Abstract
In societies dominated by instrumental rationality and secularism, where lives are suspended between deadlines and dead-ends, leisure assumes extraordinary ideological significance. Paid employment and family life may be regarded as the main part of ‘normal’ adult existence. However, leisure, it is said, is the ‘necessary’ counterpart to work, the ‘reward’ for effort, the prerequisite for a ‘healthy’ and ‘balanced’ lifestyle. It would be absurd to suggest that Western culture presents paid employment and family life as a purgatory of self-denial. On the contrary, it can be said safely that paid employment and family life are widely seen as affirmations of adulthood — that is, people do not think of themselves as real grown-ups until they get a steady job and start a family. However, the pleasures of work and family life, great as they may be, are moderated by the sense of responsibility and self-discipline which both require. In work and family life we may satisfy and surprise ourselves. However, only in leisure are we said to be ourselves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J. Dumazedier (1967) Towards a Society of Leisure, New York, Free Press, pp. 16–17.
J. R. Kelly (1987) Freedom To Be: A New Sociology of Leisure, New York, Macmillan, p. 238.
See, for example, D. Frisby (1981) Sociological Impressionism: A Reassessment of Georg Simmel’s Social Theory, London, Heinemann; (1984) Georg Simmel, London, Tavistock; (1985) Fragments of Modernity, Oxford, Polity Press.
See, for example, J. Alt (1976) ‘Beyond class: the decline of industrial labour and leisure,’ Telos, 28: 58–80
Brohm, J. M. (1978) Sport: A Prison of Measured Time, London, Interlinks
Rigauer, B. (1981) Sport and Work, New York, Columbia University Press
J. Finch and D. Groves (1980) ‘Community Care and the Family: a Case for Equal Opportunities?’, Journal of Social Policy, 9:4, pp. 487–511.
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1978) Demographic Review, 1977, HMSO, London.
E. Goffman (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Boston, Northeastern University Press, p. 8.
From the Marxist and neo-Marxist standpoint see Alt, op. cit; Brohm, op. cit; Rigauer, op. cit. For a rather mechanical view of patriarchy and women’s leisure see R. Deem (1986) All Work and No Play? The Sociology of Women and Leisure. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
All figures from A.J. Veal (1987) Leisure and the Future, London, Allen & Unwin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Chris Rojek
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rojek, C. (1989). Introduction. In: Rojek, C. (eds) Leisure for Leisure. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19527-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19527-5_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-46170-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-19527-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)