Search

This paper extends the constraints of leisure literature by demonstrating how materials are circulated to regulate and constrain leisure behaviour in the countryside. It is argued that constraints in the form of moral regulation should be recognised as part of the constraints literature. The development of the Country Code in England is regarded as part of a long-term and ongoing effort to extend governance and control by means of informal and semi-formal codes of conduct. Crucially, however, the Code has changed over time and may act as a means of placating different interests in the countryside as much as observably constraining them. The Code is seen as a constraint project mediated between groups and is found to be contested and reworked over time. Drawing on key concepts expounded in Bourdieu's post-structural social theory it is argued that actors occupy positions within social fields and draw on their own habitus, other dispositions of power and imaginations to co-construct leisure regulation and behaviour. Such conceptual devices should more properly be viewed as contingent dispositions that are subject to challenge and revision. As such the more diffuse and circulatory constraints affect practices differentially. A need for more attention to this in leisure studies research and a recognition of how different constraints are experienced and responded to is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Social theories that approach the presence of 'new identities' in an already given social and political space encounter problems in defining both identities and space, and their relationship. This paper looks into the works of sociologist Bryan Turner, political theorist Chantal Mouffe and philosopher Iris Young to finally settle into the theories of space and place of Harvey, Massey and others as an alternative way to articulate the problem of marginal identities in Europe. I argue that, if we think of any given identity as multiple and dynamic (as opposed to being fixed and originary), and also the identity of any given place as multiple, and as a process, then it is logical and meaningful to re-articulate subject identities and place identities as in a relationship. The nature of this relationship is a complex web of political, social, economic and cultural articulations. Therefore, any discourse on citizenship should be grounded within this frame of analysis and not on an ethical principle of nation state and on a-historical, originary constructions of particularistic or universal identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]