Ro Jek Leisure Theory

8/8/2019 Ro Jek Leisure Theory

1/17

eis u re Th eo ry R et ro s p ec t an d Pro s p ec t

htis R ojek

L

eisure theory is widely perceived as presenting difficulties for

undergraduates. It is hard to get your head around some of the con-

cepts, and conceptualizing phenomena in abstract, as opposed to

concrete terms, does not come naturally to people. Vet its place

the cur-

riculum is indispensable. In essence, leisure theory gives shape to material

that would otherwise appear shapeless. Moreover, privileging me concrete

over the abstract, the practical over the theoretical, itself involves theoretical

assumptions and propositions about what counts as useful and relevant

knowledge. Thus, the most dogged empiricist is in fact a practical theorist who

makes judgments about me validity of data and the nature of reality albeit

tacitly and often in a non-reflexive way. In short, theory cannot be avoided.

Teaching leisure theory presents special difficulties for the lecturer be-

cause the subject is basically parasitic. There are no theories of leisure which

concentrate on leisure first and bring in philosophy, sociology, econornics,

polities and psychology second. The reverse is me case. The topic of leisure is

used to illustrate or test propositions that have been formulated in theoretical

work in philosophy, sociology,econornics, politicsand psychology.This reflects

the subordinare status of leisure as an issue in me social sciences. Durkheim's

(1933, p. 26) concJusion that leisure exists side by side with the serious life

which it serves to balance and relieve reflects the conventional wisdom in

the field. Classical political economy identified work as me central life interest

and assigned a balancing, secondary funcrion to leisure. The result is that the

battery of concepts and theories operating in leisure theory are drawn from


2/17

300

Origlns lassic and oltemporary Theorles

the grand battalions of social science in which work is treatedas the centrallife

interest. This is evident in me institutional roots of LeisureStudiesin University

departments. Leaving asid€ the hurnan movement and sporttraditions which

never showed much interest in leisure theory, the germ of thecretical interest in

leisure is to be found in the critiques of industrial society launchedin the 1950s.

It is in the critiques that Friedmann (1961), Riesman (1964), Kerr

etal. (1973)

and BeU(1974) made of th€ dehumanizing effects of work in industrial society

that the theoretical inrerest in leisure was bom.

The central motif of this work was the notion that society is moving from

a condition of scarcity to abundance. This condition was perceived as result-

ing from the increasing autornation of production and the decline of the

working week. Classical political economy was hased on thequestion of how

to share limited resources around many demands. Leisure Theory developed

from the problematic of how post-industrial society was going to cope with

abundant resources and devise princi pIes of allocative justiceequal to the task

of guaranteeing moral order.

At the beginning it developed with nothing but a cursoryinterest in class-

ical social theory.

Primafaciethere

was little in the classics to interest the leisure

theorist. De Grazia (1962) provided a helpful guide to the philosophical roots

of leisure theory in Classical Antiquity. His work retrieved the classical Greek

and Roman perception of leisure as the key to a civilized existence which the

industrial era had obscured. In the field of social theory, the classic figures

of Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Freud seemed to offer little

the question of

leisure. The single unequivocal classic work to take leisure a. its subject, was

Veblen's (1899)

Theory of

th e

Leisure Class.

However, this book was written

bya figure on the margins af the American academic establishment and was

widely interpreted as being more of a satire on the pecuniaryvalues espoused

by American culture than a theoretical analysis of leisure. This was unfair.

Veblen produces a highly sophisticated and stimulating theory of the connec-

tion between leisure and social status and the emulatory importance of lei-

sure in mass society. His stucy demonstrates how the sigo economy of leisure

operates to invest symbolic value in certain activities and lifestyles. lt also

contains a critique of mass leisure as draining the vitality andenergy of indus-

trial culture. Veblen's book was also probably a victim of the foundational

belief in classical political econorny and social theory that work is the central

life interest. This belief is certainly shared by Marx, Durkheim, Weber and

Freud. However, since their social theories aimed to be universal accounts of

human behaviour and processes in industrial society, they provide a basis for

extrapolating distínctive approaches to leisure from them. Elsewhere (Rojek

1985, 1995), I have described these approaches so there is no need to dupli-

cate the task here. Suffice it lo say that the c1assical tradition of social theory

was of negligible irnportance in the early days of postwar leisure theory. On


3/17

Rojek e Lelsure Theory Retrospect and Prospect 301

It is perhaps useful to picture leisure theory in the postwar period in chrono-

logical terms as moving through three distinct periods: the functionalist/

post-industrial society heyday which lasted between 1945 and 1975; the struc-

turalist critique which lasted between 1975 and 1990; and the poststructuralist/

postmodernist phase which describes the current period. Before coming to

the question of the theoretical research agenda which emerges from the post-

structuralist/postmodernist moment, let me describe the key features of

these three postwar periods.

FunctionalismjPost industrial Society

Functionalist approaches are predicated in the concept of the atomized in-

dividual. They hold a voluntaristic position on human agency which attrib-

utes freedom, choice and self determination to social actors. The context in

which social action occurs is presented as pluralismo That is, a social context

in which power is shared between many different groups and in which, in the

long term, no single group is dominant. Leisure activity is studied from

the standpoint of the individual rather than the situated character in which

leisure choices are made. Post-industrial society theory reproduces many of

the basic assumptions of functionalism. One of its most important propos-

itions is that there is a tendency in advanced industrial societies for leisure

time and space to increase. This is a result of the mechanization oflabour tasks.

