Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
Leisure for Leisure

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. J. Dumazedier (1967) Towards a Society of Leisure, New York, Free Press, pp. 16–17.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. R. Kelly (1987) Freedom To Be: A New Sociology of Leisure, New York, Macmillan, p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, for example, J. Alt (1976) ‘Beyond class: the decline of industrial labour and leisure,’ Telos, 28: 58–80

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brohm, J. M. (1978) Sport: A Prison of Measured Time, London, Interlinks

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rigauer, B. (1981) Sport and Work, New York, Columbia University Press

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1978) Demographic Review, 1977, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Goffman (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Boston, Northeastern University Press, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. All figures from A.J. Veal (1987) Leisure and the Future, London, Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics