out, “there is no single socially shared hold it in your hand and say ‘this is energy.’” Our
concept of energy” in modern society [28, p.15]. Stern and participants often made a distinction between energy as a
Aronson et al. propose four different yet commonly used physical scientific concept (e.g., “the ability to do work”)
conceptualizations of energy: energy as a commodity (e.g., and more commonplace uses of the term energy (e.g., a
electricity, coal, oil, natural gas), energy as an ecological battery as a source of energy), often acknowledging an
resource, energy as a social necessity, and energy as apparent conflict or contradiction between the two. In
strategic material. Rosa, Machlis, and Keating trace addition to expressing diverse understandings of energy,
historical developments of these types of key themes in the participants tended to appear much more comfortable or
sociology of energy, beginning with energetic theories of secure in discussing material objects than energy based on
society that equated social progress with a higher the questions we asked them. For example, participants did
transformation coefficient of “crude energy” into “useful not struggle with the concept of a match, an orange, a solar
energy” [25]. However, as discussed by Lutenhiser, Harris, charger, or a battery. They did however struggle with
and Olsen, energy has been surprisingly neglected within attempts to reconcile material objects and energy: Is this
the social sciences up until the energy supply crises of the object energy? Or does it only contain energy? Or does it
1970’s and has since tended to fluctuate with societal only contain the potential for energy?
concerns about energy [18]. In summary, our limited
Approaching energy as materiality
discussion of the complicated and fascinating history of the
concept of energy here points unambiguously to its Thus far we have discussed diverse, at times conflicting
ambiguous ontological status as indicated by a plurality of conceptualizations of energy. In challenge to the
intangibility of energy as it is currently constructed we
conceptualizations of energy—as ἐνέργεια, a scalar
propose a perspective of energy-as-materiality and a design
quantity, the ability to “do work”, a tradable commodity, an
approach aimed at materializing energy. Such an approach
ecological resource, a social necessity, a strategic material,
takes the design of energy as something tangible as a
a measure of social progress, and a neglected yet
starting rather than ending point for designerly inquiry and
fundamental sociological variable.
exploration. Taking seriously the notion of energy-as-
Energy as a “thing”
materiality allows us to draw on a diverse body of scholarly
Beginning with the word energy we ended with a plurality works that broadly take materiality as a matter of concern in
of concepts rather than a definitive meaning. Perhaps order to re-conceptualize and re-design how we think about
unsatisfied, again we can ask: What is energy? As a and interact with energy and energy-related technologies.
complementary method of investigating this question we Our use of this ill-defined term materiality is intended to
chose to begin with energy itself, or things that were carry with it various connotations of the material as more
potentially energy. We assembled a diverse range of objects than merely object(ive) but also symbolic, social, political,
and engaged participants in conversations around them historical and cultural. At this point and prior to presenting
concerning energy and materiality. Objects included more focused approaches to materializing energy we
consumer products commonly associated with electricity propose a simple framework for designing interactions with
such as batteries, solar equipment, and electrical power energy-as-materiality:
adaptors. We also included a range of objects we presumed • collecting energy (generating/producing)
were commonly not associated with electricity but possibly
• keeping energy (storing/maintaining)
associated with energy more broadly construed, such as
food, simple mechanical devices (e.g., a spring), highly • sharing energy (transmitting/distributing)
combustible materials (e.g., a match), and various other • activating energy (using/consuming)
everyday objects (e.g., a ball). Specific questions we asked
 Figure 2. Energy Memento prototypes (left to right). Crank-Sound Box. Turning the crank on one face records sound using
energy collected from cranking; turning the crank the opposite direction plays the recorded sounds through the speaker on the
opposing face. Light Jar. The jar collects solar or other light energy; opening the jar activates the energy as a glowing light.
Shake-Light Bottle. Shaking the bottle collects energy; removing the cap activates the light energy.