Some commentators even posit that there is a logic to industrialization

which unfolds regardless of the decisions taken by decision-makers (Kerr et aL

1973). Functionalism and post-industrial society theories usuallyemphasize

the positive effects of the logic of industrialismo Thty regard normal leisure

practice as enhancing social integration and improving society.

The main weaknesses of functionalist arguments is that they exaggerate

the autonomy of social actors and endorse a meliorist view of leisure. There is

little in them on the role of leisure in change or conflict; instead they endorse

a view of leisure which emphasizes its integrative role in reinforcing social

order. The failure to come to terms with change and conflict adequately de-

rives from an under-:heorized analysis of structural influences such as class,

gender and race.

The Structuralist ritique

The main forms of structuralism in leisure theory are Marxism and feminismo

Both begin with the situated character of the actor and leisure practice. Marx-

ism suggests that capitalism is the essential context in which human behaviour

and leisure occurs.

presents society as structured around class inequality.


4/17

302

Origins lassic and ontemporary Theoriu

and one dimensionality . On this account, leisure only superficially involves

individual choice. The real question is the social forces which privilege

leisure choices.

Feminism also presents society as class ridden and consumer culture as

essentially comrnodified. However, it insists that the structure through which

class and commodfication are expressed is patriarchy. Feminists working in

leisure theory differ about the points of emphasis that they chose to make re-

garding the practice of patriarchy (Bialcheski and Henderson,

1986;

Deem

1986;

Green

et al., 1987 .

However, common to ali is the proposition that patri-

archy involves the systematic use of male power to subordinate or exclude

women from many aspects of the economy, civil society and leisure practice.

Structuralist approaches insist that human action is conditioned by struc-

tural forces which are prior and external to the individual. They denigrate the

pluralist view that power is shared between nany different groups in society

and that lifestyle is a meaningful concept in understanding leisure theory

(Scraton and Talbot, 1989 . They also reject the view that study should be dis-

engaged. On the contrary, they demand engagement with the structures of

inequality with a view to exposing and overturning them.

Structuralist approaches are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First,

they underestimate the reflexivity and tacit knowledge of social actors. The

behaviour of individuals tends to be presented as a reflection of their positional

relation to structures of power. This provides a misleading view of the micro-

relations of leisure. Specifically, it fails to convey the ambiguity, ambivalence

and contingency in leisure relations. Secondly, structuralist approaches tend

to present a skewed analysis of leisure which overstates the significance of

the favoured structural influence at the expense of others. Thus, c1ass analy-

sis tends to attribute too much influence to class in shaping leisure, and not

enough to gender or race. Feminism does the sarne for patriarchy, and the less

developed field of race and leisure follows suit in respect of its claims for the

influence of race. Thirdly, structuralist approaches frequently carry a latent

authoritarianism with them. They stereotype and scapegoat competing pos-

itions in the field and deal with ambiguity and ambivalence by attributing to

it an epiphenomenal quality.

Poststructuralist Postmodernist

Poststructuralism and postmodemism are interrelated forrns of criticizing

the central categories of Modemist thought. Poststructuralisrn emphasizes the

ambiguities ofstructuralist concepts. Concepts likeclass,patriarchy and the com-

mon world of women are discursively constituted. They are not reflections of

social reality, hut attempts to represent it. Since poststructuralism treats all


5/17

302

Origlns Classlc and Contemporary Theories

and one dimensionality . On this account, leisure only superficially involves

individual choice. The real question is the social forces which privilege

leisure choices.

Feminism also presents society as class ridden and consumer culture as

essentially commodified. However, it insists that the structure through which

class and commodfication are expressed is patriarchy. Feminists working in

leisure theory differ about the points of emphasis that they chose to make re-

garding the practiee of patriarchy (Bialcheski and Henderson, 1986; Deem

1986; Green et aL, 1987 . However, common to alI is the proposition that patri-

archy involves the systematic use of male power to subordinate or exc1ude

women from many aspects of the eeonomy, civil society and leisure practice.

Structuralist approaches insist that human action is conditioned by struc-

tural forces which are prior and externai to the individual. They denigrate the

pluralist view that power is shared between many different groups in society

and that lifestyle is a meaningful concept in understanding leisure theory

(Scraton and Talbot, 1989 . They also reject the view that study should be dis-

engaged. On the contrary, they demand engagement with lhe structures of

inequality with a view to exposing and overturning them.

Structuralist approaches are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First,

they underestimate the reflexivity and tacit knowledge of social actors. The

behaviour of individuals tends to be presented as a reflection oftheir positional

relation to struetures of power. This provides a rnisleading view of the micro-

relations of leisure. SpecifieaUy, it fails to convey the ambiguity, ambivalence

and contingency in leisure relations. Secondly, structuralist approaches tend

to present a skewed analysis of leisure which overstates the significance of

the favoured structural influence at the expense of others. TllUS,c1ass analy-

sis tends to attribute too much influence to c1ass in shaping leisure, and not

enough to gender or race. Ferninism does the same for patriarchy, and the less

developed field of race and leisure follows suit in respect of its claims for the

influenee of race. Thirdly, structuralist approaches frequently carry a latent

authoritarianism with them. They stereotype and scapegoat eompeting pos-

itions in the field and deal with ambiguity and ambivalenee by attributing to

it an epiphenomenal quality.

