Understanding Leisure

Les Haywood, Frank Kew, Peter Bramham, John Spink, John Capenerhurst, Ian Henry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367150242
• eBook ISBN: 9780429620188
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1989. Understanding Leisure is a readable introductory analysis of the key elements in the study of leisure. This includes leisure concepts and dimensions of leisure, its activity forms, participants, provision, and leisure futures, leisure and social theory. A collaborative work of six authors, Understanding Leisure is a textbook which introduces the reader to the interrelated dimensions of leisure in contemporary society and aims to provide them with guidelines for further study. Exercises and discussion topics are included at the end of each chapter to enable the reader to apply general theory to particular examples. The text contains seven chapters covering all aspects of the study of leisure. Starting with a critical evaluation of different concepts of leisure it progresses through an analysis of the relationship between leisure both to play and work and the diverse forms of leisure such as recreation, hobbies, crafts and education. There then follows a perspective on leisure participation, an analysis of the spatial dimensions of leisure and how relative land values can affect access to leisure. The historical context of leisure provision and the changing relationship between public and private sector is then examined which provides insights into the future of leisure, based on forecasts and theories of social change. The book ends with a discussion of how contemporary social theory contributes to an understanding of leisure.

Understanding Leisure will be valuable reading for undergraduate degree courses in Leisure Studies. It will also be useful background reading for post graduate study in Leisure and Recreational Management and Tourism as well as for leisure professionals in both the commercial and public sectors.

CHAPTER ONE

DIMENSIONS OF LEISURE

Introduction

A random sample of people, asked what they understand by leisure, would produce a number of different replies Some might think that leisure is time left over after work and/or other duties and obligations. Others might talk about particular activities such as watching television, taking part in sports, going out for a meal, gardening or any other of the myriad activities which people find interesting.

Still others might indicate a particular quality of experience; that leisure provides the main opportunity in their lives to ‘do their own thing’, to have fun, to exercise free choice, to develop their own interests, to have experiences which are not available in the rest of their lives. Related to this, some people might regard leisure as rest and recuperation from work, and as an antidote to the stresses and strains of modern life.

The variety of these answers illustrates that leisure has different meanings for different people, and that this aspect of human experience is very complex. In order to unravel these complexities, this introductory chapter is organised around three major issues. These are:

1 Conceptions of leisure

2 The relationship between leisure and play

3 The relationship between leisure and work

Leisure is viewed in different ways, each of which emphasises particular characteristics to the neglect of others. The utility and the limitations of each of these conceptions is assessed later. In Section 2, we acknowledge that one aspect of the meaning of leisure is intimately connected with the characteristics, experience and purposes of play. In Section 3, however, the nature and meaning of leisure in contemporary society is also inter-related with work.

Underpinning each of these approaches is a recognition that leisure, leisure activities and leisure experiences cannot be fully understood as a self-contained sphere of life separate from the societal conditions within which leisure is experienced and structured.

1 Conceptions of leisure

Leisure as residual time

Here, leisure is viewed as unobligated time, as discretionary time to use in relatively freely chosen ways, when the obligations of work and subsistence have been met. This conception of leisure is typically to be found in industrialised societies where work has become the dominant factor of daily life and the clock rules our lives. It is relatively easy to determine and calculate hours of paid work during a day, or week, numbers of weeks worked during the year, lengths of paid holidays and so on. Since the middle of the 19th century social scientists have charted factors such as reduction in hours worked and growth in statutory paid holidays as evidence of the growth of time available for leisure, and even as a herald of the coming society of leisure. There is, for example, a long tradition of time-budget research which seeks to identify the ways in which people structure their days around such dimensions as domestic duties, subsistence, sleep, employment and leisure.

A major criticism levelled at this type of research, and at the ‘residual time’ conception of leisure in general, is that it reflects a ‘man made’ view of the world, and that consequently women’s experience of leisure is at best undervalued and at worst ignored. This critique revolves around the centrality of men’s work historically inherent in the residual time concept; the failure to take account of private domestic labour as a legitimate form of work; and the different meanings of ‘discretionary or unobligated time’ experienced by women and by men. These issues are discussed again later in this chapter, in the context of work-leisure relationships, and in Chapter 3.

Dimension	Strengths	Weaknesses
Identifying time free from work as leisure.	Easy to calculate for paid employees. Data available on long term basis. Comparisons possible across time, occupations, countries, etc.	Difficult or impossible to calculate for unpaid work, e.g. unemployed people, housewives. Major segments of the population are thus ignored/invisible.
	Diaries of ‘duties and obligations’ such as eating, family concerns etc. can be constructed in order to identify ‘free time’ left over.	Difficulties in defining ‘obligations and duties’ (e.g. when does eating become more than a subsistence activity? Is playing with the children a duty or freely chosen?)
Understanding the nature of modern leisure.	Identifies in broad terms the quantity of time available for leisure for selected groups in society, and how this time is distributed.	Tells us nothing about the content and quality of leisure experienced. Marginalises certain groups not in paid employment.
Uses Planners and policy makers in identifying long term trends in the availability of leisure time (e.g. Sports Council; local authorities) in order to allocate resources. Managers of leisure facilities in organising and structuring their programmes for different groups (e.g. sports halls, theatres, museums, etc.). The tourist industry in determining holiday, hotel, and travel schedules, etc. Commercial providers in identifying groups with large quantities of free time and disposable income (e.g. youth markets).

Table 1.1 Leisure as residual time

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘residual time’ concept, and how is it used? Table 1.1 (p. 3) summarises these issues.