Several aspects of this framework are worth highlighting. energy. We then discuss these concepts in relation to the
First, the terms suggest designing for energy as something design and deployment of Energy Mementos. We conclude
interacted with and experienced as a tangible thing. Second, with a discussion of implications stemming from our
the terms collecting, keeping and sharing suggest expanding exploration and discussion of energy as both material and
interactions beyond the overwhelming emphasis of symbolic—as material culture.
interaction design on using/consuming energy. Individuals
might instead be more actively involved in collecting Energy as material culture
(“harvesting”) the energy they use on a daily basis, or Material culture studies has been described as “a range of
concerned with how energy is shared within their scholarly inquiries into the uses and meaning of objects”
community. Finally, the terms collecting, keeping, sharing, and which “emphasizes how apparently inanimate things
and activating were chosen with the intention of creating within the environment act on people, and are acted upon
some conceptual distance between their more technically- by people, for the purposes of carrying out social functions,
oriented respective terms generating/producing, regulating social relations and giving symbolic meaning to
storing/maintaining, transmitting/distributing, and human activity.” [32, p. 3]. Material culture studies offers a
using/consuming. We use this framework both implicitly rich and diverse body of theory and concepts that may be
and explicitly throughout the remainder of this paper. applied and developed in the context of investigating
energy-as-materiality, as well as “interaction” more
In the next section we articulate a perspective on energy as generally. While material culture studies has engaged with
undifferentiated, draw on material culture studies to “distributed materiality” such as the home, “consumable
describe the design of Energy Mementos, and propose materiality” such as food, and even “immaterial
opportunities for shaping the material-symbolic value of
materiality” such as sound, apparently the field has yet to
energy and energy technologies.
engage significantly with energy or electricity as material
culture. Although we believe many theories and concepts
THE UNDIFFERENTIATEDNESS OF ENERGY
from material culture studies may be useful to
Current, centralized energy regimes employing large-scale
investigations of energy-as-materiality, here we consider
power plants and distribution networks tend to position all
energy as material culture specifically in order to propose
energy as the same, differentiated only by quantity (e.g.,
the notions of energy attachment, energy possession, and
kilowatt-hour) and other metrics related to power (e.g.,
singular energy—notions of particular relevance to our goal
voltage, amperage). While these various abstract scientific
of promoting experientially meaningful and
properties of energy are manifested materially in the
environmentally sustainable interactions and practices with
various household outlets and power adapters we interact
and around energy in everyday life.
with on a daily basis as well as the larger-scale material
infrastructures of energy such as power lines, our The literature related to product attachment (more generally
experiences with energy do not significantly presence referred to as object attachment or material possession
differentiated instances, types, or qualities of energy. Note attachment) focuses on people's attachment to particular
for example that the plural form of energy—energies—is material objects and, as such, is distinct from general trait
rarely used in everyday language. If energy as a thing can materialism, product category involvement, and evaluative
be said to enter into our everyday experience it is as a affect towards possessions [16]. Rather, product attachment
single, totalizing entity or phenomena—something vague refers to bonds between a person and a particular thing as
and amorphous with which our only real concern is opposed to a general class of things (e.g., this particular
“connecting to.” Once connected, energy does not matter to laptop versus laptops in general). Moreover, product
us so long as we are able to continue to power our devices, attachment literature emphasizes attachment as related to
our homes, and our cities. From the perspective of use, all the construction of (social) meanings with and around a
energy is essentially the same—and it is this way by design. material object. Material objects are thus viewed not merely
as material or functional objects but as material culture.
In the remainder of this section we draw on material culture
Given the focus of product attachment on particular
studies and product attachment literature to propose notions
material objects it is not surprising that a central focus has
of energy attachment, energy possession, and singular
been on objects in terms of their singularity or processes cap, making the bottle glow. One envisioned scenarios for
through they become singularized, that is, the ways in the shake-light bottle would be to carry the bottle in ones
which a particular object is or becomes unique, pocket, allowing it to collect energy throughout the day as a
personalized, decommodified, irreplaceable (see, e.g., result of ones routine bodily motions. Later, the bottle could
[2,20]). The singularization of objects is related to various be given to a loved one as an expression of the giver’s
possession rituals (e.g., using, displaying, storing, personal energy. The recipient could then keep the bottle in
discussing, comparing, altering, etc.) [20], through which a special place, such as a shelf or drawer in the home. The
objects can be said to provide, acquire, or mediate meaning. recipient could, perhaps in a moment of longing for the
In light of such perspectives on attachment to material giver, open the bottle to activate the giver’s energy. The
objects we can consider designing for attachment to energy, energy would be activated as a unique pattern of light
possession and dispossession rituals around energy, and colors and intensities, communicating a unique pattern of
singular and singularizeable energy. We are now in a daily energy-generating activity of the giver.