Poststructuralist Postmodernist

Poststructuralism and postmodernism are interrelated forms of criticizing

the central categories of Modernist thought. Poststructuralism emphasizes the

ambiguities ofstructuralist concepts. Concepts like class, patriarchy and the com-

mon world of women are di seu rsively constituted. They are not reflections of

social reality, hut attempts to represent it. Since poststrueturalism treats all

forms of representation as intrinsically ambivalent, it follows that it regards


6/17


the structuralist concepts of Modemism as distortions of reality. That is struc-

turalism imposes categories upon human actions and processes which are nct

confinned by human practice.

Postmodemism seizes upon the idea of ambivalence and stresses the con-

tingency of contemporary life (Bauman, 1986, 1993)_ It insists that our experi-

ence of everyday life is marked by fragmentation, differentiation, diversity

and mobility. The economy has shifted from a regulated Fordist system of pro-

duction to post-fordist accumulation in which flexibility in capital and labour

are the principal characteristics. As befits a poststructuraJist age in whích

representation dominates consciousness, postmodernism regards identity,

association and practice as revolving around the sign economies of consumer

culture. Postrnodemism rejects the notion of a grand narra tive which uni-

fies history and practice (Lyotard, 1986). In the diversified, differentiated,

changing world of postmodem culture, the notion that human behaviour can

be satisfactorily explained in terms of class or patriarchy is rejected. Instead,

postmodernism emphasizes the dynamic relation between local and global

processes and the role of micro-politics, One implication of this analysis is

that leisure is a Modemist category which is no longer compatible with post-

modem conditions. That is, Modemism detennined that leisure should signify

freedom, choice and self determination. Yetunder postmodemism we experi-

ence degrees of freedom, choice and self determination in work and other

áreas oflife which negate the proposition thatthese characteristics are unique

to leisure.

Poststructuralist and postmodernist arguments have been centre stage

for the last twenty years. So it is perhaps not surprising to report that a certa in

sense of exhaustion is now associated with thern. Three points are usually

made. First, these approaches are over-preoccupied with representational and

syrnbolic relations. Their handling of material relations, especially material

inequality, is held to be unsatisfactory. Secondly, in questioning the authority

of collective concepts like class, patriarchy and the nation-state they situate

alI actors at the margins. This diminishes the prospect of an effective recon-

structionist politícs of leisure. Thirdly, by privileging arnbiguity and sliding

meanings in the experience and analysis of leisure they limit thernselves to a

descriptive role. Poststructuralisrn and postmodernism are unable to legislate

for qualitative improvements in the organization of leisure. Without legisla-

tion it is ali too easy to slip into perpetuaI introspection; and introspection is

tantarnount to colluding with the various injustices associated with material

inequality.

It should perhaps be stressed that these three phases are presented here

as heuristic devices. They are intended to clarify the main features of postwar

development in leisure theory. Aswith all ideal-type constructions, there will

be more overlap and continuity between phases than is allowed for in the

model. Even so, the delineation may be useful in considering the main char-

acteristics of leisure theory in the postwar period.


7/17

304

Orlglns Classic and Cootemporary Theorles

As an aside, before going on to the research agenda facing leisure theory

today, ir might be observed that it is unfortunate that the various theoretical

nositions in leisure theory in the postwar period have proved so hostil e to one

another. Scraton and Talbot's 1989 brutal rejection ofVeal's 1989 pluralist

position is just one case in point. Scraton and Talbot do not set out to critique

the pluralist position, they serout to demolish it and raise a structuralist version

of feminism in its place. The character of the argument is to stereotype and

scapegoat Veal's pluralist position so that the reader acquires the impression

that the position under attack iswithout value. The approach is typical of what

1 1995 elsewhere, calIed

thegladiatorialparadigm

in Leisure Studies. In such

a paradigm the value of each theory is shown by its ability to triumph over

rival theories in the field and thereby claim theoreticalascendancy. The result

is that rival theoretical positions are polarized and caricatured and that the

interconnections between theories are grossly understated. Forexample. Veal's

1989 emphasis on Iífesty'e has now re-emerged in several poststructuralist

feminist accounts of contemporary leisure and culture (Thornton, 1995; Gross

and Probyn, 1995; Ang, 1996 , while the structuralist feminism espoused by

Scraton and Talbot 1989 now looks like a period piece'. This is not to deny

the value of structural feminism in exposing aspects of male domination in

leisure theory and leisure practice; nor is it to imply that structural feminism

aIone is guilty of stereotyping and scapegoating in leisure theory. For example,

Roberts 1978 and Parker 1983 on behalf of the structuralist position, and

Clarkeand Critcher 1985 andTornlinson 1989 in the Marxist tradition pro-

duced some very questionable criticaI readings of competing theories .

In making these general points my purpose is not to try and get at particu-

lar positions. Rather I want to cJaim that times have moved on. The emphasis

that the poststructuralist/postmodemist moment places upon ambivalence

alld contingency offers a better chance of recognizing lhe mutualities berween

rival theories. From this, it is to be hoped that more inclusive and relevant

general theories of leisure can be constructed. In particular, I want to criticize

the view that is often expressed that there is little mutual hostility between

approaches to leisure. This is at worst a tendentious view which merely en-

courages the perpetuation of hostility by denying that it exists. At best, it is

rrerely self-deceiving. The presence of the gladiatorial paradigm is, I propose,

lhe main reason why functionalists find it hard to agree with Marxists and

whypostmodemists and feminists seem unable to understand many aspects of

eachother's position. I further propose that a cJear awareness of the gladiatorial

paradigm is an essential preliminary requirement in producing better theories

which draw from the best of alI of the competing traditions.

