What makes sociology of leisure distinct from other sub-fields of sociology? What is missing in current trends of leisure studies? When we asked these critical identity questions for our field work, an answer seemed to be that social researchers of leisure are better equipped and positioned to investigate not only what is going wrong about society but also what is going well about it. To promote positive sociology or sociology of happiness and well-being, Thin (2014) observed that âthere are important differences between minimal standards and really good social quality, and if we are to develop better societies we need to learn from good examples not just from bad onesâ (p. 2). Although leisure can cause and facilitate deviance, conflicts, discrimination, and injustice, leisure can also bring about trust, civility, community, and social justice (Glover, 2016; Stewart, 2014). Of course, each of these social ideals can be further critiqued (e.g., not all communities are âgoodâ), but the big picture is that leisure serves as a unique context where members of society pursue, achieve, and maintain many social goods (Stebbins, 2009). To encourage systematic inquiries on this âpositiveâ side of sociology, Stebbins (2009) coined the term âpositive sociology.â As a prominent leisure scholar, of course, Stebbinsâ focus was on leisure studies and sociology of leisure. Hence, positive sociology of leisure (PSL) was born.
Ten years have passed since Stebbinsâ (2009) declaration of PSL, and yet not many articles are explicitly associated with this sub-field. Our observation is, however, that studies of PSL have existed and prevailed without being labeled as such. This was obvious when Research Committees 13 Sociology of Leisure and RC 55 Social Indicators Research collaborated at the XIX International Sociological Association World Congress. Besides this particular joint session, RC 13 has hosted many presentations with the spirit of PSL. This edited volume presents PSL research from those who have involved with RC 13, leisure studies, and general social research and sociology. The broad goal of this volume is to increase awareness of the potentials of PSL, to demonstrate PSL exemplars, and to provide collective voice with scholars who engage with PSL.
What Is Positive Sociology of Leisure?
We define PSL as an area of research that examines social aspects of leisure life with a focus on the optimal functioning of relationship, group, community, organization, and other social units. Specifically, PSL:
To further clarify our definition of PSL, each term should be elaborated on.Looks into how, why, and when people pursue those things in life that they desire, the things they do to make their existence attractive and worth living. [PSL] is the study of what people do to socially organize their lives such that those lives become, in combination, substantially rewarding, satisfying, and fulfilling. (Stebbins, 2009, p. xi)
First, the term âpositiveâ should not be confused with so-called âpositivistâ tradition of social sciences (Henderson, 2011; see also Chap. 2 by Stebbins). Scientific positivism is characterized by its epistemological assumption that knowledge will eventually become complete and its adherence to quantitative methodology (Henderson, 2011). Although traditional positive sociology or sociology of happiness has been predominantly quantitative, there has been recent calls for, and exemplars of, qualitative inquiries (Cieslik, 2015; Thin, 2014). In fact, the founder of PSL, Stebbinsâ work has been largely qualitative (see Stebbins, n.d.). We even argue that qualitative methodology is crucial to PSL because what is âoptimalâ is ultimately a subjective and inter-subjective issue (Thin, 2014). For instance, a marriage one considers as healthy may be deeply dysfunctional from the spouseâs view. Of course, often, what constitutes of a âgoodâ marriage is negotiated within a couple and influenced by societal discourses. Thus, PSL encompasses various epistemologies as well as methodologies, which is clear in this book.
Second, we use the word âsociologyâ rather loosely, and this is reflected by the intentional use of the phrase âsocial aspectsâ in our PSL definition. In conceptualizing positive sociology, Thin (2014) noted that there are different levels of investment into formal sociology. Specifically, the modest sociological lens allows researchers to investigate âpositive subjectivity with reference to sociocultural context,â while the maximal sociological lens drives scholars to commit to âexplicitly using sociological theory to explore positive subjectivityâ (p. 4). We maintain that both lenses are important in advancing PSL, because of the interdisciplinary nature of both well-being and leisure research. Although a psychological approach has been dominant, well-being research has been also informed by economics, anthropology, and other disciplinary works (e.g., Easterlin, 2004; Mathews, 1996). Leisure studies have been clearly more interdisciplinary by gaining insights from sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, cultural studies scholars, health researchers, and so on. Thus, PSL welcomes contributions from scholars of different disciplinary backgrounds who are interested in the social aspects of leisure.
Third, we tend to agree with the definition of leisure, which Stebbins inductively based on numerous qualitative studies, as an âuncoerced, contextually framed activity engaged in during free time, which people want to do and, using their abilities and resources, actually do in either a satisfying or a fulfilling way, if not bothâ (Stebbins, 2015, p. 3). By âsatisfyingâ and âfulfilling,â Stebbins acknowledged different types of subjective well-being (see Huta & Waterman, 2014). Its focus on positive aspects of leisure experience is congruent with the overall emphasis on positivity in PSL. However, scholars without formal training of leisure studies should be aware that people can feel dissatisfied or even discriminated during their leisure experience; leisure is not entirely positive. Moreover, there is still no consensus among leisure researchers regarding what leisure isâacross leisure as free time, activity, psychological experience, and state of mind (e.g., Henderson, 2008). Having said that, there is emerging empirical evidence that prove people across cultures associate leisure with positivity and freedom (e.g., Gui, Walker, & Harshaw, in press; Ito & Walker, 2014), which is consistent with Stebbinsâ conceptualization. As subjectivity and inter-subjectivity are crucial in PSL, we contend that Stebbinsâ definition of leisure provides PSL scholars with a good starting point.
Now that PSL has been formally defined, and each of the three components is unpacked, one may wonder how PSL studies look like. Of course, this is discussed in the rest of this book. However, we also note that there are extant leisure studies that can be considered as PSL. This fact reinforces potential contributions of PSL to the literature. One of the simplest examples would be a stream of research on family leisure (Hodge et al., 2015). By definition, family requires a relationship among two or more people who clo...