position to ask: Can we become attached to particular and
We initiated interaction and discussion with participants
plural energies? Can a particular energy be experienced as a
around several Energy Memento prototypes (Figure 2)
singular thing, as meaningful and differentiated from other
during semi-structured interview sessions. Many
energies? And, what are the relationships among (energy)
participants responded positively to the mementos and by
attachment, possession, dispossession, and singularity?
virtue of our simple descriptions of their operation alone
appeared to identify positively with notions of singular and
Energy Mementos
emotional energy. For example, one participant responded
In order to begin to materially and empirically explore
to the description of the mementos as follows:
questions raised previously concerning energy attachment,
energy possession, and energy singularity, we designed and R: I think of it like magic. Pure, like special little energy. Like
deployed a set of artifacts called Energy Mementos. Energy my special little recipe for energy, cuz this is like energy that is
Mementos are small and unassuming objects intended to not a part of that big amorphous grid I was talking about. It’s,
allow individuals to collect, keep, share, and activate small like, in my hand.
amounts or “pieces” of singular(izeable) energy-as- I: Is this energy different from other energy?
R: Isn’t like all energy the same? Like physics? At the same
materiality. We designed the Energy Mementos with the
time: No. I feel very different about this energy. Because it’s not
goal of prompting reflection on and engagement with very practical…? Like…this infinite world of three pronged
particular energies as objects of emotional and perhaps outlets…like what am I going to do with this? But at the same
irreplaceable significance. The physical size and form of time it’s better.
each object is meant to be suggestive of that of a small
physical keepsake or memento and is not intended to Another participant responded particularly strongly to a
communicate any obvious utilitarian function. The scenario we proposed in which the Energy Mementos had
interaction with the Energy Mementos was further intended been in his family for many generations: “I’d want to add to
to facilitate discussion of various possession rituals possibly it! … I’d never even use it, except maybe for special
leading to attachment (e.g., using, displaying, storing, occasions.” However, one participant found the Energy
discussing, comparing, bequeathing, inheriting, altering, Mementos difficult to comprehend, and instead struggled to
personalizing). A general description in terms of our find utilitarian value in the mementos. Overall, most
proposed framework of collecting, keeping, sharing and participants expressed that the Energy Memento, as energy
activating energy is given as follows: Collecting—Small rather than object, was in some ways very different yet in
amounts of electrical power is generated from bodily others very similar to the electrical energy they accessed
motions (turning, spinning, pushing, pressing, etc.) or other through the power outlet. The notion that energy could be
sources of micro-power, such as sound or light; the energy differentiated and acquire emotional significance was
is collected by physically manipulating the memento (e.g., apparently an unfamiliar one yet one that could be
placing it in sunlight; shaking it). Keeping—The electrical assimilated to existing experiences with objects. Still,
energy collected is stored with small batteries or participants highlighted differences between physical
supercapacitors; the energy is kept “within” the containers mementos and Energy Mementos, for example, the
(e.g., bottle, jar, box). Sharing—The energy cannot be differences in sensorial richness of a handwritten note
directly transmitted electrically to other mementos or versus an LED, and the differing rate and quality of the
devices, however individuals can share the Energy degradation of energy versus materials like wood over time.
Memento by physically giving it to someone. Activating—
The kept energy can be activated as light (e.g., LED, LCD Designing for energy as material and symbolic
display), sound, or mechanical motion. Proposing a more explicit treatment of the design of energy
as both material and symbolic is certainly not without
For example, the Shake-Light Bottle works as follows:
problems. On a very pragmatic note, the fact that energy is
Shaking the bottle collects energy; the collected energy can
“consumed”—its materiality-at-hand degrading and
be activated as light energy by twisting and removing the
eventually dissolving entirely—may suggest longevity and
endurance as inappropriate notions to apply to the design of intangible and undifferentiated. At the same time, electrical
everyday interactions with energy. How and why should the and other forms of “usable” energy are readily accessible, at
symbolic value of energy endure if its materiality does not? least in most contexts of the “developed world.” The
In terms of sustainably re-designing our ßeveryday occasional event in which energy becomes unavailable—
interactions with energy and energy consuming products, when gasoline prices surge, a power line is down, or we
the notion of care of energy may be more appropriate than cannot locate a power outlet at a café—are often our only
that of attachment to energy. We might design for caring hints at the otherwise unremarkable availability of energy.