Somuch for the aside. Turning now to the question of the main subjects of

research in leisure theory. I should first state that this

is

a personal view. I am


8/17

Rojek e lelsure Theory Retrospect and Prospect

305

attempting to legislate for what Leisure Studies should concem itself with in

the future. I have read Bauman's 1986 book on legislators and interpreters

toa carefully to fali into that trap What I offer here is my own partial/limited

view on the key issues facing Leisure Studies. The personal nature of this view

will he apparent in all that follows. With that understood. I believe that four

points should be made.

Leisure in Post-Fordist Society

The consequences of post-Fordist society threaten leisure as a meaningful

category of social life. To understand why, a little needs to be said about

Fordism and the categories of work and leisure that it delineated. Fordism

is the system of automated mass production developed by Henry T. Ford in

the second decade of the twentieth century. It borrows the strategy of divid-

ing labour tasks into a simple string of standardized components from the

principles of scientific management devised by Frederick Taylor. Added to

this is the ingredient of a high wage labour force. Ford attracted workers by

prornising them high wages in retum for guaranteed, albeit repetitive and

mechanical, jobs. The factor of high wages is crucial. Fordism conceives the

consumption process as being interdependent with production. Henry Ford's

workers exchanged their take home pay for the Model T. Fords that they pro-

duced on the assembly line. Routinized, mechanical production activity be-

carne the foundation of consumer culture. Workers were enticed to accept low

leveIs of work satisfaction in retum for an income that enabled them to engage

fully with the commodity world of consumer culture. Even so, the category

of leisure under Fordism did not entirely abandon Victorian precedents. The

Victorian rational recreationist ideal of leisure as the reward for work was

reinforced by Ford. He even employed bis own company social workers to

monitor the moral behaviour of workers in their free time.

One of the revolutionary aspects of Fordism is that it treated leisure as

being dominated bycommodity consumption. The emphasis

in

Fordist ideology

was twinned between eaming enough money to buy the commodities on

offer and eaming more in the future to improve consumption capacity. For the

rational recreationists, self-improvement complemented rest and relaxation

as the characteristics of healthy leisure. Ford redefined the centre of leisure

activity as consumer acquisition. Under Ford'ssystem leisure became connected

with the idea of accumulating commodities and savouring them in non-work

time. Fordism acted as the model for the demand management strategies ap-

plied in Westem economies in the period between 1920 and 1965. Planned,

auto-rnated production was developed in partnership with a concept of leisure

rooted in acquisitive consumer culture. The impressivr ~ of econoinic

growth achieved in the period between

1945

and

1965

~é~ed1.o-legitlmate

the system. \ '. '..';' ':.


9/17

306

Orfgins Classic and Contemporary Theories

However, Fordism always had its critics. In particular, three points were

regularly made. Tobegin with, the system presupposes that alienation and de-

humanization are inevitably part and parcel of processes of production and

consumption in advanced mass production systems. Fordism endorses a rnin-

imalist view of the skills and capacities of the workers. It reinforces a híer-

archical division in authority between management and workforce. It shows

no interest in devising ways in which this division rnight be bridged.

Secondly, it promoted acquisitive consumption as the pre-erninent goal of

leisure. Personal growth and farnily ife were important for Ford. His social

workers were partly his attempt to ensure that farnilies remained intactoHow-

ever, Fordism tended to fuse leisure with the accumulation of commodities.

Free time behaviour and choices of self improvement were rationalized as

typically involving commodified activity.

Thirdly, Fordism involved the assumption of progressive growth in real in-

comes and an expanding consumer culture to absorb surplus income. This re-

quired intensive corporate and state management of the relationship berween

demand and supply.

Since the early 1970s Fordism as a systern of economic management, indus-

trial production and consumer regulation has been in trouble. Commentators

now widely agree that between 1970 and the present day,Westem economies

have moved from Fordist to post-Fordist systems of regulation (Lipietz, 1987;

Harvey, 1989; Lashand Urry, 1987, 1994). Post-Fordism involvesdeepchang

es

at the levels of economic management, production and consumer culture.

Briefly,capital investrnent opportunities in the periphery of the capitalist world

economy became more attractive as the infrastructure of developing coun-

tries slowly improved. The periphery was able to undercut the wage, transport

and capital costs in the core. The result was that capital resources in mass

production were switched from the core to the periphery. In addition, Westem

consumer cuIture became more volatile. The information and knowledge glut

produced by the revolution in mass communications, bigger numbers of the

population going on to higher education, the growing importance of a ser-

vice class based in the knowledge and cornrnunication industries combined to

reduce the predictability of consumer demand pattems.

McGugan (1996,

p. 89) puts it succinctly, if the touchstone of Fordist culture was 'keeping up

with the Jones's', then the touchstone of posl-Fordist culture is 'being differ-

ent from the Jones's'. It follows that high profit margins derive from flexible

forms of accumulation which recognize changes in consumer demand and,

wherever possible, anticipates them.

In these conditions it can no longer be assumed that the characteristics of

rest, relaxation, selfimprovement and cornrnodity acquisition remain intrinsic

to the category of leisure. Post-Fordism has severed the Fordist relationship

between work and leisure. Lifelong paid labour is no longer a guarantee In-


10/17

Rojek _ leisure Theory Retrospec t and Prospect 307

patterns and early retirement. Not only this, but the new technology of post-

Fordism enables an increasing sector of the workforce to work at home. Per-

sonal computers, lap-tops, modems and filing cabinets have invaded domestic

space. Many people in the service and communications industries automatic-

ally think of a work-room or office-room when theyare buying a new house.