Leisure as activities

This conceptual model is clearly related to the first definition since leisure is seen as a range of activities in which people choose to participate during their free time. The emphasis shifts, however, from the person, to the nature of the activities undertaken, e.g. sports, television, arts, dancing, hobbies, holidays, gambling, drinking. Frequently these activities are characterised as playful and pleasurable, and are often referred to as recreations. (In this book, however, the term ‘recreation’ is reserved only for certain categories within the broad field of leisure activities – a point discussed more fully in Chapter 2.)

A further important feature of this concept of leisure is its relationship to work. A central element in describing an activity as leisure lies in its apparent opposition to work; as freely chosen instead of obligatory and done for its own sake instead of for instrumental reasons. Ironically this apparent opposition to work betrays the dominance of employment, creating these activities in the forms in which we know them today. The activities, as much as the conception of leisure as residual time, are products of an industrial society, and are shaped in the image of such societies. This had led some critics to regard the conception of leisure as ‘activities’ as a contradiction in terms – a negation of leisure – an issue to which we shall return in due course. However, at this point let us examine the uses of the activities conception of leisure, and its strengths and inadequacies.

Leisure as functional

Closely allied to the model of leisure as a range of activities, is the conception of leisure in functional terms. This views leisure activities as performing useful functions for individuals, and more particularly, for society. Leisure is thus conceived as a means to achieving socially desired and approved ends, and is consequently frequently described in such positive terms as ‘therapeutic’, ‘remedial’ or ‘training’, or more negatively, as ‘compensatory’, ‘sublimatory’, or ‘social control’.

Dimension	Strengths	Weaknesses
Identifying leisure as relatively freely chosen activities.	Easy to understand, common sense way of thinking of leisure.	Ignores passive leisure. Uncertain status of activities such as religion, DIY, charity work. Difficult to calculate for certain groups, e.g. professional artists, sports personnel.
Understanding the nature of modern leisure.	What people do in their free time; focuses attention on the content of activities and therefore on their potential quality as individual/social experiences; highlights the importance of play.	Over-emphasises the importance of institutionalised leisure forms such as sports and the arts; excludes informal, unorganised leisure forms. Tends to be rooted in the past. Difficulty coping with change.
Uses Planners and policy makers analyse trends in leisure in terms of patterns of participation in selected activities by social categories (e.g. gender, age, socio-economic group). The General Household Survey is a prime example of such data. Facilities are constructed to accommodate popular activities and managed or programmed to provide for the groups most likely to participate. Problems arise when new activities emerge which are of uncertain durability (e.g. skateboarding); or when activities are identified with certain groups to the exclusion of others (e.g. many sports are male dominated); when activities become ossified and administrators are oblivious to changes in lifestyles of their clients/participants (e.g. football and cinema).

Table 1.2 Leisure as activities

This sort of evaluative view of leisure differs in character from conceptions of leisure in ‘time’ and ‘activity’ terms, because it is less concerned with defining how leisure is best identified and measured, than with how leisure is used. Defining leisure is thus not regarded as particularly problematic, but people’s leisure lifestyles are. Again we find strong echoes of the role of leisure as a servant of work – as the dependent variable in a work-centred world. A clear example is the derivation of the word ‘recreation’, which in its original form implied ‘re-creation’ of a readiness to return to work. Equally, the idea of leisure as compensatory or as a safety valve (a frequent justification for sports), is at root a commentary on the centrality of work in general, and in particular on the inadequacies of industrially dominated working-life as a fulfilment of human potential. However, work centrality is not the only issue here, for positive views of leisure in functional terms are often associated with, for example, health and fitness for its own sake; with self-fulfilment through the mastery of skills and knowledge; with social cohesion through the sharing of common interests; and with community development through collective action and sociability.

Dimension	Strengths	Weaknesses
Identifying leisure by its functions.	Focuses on the content and social consequences of leisure.	Does not necessarily discriminate between leisure and other activities, except by implication.
Understanding the nature of leisure.	Attempts to explain the functions of leisure for participants and for society. Focuses on the importance of policies for leisure and the rationales of leisure providers.	Sees leisure in utilitarian, instrumental terms. Tends to ignore, or under-rate, intrinsically motivated leisure done for its own sake – for unjustified fun.
	Highlights changes in the use and abuses of leisure over time (e.g. leisure as social control or social service).	Overemphasises the societal dimension at the expense of the individual (see Chapter 7).
Uses By policy makers and planners (politicians, managers, etc.), especially in the public sector, to justify their decisions about what is good for their constituents (claims that leisure provision promotes social control, and reduces vandalism and discontent, have proved a powerful lever in prising funds from central and local government since at least the 1930s). Conversely, by academics and theoreticians in analysing and criticising the decisions of leisure policy-makers and practitioners, and more positively, in studying motivation for the adoption of leisure lifestyles. Public bodies such as the Sports Council and Health Education Council in promoting and marketing their activities (e.g. sport for health).

Table 1.3 Leisure as functional

In summary the functional view of leisure may be seen in Table 1.3.

Leisure as freedom

Conceptions of leisure as an end in itself requiring no instrumental justification, contrast sharply with the idea of leisure expressed in functional terms. One is at leisure when one is free from the trammels which circumscribe other spheres of life and, therefore, leisure is concerned with autonomy, with the capacity to be and develop oneself. Historically this conception of leisure has been associated with elites, who have had the time and economic independence to allow them to develop leisured lifestyles under ideal circumstances.

The Latin word ‘licere’, from which ‘leisure’ is in part derived, implies both choice (licence to do something) and constraint (licens...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• 1 Dimensions of leisure
• 2 Leisure activities
• 3 Leisure participants
• 4 Leisure spaces
• 5 Leisure provision
• 6 Leisure futures
• 7 Leisure and social theory
• Index
• Bibliography