for our energy in the same ways that one cares for the The availability of energy, as we will discuss, is tied to
materiality of food when gardening or preparing an disengagement with energy and energy technologies. In
elaborate meal. As a more concrete example, it may be what follows we draw on theory from philosophy of
worthwhile to design microgeneration technologies in ways technology in order to arrive at two different yet related
that promote a form of emotional attachment to or care for approaches to designing for meaningful and enjoyable focal
energy. Indeed evidence from interviews with residents engagement with energy and energy technologies.
using domestic microgeneration technologies points toward
forms of attachment to energy based on the introduction of Focal engagement, effort and energy
these technologies, even among those that did not In Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life,
commission their installation. For example: “The advantage philosopher Albert Borgmann building on the work of
with [solar power technologies installed in his home] is that Martin Heidegger argues that modern technology has over
it makes you think about your energy use more. You value course of the last three centuries developed a distinctive
it more…” and “I want to feel that as much electricity as I pattern which has given rise to a radically new way of life
can use is my own electricity.” [7, p. 51-53]. [4]. Borgmann argues that while technology has served well
to, for example, combat human hunger and disease it has
Perhaps more problematic is that designing energy to more also exerted a controlling pattern on our lives and detracted
explicitly enter into the symbolic realm of consumption from the richness of human experience. For Borgmann, this
may lead to the increased material consumption of energy is tied to technological availability. In Borgmann’s terms,
by way of its being increasingly sought after as an something is made available by technology if it has been
unsustainable object of desire.6 Criticism of such a rendered instantaneous, ubiquitous, safe, and easy. Warmth,
“reification of energy” must be taken seriously, yet we must for example, has been made available by the electric
also acknowledge that all material and immaterial furnace. Borgmann distinguishes between devices, which
technologies are already symbolically consumed, including render commodities such as warmth available, with things,
energy technologies such as solar panels. The material-
which focally engage and are never purely means to some
symbolic value of energy and energy technologies can be
end. Borgmann gives the example of a central heating plant
considered or ignored by designers as well as manipulated
(a device) in contrast to a wood burning stove (a thing). The
in ways working for or against goals of sustainability. stove differs from the central heating plant in that it “was
Whatever the case, the symbolic value of energy and energy used to furnish more than mere warmth. It was a focus, a
technologies is always to some extent present. As such, we hearth, a place that gathered the work and leisure of a
argue it is imperative that designers aim to sustainably family and gave the house a center. … It provided for the
redefine (or “recode” [12]) our understandings of and entire family a regular and bodily engagement with rhythm
interactions with energy through careful attention to the of the seasons that was woven together of the threat of cold
material-symbolic value of emerging as well as and solace of warmth, the smell of wood smoke, the
commonplace energy related technologies and the energy exertion of sawing and of carrying, the teaching of skills,
they materialize. The Energy Memento may be viewed as a and the fidelity to daily tasks.” [4, p. 42]. As another
way of materializing the concept of the material-symbolic
example of what Borgmann terms focal things and focal
value of energy. Bequeathing an heirloom Energy
practices, the “culture of the table” is contrasted with
Memento, for example, seems quite unlikely to ever modern practices around technologically available food:
become a common practice but nonetheless serves as useful “The Great meal of the day…is a focal event par
counterpoint to the current undifferentiatedness of energy excellence. It gathers the scattered family around the
and offers an alternative to our currently unsustainable table…gathers the most delectable things nature has
situation in which energy is merely “something to”— brought forth…recollects and presents a tradition… brings
something undemanding and undeserving of our sustained into focus closer relations of national or regional customs,
care and attention. and more intimate traditions still of family recipes or
dishes.” [4, p. 204].
THE AVAILABILITY OF ENERGY
As we have proposed thus far, everyday energy is both While Borgmann concludes, in line with Heidegger, that
only “pretechnological things” carry the potential for focal
6 engagement, philosopher of technology and design theorist
See Tony Fry for a discussion of symbolic devaluation and the
destruction of sign value as a strategy for sustainable design [12]. Peter-Paul Verbeek argues that devices, including digital
 sustainability describes as rematerialization, the
“substitution of human labour for machines in a smart way”
[12, p. 79] and the “recoding” of such experiences “as
means of…being in touch with circumstances and the
quality of material things” [12, p. 219]. Based on this
Figure 3. The Local Energy Lamp. A variety of ways of discussion, we propose the following research questions:
communicating “qualities” of energy with energy meta- How might we design for sustainable focal engagement
data were explored. For example, white, yellow, blue, and with energy and energy technologies? How might we
red tinted lighting correspond respectively to the real-time metaphorically aim to design interactions with energy as
use of energy from “central coal power”, “local solar
gardening, tending to the hearth, or preparing and sharing
power”, “local wind power”, and “local human power”.