In short, domestic space is assuming many of the characteristics of workspace.

However, the new tools of trade, notably modems and computers, also pro-

vide the function of entertainrnent, education and amusement. They are mech-

anisms of leisure as well as work. In post-Fordist society then, the division

between work and leisure is unsustainable for large numbers of the adult

population. Of course, feminists recognized this long ago in respect of the

domestic space of housewives (Deem, 1986; Green et al 1987). But they

usually interpreted it in terms of the ideology of women's leisure which in tum

was analyzed as a consequence of patriarchy. No one is denying that many

aspects of women's leisure is lirnited and degraded by male power. However,

as the work of Schor (1992) and Hochschild (1997) make clear, it would be

wrong to bracket the consequences of post-Fordism with the consequences

of patriarchy. For one thing post-Fordisrn refers to an economic and cultural

transformation which affects men as much as women.

For

another, the changes

which iris producing denigrate leisure as a cultural category offreedom, choice

and escape. Access to leisure or creating better forrns of leisure are no longer

the issue. As the design and experience of leisure becomes more work -like, the

idea of an area of self-determining time and space diminishes. The culture

as a whole faces the prospect of rational performative activity, that is activity

which exhibits self-discipline, efficiency, caIculability and predictability, be-

comingthe lifestyle norm. So that lime and space nominally allocated to work

and leisure becomes occupied with standardized lifestyle values and forms

of behaviour.

With the honourable exceptions of Schor (1992) and Hochschild (1997),

Leisurestudies has hardly started to think through what these changes entail

for the concept of leisure. They have arrived at an inconvenient time for those

who are intent on professionalizing the subject. For they suggest that leisure

as a category of experience is already problematic and will become more so as

the standard of rational performativity bites deeper into lifestyle choices and

forms. Leisure may not be vanishing in our society. But its traditional assoei-

ation with freedom, choice, self determination and escape has become harder

to justify. Leisure is mutating into something else.

Deviant Leisure

The people who write about leisure and who teach Leisure Studies seem to

be broadly committed to an evolutionary, progressive social democratic view

of leisure. Leisure is valued as an intrinsic social good. Stebbins (1992), in his


11/17

308

Orlgins Classlc and Contemporary Theorles

important and usefuI book on serious leisure , points to the positive social

consequences that participation in serious leisure has in enriching personal and

community ife. Among the benefits that he refers to are increasing cultural

integration and providing the individual with a sense of place and personal

growth. In this work Stebbins recognizes the category of casual leisure in

society and basically treats it as a side issue. Instead he implies that society

is moving in the direction of spreading the values ofserious Ieisure to ali and

sundry. In a recent work, he 1997 has modified his view and grants that

causal leisure is perhaps more significant than he had originally realized.

Iwant to suggest two things in relation to casualleisure. FirstIy,the category

of casual Ieisure is far more culturally widespread and significant than even

Stebbins

1997

acknowledges in his belated reassessment of the concept.

By casualleisure I mean the desultory, time-filling, killing-time activities that

people find themselves caught up in and perpetuating as a normal part ofdaily

existence. There is no particular sense of self improvement in this behaviour.

Rather it is characterized by the desire for distraction. By extension, several

branches of the leisure industry have developed distraction activities and com-

modities to cater for this desire. For example, many adventure and comedy

films are forgotten as soon as they are seen; the same is true of many forms of

popular music electronic games and so forth.

Secondly, even in his recent article Stebbins 1997 glosses over the ques-

tion of deviant leisure. By deviant leisure I mean the collection of free time

practices organized around drug-taking, graffiti, trespass, stealing and ag-

gressive acts. In general, Leisure Studies has tumed a blind eye to this type

of leisure activity. The result is that we have to refer to the work of criminolo-

gists to find published material. For example, Becker's 1963 classic study

of marijuana-users can be re-read today as a seminal contJibution to deviant

leisure. Becker's field work is concentrated in jazz c1ubs, private apartments

and back regions of everyday life. His marijuana-users not only concentra te

their activity in leisure time and leisure space, but they also value the use of

the drug as expressing recreational values which contrast with the leisure

and lifestyle values of straighr' society. They are using their leisure to make

oppositional statements about normal culture. Katz's 1988 outstanding

study of the attractions of deviant behaviour is also an important source of

stimulation for students interested in the question of deviam leisure. Most

of us think of amoral conduct and values as reprehensible and unworthy Katz

1988 brilliantly overtums these automatic responses by pointing out that

for many people deviance is attractive. The notion ofwinning against the law,

of violating speeding restrictions and robbing the taxman, is perhaps more

common than many of us would like to admito He draws on Nietzsche's phil-

osophy to argue that caution and timidity role our lives. For Katz, the desire to

break out of our boundaries, to overthrow our ordinary scripted existence, is

not a characteristic of deviant actors but a cultural universal. As O'Malley and

Mugford

1991,

p. 5) observe there are interesting parallels between Katz's

argument and Lyng's

1990

paper on edgework . Lyng

1990,

pp.

858-9


12/17

Rojek

e Lelsure Theory Retrospect and Prospect

309

discusses edgework as activity which deliberately pIaces the individual in situ-

ations of risk. At the extremes edgework involves consciously placing oneself

at physicaIrisk (rock-climbing, hang-gliding, rollerbIading, sump-diving). More

commonly edgework invoIves negotiating sexual and work relations in which

the actor walks on the edge of things, with an awareness that one wrong move

will tip him or her over into the uncontrollable abyss. Lyng (1990) suggests

that it is at these times that we feeI most alive.

