Search

Copyright of Society & Leisure / Loisir & Société is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper is an attempt to reaffirm the relevance of Marxism for Leisure Studies. It is motivated by the view that the influence of Marxism on the field was late and short lived (primarily through Clarke and Critcher’s bookThe Devil Makes Work(1985)). Marxism in Leisure Studies was rapidly eclipsed by the revival of neo-liberal approaches and the ascent of post-structuralism which privileged ‘discourse’, ‘coding’ and ‘representation’ over economics and class. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the so-called ‘velvet revolution’ in Eastern Europe seemed to expose Marxism as passé and wrong headed. The serious Western economic crisis following the banking collapse (2008) and its effects on employment, work prospects, public investment in welfare, education, health and leisure, together with the persistence of the development gap between the economically advanced countries and the emerging/developing world, and the threat to the environment and society of competitive industrial production, combine (with many other features) to put Marxism back on the agenda. This paper aims to examine the impact of Marxism upon Leisure Studies. It offers a rationale for why this influence was short lived. It moves on to evaluate some aspects of Marxism that are indispensable in the analysis of leisure today. The point is not to claim that Marxism was right all along. More modestly, the purpose of this article is to suggest that flight from Marxism in the field was premature and that, while by no means having all of the answers, Marx and his followers still have much to teach students of leisure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Leisure/Loisir: Journal of the Canadian Association for Leisure Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines P2P (file sharing) culture as a novel leisure form. P2P raises significant issues about the ownership and control of intellectual and artistic property, access and the regulation of leisure choice. The paper examines the efforts of the recording industry to suppress file‐sharing technology. It examines the limitations on this strategy associated with globalized leisure culture. Following the World Leisure and Recreation Association’s ‘Sao Paulo Declaration’ (1998), it is possible to interpret P2P as a leisure form that fosters social inclusion, empowerment and distributive justice. This leaves the recording industry in the awkward position of seeking both to impose limitations on the functionality of computer exchange technology and to regulate participation in a mass popular cultural and leisure form. The culture of down‐loading is located in relation to the tradition of social banditry. Down‐loading is presented as part of much more long‐standing, deeply rooted traditions of leisure practice in which identity formation and resistance to regimes of power are mediated. Net technology and the corresponding supply of intellectual and artistic property on the net is regarded as weakening the orthodox distinction between licit and illicit consumption and leisure. The paper closes by speculating upon the theoretical implications of these social and cultural developments for the study of leisure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a position paper. It seeks to set a new and distinctive approach to the study of leisure that combines theory, practice and ethics. It stands on the shoulders of 'action sociology', as represented in the Weberian tradition, and symbolic interactionism. But it offers a radical renewal of this perspective by relating action to 'embodiment', 'emplacement', 'location' and 'context', and repositioning leisure studies in relation to 'care for the self' and 'care for the other'. The paper is concerned to elucidate a renewed action approach and to demonstrate its value for the study of leisure. It does not aim to compare or contrast this approach systematically with other positions in the field. The action approach identifies 'testing' to be a duty of all theoretical propositions. It regards leisure to be intrinsically political. The paper distinguishes the differences between postmodernism and the action approach. The paper ends with a suggested research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper calls for a revisionist reading of the thesis of the leisure class. Veblen's great work The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) argued that society is ruled by a leisure class. The primary identifying characteristics of this class are prodigious wealth, voluntary abnegation from pecuniary labour and conspicuous consumption. Veblen's argument suggested the decomposition of the work ethic because the characteristics cultivated by the rich would be emulated by the lower orders. Schor's The Overworked American (1991) work suggests that overwork, not leisure is one of the primary identifying characteristics of postwar culture. The article uses statistical and biographical data on the rich today to provide a counterpoint to Veblen's thesis. It is argued that the rich are not characterized by a rejection of work. On the contrary the richest people in the world typically work longer hours than the average. For these individuals work adopts a play form which probably contrasts sharply with wider social experience. Data on the leisure of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Richard Branson is examined to assemble a position on leisure and the rich which contrasts with the Veblen thesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The work of Walter Benjamin has achieved belated recognition in the social sciences as one of the most prescient accounts of modernity. However, it is not generally recognized that Benjamin also provides the first theory of leisure as an inevitably politicized type of activity. By tying the expansion of leisure to the rise of consumer culture and the development of modernity, Benjamin showed why leisure is fated to become beset with conflict. At the root of this is the idea that the increasing reflexivity produced by the growth of leisure time and space exposes the political fetters on leisure experience in capitalist society. In this paper the essential features of Benjamin's analysis as they pertain to understanding and studying leisure are considered. These are taken to be his concepts of modernity, phantasmagoria, aura and flanerie. The meaning of each concept is addressed and related to the wider theme of leisure experience. An attempt to show the value of Benjamin's approach compared with current influential positions in the field of leisure theory is made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]