an elaborate meal? Or how might we literally aim to revive
such focal practices? And how might we navigate between
technologies, can also invite experientially enriching and the two extremes of both strategies of energy engagement?
meaningful types of focal engagement [30]. Verbeek—who
is critical of Borgmann and Heidegger’s perspectives on Local energy and the Local Energy Lamp
technology, which he accuses of being nostalgic and In order to explore potentials for different types of focal
romantic—attempts to rescue Borgmann’s analysis from the engagement with energy and energy technologies discussed
“alienation thesis” of technology. [30, p. 185]. In particular, previously, we focused a material investigation around
Verbeek refines Borgmann’s concept of engagement by several renewable microgeneration technologies. In
distinguishing between effort and focal engagement. particular, we developed a set of design artifacts and
Whereas focal engagement suggests an intrinsically questions around the notion of energy that is actually or
meaningful involvement with a thing, effort suggests a type perceptually limited in its availability. We presented
of engagement that is not intrinsically rewarding and is participants with several functional microgeneration
done only as means to some end. Verbeek gives the systems including a small-scale solar and hand-powered
example of focal engagement with an electronic keyboard microgeneration and storage systems. We further designed,
or electronic sewing machine, which is contrasted with the prototyped and presented to participants a system
effort involved in refilling the car with gasoline. employing a redesigned household lamp—the Local Energy
Lamp—capable of communicating the “quality” of the
A major reason that we are drawing so heavily on energy it consumed with the quality of light it produced
Borgmann and Verbeek lies in linking the potential (Figure 3). Energy meta-data concerning the source, age,
unustainability of technological availability and
and other unconventional attributes of electrical energy are
consumption with the possible reduction in the richness of
visualized by varying the color, brightness, and consistency
human experience associated with disengaged consumption
of the light of the lamp, which still functions primarily as
and technological availability. While Borgmann’s as well as household lamp for indoor lighting. The Local Energy
Verbeek’s account of technology and engagement are Lamp and microgeneration systems were used to propose
certainly open to criticism, we nonetheless aim to show various scenarios to participants. For example, the color of
how each perspective can be translated into approaches to the lamp’s light was implemented to subtly change color to
materializing energy in terms of promoting sustainable correspond to the availability of different sources of power,
focal as opposed to effortful engagement with energy. In or the current source of energy being consumed (Figure 3).
particular we outline two different yet related strategies for
sustainable energy-interaction design: (i) materializing In response to the various microgeneration technologies
engagement with energy through engagement with energy presented, all participants at times expressed positive
devices (e.g., solar panels, mobile phones) and (ii) reactions, describing the microgenerated energy as being
rematerializing engagement with energy as reengagement “free”, “homemade”, “personal”, and “clean.” Several
with simpler things (e.g., windows, the outdoors, the sun). participants described envisioned scenarios we might
The former strategy follows Verbeek in assuming that describe as being characterized by focal engagement. For
modern technologies can also promote focal engagement. example, in reaction to scenarios in which he was able to
This strategy aims to design for focal engagement with generate solar, wind, and human energy and engage with
energy by promoting engagement with the material this energy via the Local Energy Lamp, one participant
technologies involved in collecting, keeping, sharing, and responded: “I feel like that’d be kinda cool, especially in
activating energy. The second strategy follows Borgmann today’s culture. Cuz you’d get a real sense of satisfaction.
in supposing the difficulty or impossibility of focal … It’d be like gardening but with a laptop, like harvesting
engagement with modern technologies. This strategy power… I wanna compare it to gardening. A lot of people
instead aims to reduce our reliance on electricity and find that pleasurable—in the same way people find cooking
electricity-consuming devices as well as other technologies pleasurable. Like it’s sort of sustaining your life, but a lot of
that require a source of commodified energy. This approach people find it fun…like tending to your solar garden.” The
involves what design philosopher Tony Fry writing on analogy to gardening, farming, and cooking—all potential
examples of focal practices by way of Borgmann—is a Services and systems could be cleverly designed to build on
recurring and important theme in our limited empirical the engagement mediated by solar panels between
study as well as other empirical studies of microgeneration individuals and the sun and the natural rhythms of the
technologies. In the previously cited study of seasons, perhaps helping to rematerialize farming and
microgeneration technologies in the home such passive solar heating practices.