Byexamining examples of deviant leisure, students of leisure will not only

throw light on a shadowy area of leisure activity; they will also contribute to a

clearer understanding of how the rules which shape normal leisure practice

operate. Westill do not know bow processes of legitimate transgression oper-

ate in leisure practice. Viewed historically, why was it that in the 1920s and

1960s Western society moved towards more permissive standards of conduct?

And what combination of factors was invoIved in reintroducing standards

of restrictive behaviour? More generally what makes it acceptable to break the

rules of acceptable leisure behaviour between actors on some occasions and

in certain contexts? Deviant leisure is largely unexplored territory for students

of leisure. In the next few years hope that this situation is overtumed.

The Leisure Ethic

For most of the industrial period we have been dominated by the work ethic.

Post-fordism has a tendency to negate this ethic by replacing labour with com-

puter based technologies and reducing the demand for continuous, lifelong

employment. At the same time conservative governments have emphasized

a strong rhetoric of individualismo They argue that if post-fordism is creating

more free time and wealth, it is up to individuals to decide how to use leisure

and how to spend their money. However, an obvious feature of individualism

is that wedo not alI agree on the choices that we make. Some forms of leisure

behaviour, such as excessive drinking, drug-taking, rave-parties, speeding and

promiscuity, are offensive to others, while to the participants in these activities

they constitute nothing but the valid use of leisure resources. Students of leis-

ure need to consider the ethical principies that post-Fordist culture should

endorse. Traditionally, liberalism is the strategy that Western democracies

have applied to handle the problems of individualismo However, liberalism is

unlikeIy to fit the circumstances of a deeply stratified post-Fordíst economy

in which some strata have regular adequately-paid work and others typically

experience casual part-time labour, or no work at ali. The increase in free-

time is likely to be experienced as oppressive and threatening by people who

have been socialized under the work ethic to regard paid labour as the central

life interest, Feelings of guilt and worthlessness are commonly attached to the

experience of unemployment. The ethical dimensions involved in swítchíng

to a type ofsociety in which leisure is the centrallife interest of the population


13/17

Rojek

e Lelsure

Theory:

Retrospec t and Prospect

309

discusses edgework as activity which deliberately pIaces the individual in situ-

ations of risk. Atthe exrremes edgework involves consciously placing oneself

ar physical risk (rock-climbing, hang-gliding, roIlerblading, sump-diving). More

commonly edgework involves negotiating sexual and work relations in which

the actor waIks on the edge of things, with an awareness that one wrong move

wiU tip rum or her over into the unconrrollable abyss. Lyng (1990) suggests

that it is at these times that we feeI most ative.

By examining examples of deviant leisure, students of leisure wilI not only

throw light on a shadowy area of leisure acti vity; they wiIl also contribute to a

clearer understanding of how the ruIes which shape normalleisure practice

operate. We still do not know bow processes of legitimate transgression oper-

ate in leisure practice. Viewed historically, why was it that in the 1920s and

1960s Western society moved towards more permissive standards of conduct?

And what combination of factors was involved in reintroducing standards

of restrictive bel.aviour? More generally what makes

it

acceptable to break the

rules of acceptable leisure behaviour between actors on some occasions and

in certain contexts? Deviant leisure is largely unexplored territory for students

of leisure. In the next few years [ hope that this situation is overturned.

The Leisure Ethic

For most of the industrial period we have been dominated by the work ethic.

Post-fordisrn hasa tendency to negate this ethic by replacing labour with com-

puter based technologies and reducing the demand for continuous, lifelong

employment. At the same time conserva tive govemments have emphasized

a strong rhetoric of individualismo They argue that if post-fordism is creating

more free time

and

wealth, it is up to individuals to decide how to use leisure

and how to spend their money. However, an obvious feature of individualism

is that we do not alI agree on the choices that we make. Some forms of leisure

behaviour, such as excessive drinking, drug-taking, rave-parties, speeding and

promiscuity, are offensive to others, while to the participants in these activities

they constitute nothing but the valid use of Ieisure resources. Students of leis-

ure need to consider the ethical principIes that post-Fordist culture should

endorse. Traditionally, liberaJism is the strategy that Westem democracies

have applied to handle the problems of individualismo However, liberalism is

unlikely to fit the circumstances of a deeply stratified post-Fordist economy

in which some strata have regular adequately-paid work and others typically

experience casual part-time labour, or no work at alI. The increase in free-

time is likely to be experienced as oppressive and threatening by people who

have been

socialized

under the work ethic to regard paid labour as the central

life interest. Feeli:1gsof guilt and worthlessness are commonly attached to the

experience of unemployment. The

ethical

dimensions involved in switching

to a type of society in which leisure is the centrallife interest of the population

is an urgent task for theorists of leisure. Are there any common principIes


14/17

310 Origlns: Classlc and Contemporary Theories

which should be applied in determining the use of leisure choices? It the in-

dividual is to be self-determining, are there no limits to be applied in leisure

behaviour? If some strata are going to work less in paid labour, how are they

to acquire the economic wherewithal of an acceptable level of financial and

cultural existence? What incentive is there to work in a society which recog-

nizes leisure as the central life interest? How can leisure be used to produce

values of worth, dignity and involvement in the rapidly growing population

of the elderly?

We are far from having answers to these questions. But the clearonslaught

of post-Fordism in the last twenty years makes them urgent and pre-erninent

issues for Leisure Studies.