comparisons with gardening and food come up on several
We propose that one useful way of thinking about energy
occasions. For example, one individual using micro-hydro
engagement is in relation to energy awareness, which is one
power remarked: “It gives a certain satisfaction knowing
of the most common strategies taken by interactive systems
that you’re using something you’ve produced yourself, like
designers and researchers interested in energy and
growing your own vegetables.” [7, p. 3]. These findings
sustainability. This approach essentially aims to make
point toward design opportunities related to local energy,
people more cognitively aware of energy consumption,
perhaps communicated and verified with systems
often through the use of “real-time” feedback and with a
employing energy meta-data, similar to recent “local food”
primary goal of directly or indirectly motivating
movements. Another promising finding was several
conservation behavior. As a bridging concept between
participants claiming that they may change their routine
energy awareness and energy engagement we offer the
consumption practices in relation to the availability of
notion of energy attunement, by which we mean to suggest
different energy sources, as communicated by the Local
approaching cognitive energy awareness as an experiential
Energy Lamp, such as altering the times at which laundry is
materialized presence of energy that invites focal
done to coincide with the availability of solar or wind
engagement. As illustrated in the above examples and
energy. Again, evidence from the use of actual
following the discussion in the introduction an important
microgeneration technologies in the home indicates similar
emerging opportunity area is designing for attunement to
practices. For example, an individual using off-grid wind
the collection of energy. Another important emerging area
power describes his alteration of heating practices based on
is energy demand response and smart-metering systems,
wind conditions: “When the wind is blowing right up then I
suggesting designing for attunement to the sharing of
turn the electric heaters on – rather than use the gas from
energy. Speaking figuratively, the concept of energy
the gas bottles.” [7, p.7].
attunement suggests a conceptual shift from shouting at
people about energy to inviting them to be more in touch
Designing for energy engagement and attunement
Energy engagement could be a powerful way of with energy. However, we also note that strong
transforming our relationships with energy in more consideration must be given to the potential for any well-
intentioned technological intervention to further separate
meaningful and sustainable ways. In terms of materializing
our selves and our energy and to help sustain unsustainable
energy through engagement with energy devices, designers
practices. For example, consider the possibility that
can aim to design technologies with and through which
limiting the availability of energy is not perceived of as equipping homes with advanced energy sensing
increased effort but rather as focal engagement. Consider a infrastructures for energy awareness or energy attunement
decentralized energy scenario in which a micro-wind could in fact maintain or increase the demand for energy
generator is situated atop the roof of ones house or a local consuming devices, which would then, of course, demand
community wind farm is shared by members of a city. In being sensed.
this case, shifting [23] the practice of laundering to
CONCLUSION
moments when the wind is blowing may be perceived not
We have drawn from a diverse range of perspectives on
as unpleasant effortful engagement but rather as meaningful
materiality and energy in order to propose a more
focal engagement with ones technology and electricity,
integrative perspective on energy-as-materiality. In doing
home and community, wind and world. Similarly,
so we have more explicitly drawn attention to the
microgenerated solar power could help mediate focal
connections between energy and the material conditions of
engagement with the sun and solar generated electricity
our designed and designing world. We have proposed and
leading to individuals turning off indoor lights when they
employed a design approach of materializing energy
are not being used. As suggested by one participant it could
through the combination of design exploration and critical
be like “tending to your solar garden.” In terms of
investigation. Throughout we have suggested energy as an
rematerializing energy through reengagement with simpler
exemplary “immaterial materiality”—as a very real matter
things, designers can design for the replacement or
that nonetheless often does not significantly and
displacement of energy-consuming devices in favor of
consciously matter to those who variously and inevitably
rematerializing focal things such as hand tools that require
demand and depend upon it. Indeed, the situation is as it is
only human bodily energy to function. To continue with the
by design. As we have argued, energy is not simply
above examples, engagement with “local” wind and solar
something with which we are unaware, but energy is
energy could promote displacing the automatic clothes
intangible, undifferentiated, and available; energy has been
dryer in favor of air drying clothes or displacing indoor
designed not to matter to us in these ways. What has
lights during the daytime in favor of natural lighting.
changed is that we now realize the conditions that have sustainable interaction design for mobile phones. In
been designed are unsustainable. Motivated by the aim of Proc. of CHI ’08.
working towards the realization of a desirable and 15. Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of power. John Hopkins.
sustainable future, while at the same time struggling to
16. Kleine, S. (2004). An Integrative Review of Material
determine what such a future could or should be, we have
Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Sci.
suggested ways of materializing energy that have variously Review.
sought to re-design energy as something more tangible,
more differentiated, and less available. It is our hope and 17. Lindsay, B. (1975). Energy: Historical development of
intention that both our broader approach of materializing the concept. Halsted Press.
energy and the specific concepts proposed will be of service 18. Lutenhiser, L., Harris, C., & Olsen, M. (2002). Energy,
to designers intent on designing sustainable interactive society, and environment. In Dunlap, R. and Michelson,
systems. Just as we recognize that we currently dwell and W. (ed.) Handbook of environmental sociology.
design in an unsustainable world of immaterial energy, and 19. Mazé R., & Redström J. (2008). Switch! Energy
that this world designs us to treat energy as immaterial, we Ecologies in Everyday Life. Int. Journal of Design,
must also recognize that we can design our world to be 22(3): 55-70.
otherwise.
20. McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption. IU
Press.
REFERENCES
1. Backlund, S., Gustafsson, A., Gyllenswärd, M., Ilstedt- 21. Odom, W., Pierce, J. Stolterman, E., & Blevis, E.
Hjelm, 4. S., Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2006). Static! (2009). Understanding why we preserve some things
The aesthetics of energy in everyday things. In Proc. of and discard others in the context of interaction design.
DRSIC. In Proc. CHI ’09.
2. Belk, R. (1991). “Possessions and the Sense of Past.” In 22. Pierce, J., Odom, W., & Blevis, E. (2008). Energy aware
Russell W. Belk (ed.) Highways and Buyways: dwelling: a critical survey of interaction design for eco-
Naturalistic Research from the Consumer Behavior visualizations. In Proc. OZCHI ’08.
Odyssey. 23. Pierce, J., Schiano, D., & Paulos, E. (2010). Home,
3. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: habits and energy: investigating domestic interactions
invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. In Proc. of CHI and energy consumption. In Proc. of CHI ’10.
’08. 24. Redström, J. (2005). On Technology as Material in
4. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and character of Design. In Willis, A-M. (ed.) Design Philosophy
contemporary life. University of Chicago Press. Papers, Collection Two:31-42.
5. Chetty, M., Tran, D., & Grinter, R. (2008). Getting to 25. Rosa, E., Machlis, G., & Keating, K. (1988). “Energy
green: understanding resource consumption in the home, and Society”, Annual Review of Sociology 14:149–72.
In Proc. Ubicomp ’08. 26. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., and Kaye, J. (2005).
6. Devine-Wright, P. (2006). Energy citizenship: Reflective design. In Proc. Critical Computing.
psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy 27. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and
technologies. In J. Murphy (ed.) Governance of convenience: the social organisation of normality. Berg.
Sustainable Technology.
28. Stern, P. & Aronson, E. (ed.) (1984). Energy use: The
7. Dobbyn J. & Thomas G. (2005) Seeing the light: the human dimension. Freeman and Company.
impact of micro-generation on our use of energy.
29. Strengers, Y. (2008). Smart metering demand
Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, London.
management programs: challenging the comfort and
8. Dunne, T. & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: the secret cleanliness habitus of households. In Proc. OZCHI ’08.
life of electronic objects. Birkhauser.
30. Verbeek, P-P. (2005). What Things Do – Philosophical
9. Froehlich, J. Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. Penn
design of eco-feedback technology. In Proc. of CHI ’10. State.
10. Ihde, D. (1998). Technology and the lifeworld. IU Press. 31. Wakkary, R. & Tanenbaum, K. (2009). A sustainable
11. Fry, T. (1999). A new design philosophy: an identity: the creativity of an everyday designer. In Proc.
introduction to defuturing. UNSW Press. CHI ’09.
12. Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics 32. Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding material culture.
and new practice. Berg. Sage.
13. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: 33. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007).
Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1):21-29. Research through design as a method for interaction
design research in HCI. In Proc. of CHI ’07.
14. Huang, E.M. & Truong, K.N. (2008). Breaking the
disposable technology paradigm: opportunities for