Inequality: The Leisure Rich and the Leisure Poor

One irony of leisure, which Veblen (1899) understood only too well, is that it

draws on a value pool which celebrates excessoHis work on the leisure class

demonstrated how the leisure rich signify their wealth through a variety of

coded behaviours. Conspicuous consumption and devotion to non-utilitarian

activity was practised as a way of signifying ineligibility from the need to en-

gage in pecuniary labour. Veblen believed that the customs of the leisure class

threatened society beca use they encouraged emulation by the lower orders.

He maintained that the trickle-down effect of conspicuous consumption would

undermine the habits of thrift and industry that society required in order to

ensure stability and growth.

Veblen's work raised essential questions about the stratification of leisure

and the mechanisms through which values ofleisure are exchangedand nego-

tiated

However, he exaggerated the importance of the leisure class. Withln

twenty years of the publication of Veblen's thesis, the decisive power to or-

chestrate emulation had switched to the culture industries and the celebrity

elite. By the 1920s the masses wanted to emulate the new silent filmstars such

as Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and the It girl Clara

Bow, rather than the Van Der Bilts, the Pierpoint Morgans and the Harrimans.

The culture industries have exploited and developed this emulatory power

in the twentieth century. Of course the glamour of rich families has not dis-

appeared. People still follow the antics of Prince Charles and other members

of the Royal Familywith extraordinary avidity. But very few are interested in

emulating them. The cultural heroes of today are drawn from the ranks of

the celebrity elite: film stars, sports stars, pop stars, models, and so forth. These

are the figures that the advertising industry approaches to launch product

campaigns.

Veblen's readers were used to thlnking of inequality in material terms. One

of the significant things about his analysis is that he plainly announces the


15/17

Rojek Lelsure Theory Retrospect and Prospect 311

of organized representation have multiplied and beco me more subtle since

Veblen's day. Writers like Baudrillard (1983) now insist that human behavi-

our is wholly constructed around processes of simulation and sign economies.

Baudrillard (1983) perhaps overstates things (Rojek and Turner, 1993). Yethis

work does crystallize the importance of processes of representation in con-

structing leisure behaviour. Baudrillard, and other writers, require us to think

through our conventional categories of scarcity and excesso In a culture which

revolves around simulation and sign economies, it makes little sense to think of

inequality simply in terrns of material wealth. Rather, this constitutes just one

type of inequaJity. Moreover, in terms of organizing the codes of behaviour and

values that we espouse in our leisure,

it

is not necessarily the most significam

type of inequality We might be relatively poor in terrns of materiaJ weaJth, but

we participate in a nuanced and immensely rich culture of representation. The

rapid expansion of the Web and technologies of virtual cornrnunication will

probably raise this culture to a new levei of complexity and significance, and

produce new forrns of behavioural adaptation. Leisure theorists need to work

with theorists working in cultural and communication studies to determine

how this culture affects leisure conduct. The models produced by cultural and

communication theorists provide dues for students of leisure. But their prime

defect is that they fail to address themselves to the subject of leisure.

onclusion

Leisure theorists are often the recipients of the canard that they are forever

predicting apocalyptic changes in leisure while society chunters along in time

anointed ways. There is somejustice in this criticism. The leisure and post-

industrial society theorists of the 1950s and 60s probably exaggerated the

imminence of the leisure society and the collapse of the work ethic. But they did

not mistake the central trend ofeconomic and cultural change in the twentieth

century which is to decrease the need for hurnan labour and, through this, to

increase the arnount of free time. Most of the econonnic and cultural crises that

we have faced in this century have derived not from a lack of absolute wealth,

but from an unsatisfactory system of allocating resources. Our econonnic prob-

lems have not been fundarnenrally about a lack of surplus value; rather they

have been abour an inefficient system of redistributive justice.

It is toa simplistic to propose that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

will be remembered as the centuries of work, and that the twenty first will be

classified as the century ofleisure. Little in cultural or economic life is this black

and while. But the numbers of people who spend large parts of their time in

conspicuous leisure activity have grown in the twentieth century. Barring na-

tural catastrophe, it is difficult to imagine how the time allocated to conspicu-

ous leisure will decline in the next century. Nor should we lament the transfer

of boring, repetitive and dangerous work to mechanized outlets. It wiIl only


16/17

312

Origlns lasslc and ontemporary Theories

and that the principies which shape it should be positively recognized and

promulgated. The regime ofleisure is still a mysterious thing. How ourculture

negotiates between discipline and transgression in the realm of free time ac-

tivity is poorly understood. Yetthere can be no doubt that the regime exists

and that it is susceptible to change. The best method for examining how the

regime operates is comparative and historical research. By comparing what

is practised and allowed in leisure conduct in our society today with different

societies in other times and spaces, we stand the chance of gaining insights

into the ways in which leisure relations are shaped. For example, why was it

that in the West in the 1890s, the roaring 20s and the 196 s the culture of

leisure became more permissive? And what combination of factors brought

about the retrenchment of prohibitive limits on free time behaviour? The

range of forces at work here is extremely subtle. Licence to transgress, and

prohibitions against certain forms of leisure do not emerge overnight. Rather

they generally develop quite slowly and involve a combination of factors.

Research into compara tive and historical data is likely to be the major route

to discovering the character of leisure relations today.

Notes

1. To my knowledge, none of the leading feminist authors in Leisure Studies - Deem, Green,

Shaw, Henderson, Bialcheski, Talbot and Scraton - have responded systematically to

poststructuralism or postmodernism. Scraton's (1993) response to postmodemism is

somewhat too tendentious to pass muster. For the rest, they have pursued a structuralist

reading of leisure whích places central reference upon the concept of patriarchy. Post-

modernism and poststructuralism are essentially ignored. The only exception is Betsy

Wearing who is currently engaged in work on feminism, leisure and poststructuralism

(see Wearing and Wearing, 1988, 1996).

2. In asking whose side are they on Tomlinson (1989) exemplifies the ali or nothíng

mentality of the gladiatorial paradigm. As with Clarke and Critcher (1985), his endorse-

ment of neo-Marxism implies that there is little to be leamt from other approaches such

as functionalism, pluralism or the figurational approach associated with Norbert Elias.

These latter approaches are loosely associated with conservatísm. The only alliance that

Tomlinson and Clarke and Critcher allow for is with feminismo However, this alliance is

sketched out in the most speculative terms, so it is hard to evaluate. To a large degree, the

confused attitude to feminism displayed by neo-Marxists in Leisure Studies reflects

the troubled relationship between the Althusserian/Gramscian traditions of Marxism

and feminist research at the Birmingham School of Contemporary Cultural Studies. The

Birmingham School is clearly the well-spring for the approach to leisure adopted by

Clarke and Critcher and Tomlinson.

References

Ang, l. (1996).

Living Room Wars.

London, Roudedge.

Baudrillard,

J.

(1983).

Simularians.

New York, Semiotext.

Bauman, Z. (1986).

egislators and Interpreters.

Cambridge, Polity.


17/17


BeU, D. (1974). The Coming of Post-lndustrial Society. London, Heinemann.

Bialcheski, D. and Henderson, K. (1996). Leisure in the common world of women . Leisure

Swdies, 5(3): 299-308.

Clarke,

and Critcher, C. (1985).

The Devil Makes Work.

London, Macmillan.

Deern, R. (1986). Ali Work and No Play? Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

De Grazia, S. (1962). Of Time, Work and Leisure. New York, Doubleday.

Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labour in Society. New York, Free Press.

Friedrnan, G. (1961). The Anatomy of Work. London, Heinernann.

Green, E., Hebron, S. and Woodward, D. (1987). Women s Leisure in Sheffield. Dept Applied

Social Studies, Sheffield Polytechnic.

Gross, and Probyn, E. (1995) (ed.). Sexy Bodies. London, Routledge.

Harris, D. (1992). From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure. London, Routledge.

Harvey, D. (1989).

The

Condition of Postmodernity.

Oxford, BlackweU.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The Time Bind. New York, Metropolitan Books.

Katz, J. 1I988). The Seduccions oi Crime. New York. Basic Books.

Kerr, c Dunlop, J. Harbison, EH. and Myers, C.A. (1973). lndustrialism and Industrial

Man. Harrnondsworth, Penguin.

Lash, S. and Urry,

J.

(1987). The End of Organized Capitalismo Cambridge: Polity.

Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994). Econotnies of Signs and Space. London, Sage.

Lipietz, A. (1987). Mirages and Mirades - The Crises of Global Fordism. London, Verso.

Lyotard, J. (1986). The Postmodern Condition. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: a social pyshcological analysis of voluntary risk taking .

Ame:ican Joumal DfSociology, 95: 887-921.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. London, Abacus.

McGuigan, J. (1992). Cultural Popu/ism. London, Routledge.

McGuigan, J. (1996). Culcure and the Public Sphere. London, Routledge.

O'MalIeyand Mugford, S. (1991). Crime Excitement and Modemity (mimeo). Paper delivered

to the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, Nov 20-23.

Parker, S. (1983). Leisure and Work. London, AlIen Unwin.

Riesman, D. (964).

Abundance for Whac?

London, Chatto and Windus.

Roberts, K. (1978).

Contemporary Society and the Growth of Leisure.

London, Longman.

Rojek, C. (1985). Capitalism and Leisure Theory, London, Tavistock.

Rojek, C. (1995). Deceruring Leisure. London, Sage.

Rojek, C. and Tumer, B.S. (1993) (ed.). Forget Baudrillard? London, Routledge.

Schor, J. (1992). The Overworxed American. New York, Basic Books.

Scraton, S. (1993). Feminism, 'Post-ferninism' and Leisure (mimeo). Leisure Studies

Assodarton.

Scraton, S and Talbot, M. (1989). AResponse to Leisure, Lifestyle and Status: A Pluralist

Framework for Analysis . Leisure Studies, 8(2): 155-158.

Stebbins, R. (992).

Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure.

Montreal and Kingston,

McGiUUniversity Press.

Stebbins, R. (1997). Casualleisure: a conceptual statement . Leisure Studies, 16(1): 17-26.

Thornton, S. (1995). Club Cu/ture. Cambridge, Polity.

Tomlinson, A. (1989) Whose Side Are They On? Leisure Studies and Cultural Studies in

Britain. Leisure Studies 8(2), 97-106.

Veal, A.J. (1989). Leisure, lifestyle and status: a pluralist framework for analysis? . Leisure

Studies, (2): 141-54.

Veblen, T.(1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. London, Allen and Unwin.

Wearing, B. and Wearing, S. (1988).

7 \

in a day's leisure: gender and the concept of leis-

ure .LeisureStudies, 7, ll1-123.

Wearing, B. and Wearing, S. (1996). Refocusing the tourist experience: the 'f1aneur' and

Ro Jek Leisure Theory

Documents