Contingent Activism, Mediated Through Play

  • Lise Kjølsrød
Part of the Leisure Studies in a Global Era book series (LSGE)


It is well known that players’ engagements are often long-lived and important to their sense of self, but political agency is normally not a central theme in leisure studies. In this chapter, three case illustrations demonstrate how specialized players, if they feel called upon, are able to transform their activity into a political instrument. Their involvements are contingent but not negligible. It occurs as contentious politics, infra-politics, or micro-politics. The political voices coming from leisure worlds may not be very different from those coming from social movements. Both dispatch values, information, knowledge, and loyalties across territorial borders, and practical activity and ideology amplify each other within both worlds, although activity usually comes first and has the highest priority when people play.


  1. Ainslie, G. “Motivation Must Be Momentary.” In Understanding Choice, Explaining Behaviour, edited by J. Elster, O. Gjelsvik, A. Hylland and K. Moene, 9–24. Oslo: Unipub forlag, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Bang, H. P. “Governance as Political Communication.” In Governance as Social and Political Communication, edited by H. P. Bang, 7–23. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Bang, H. “Culture Governance: Governing Self-Reflexive Modernity.” Public Administration 82, no. 1 (2004): 157–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bang, H. P., and T. B. Dyrberg. “Governing at Close Range: Demo-Elites and Lay People.” In Governance as Social and Political Communication, edited by H. P. Bang, 222–240. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. Liquid Love. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Bayard de Volo, L. “Service and Surveillance: Infrapolitics at Work among Casino Cocktail Waitresses.” Social Politics 10, no. 3 (2003): 346–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bevir, M. “A Decentered Theory of Governance.” In Governance as Social and Political Communication, edited by H. P. Bang, 200–221. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. Blom, P. To Have and to Hold: An Intimate History of Collectors and Collecting. London: Penguin, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. Brenne, G. T. Fieldnotes for Doctoral Thesis, 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Buechler, S. M. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Classiske Motorbåter, CMB. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
  12. Fine, G. A. Morel Tales: The Culture of Mushrooming. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2003 [1998].Google Scholar
  13. Fine, G. A., and B. Harrington. “Tiny Publics: Small Groups and Civil Society.” Sociological Theory 22, no. 3 (2004): 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finnegan, R. The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English Town. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2007 [1989].Google Scholar
  15. Gerhards, J. “Georg Simmel’s Contribution to a Theory of Emotions.” Translated by John Taylor, Social Science Information 25, no. 4 (1986): 901–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gleditsch, N. P., Å. Hartman, and J. Naustdalslid. Mardøla-aksjonen (The Mardøla Action). Oslo: Institutt for fredsforskning, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Hodne, Ø. Folk og fritid: En mellomkrigsstudie i norsk arbeiderbevegelse (People and Leisure: An Inter-war Study in Norwegian Labor Movement). Oslo: Novus Forlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. Høigård, C. Gategallerier (Street Galleries). Oslo: Pax forlag A/S, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: The Beacon Press, 1955 [1938].Google Scholar
  20. Inglehart, R. “The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-industrial Societies.” American Political Science Review 65, no. 3 (1990): 991–1017.Google Scholar
  21. Kjølsrød, L. “Mediated Activism: Contingent Democracy in Leisure Worlds.” Sociology 47, no. 6 (2013): 1207–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotler, P. Democracy in Decline: Rebuilding its Future. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore; Washington, DC; Melbourne: Sage, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly. “To Map Contentious Politics.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1996): 17–34.Google Scholar
  24. Norris, P. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. Perinbanayagam, R. Games and Sport in Everyday Life: Dialogues and Narratives of the Self. Boulder, CO and London: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Pritchard, P. Deep Play: A Climber’s Odyssey from Llanberis to the Big Walls. London: Bâton Wicks, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi, and R. Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. Rojek, C. The Labour of Leisure. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore; Washington, DC: Sage, 2010.Google Scholar
  30. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 2017. Retrieved 19 April 2017.
  31. Scott, J. C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. Simmel, G. “Soziologie des Raumes.” In Schriften zur Soziologie: eine Auswahl. edited by H. J. Dahme and O. Rammstedt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1983.Google Scholar
  33. Spracklen, K. “Gorgoroth’s Gaahl’s Gay! Power, Gender and the Communicative Discourse of the Black Metal Scene.” In Heavy Fundamentalisms: Music, Metal and Politics, edited by R. Hill and K. Spracklen, 89–101. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  34. Stebbins, R. A. “Serious Leisure: A Conceptual Statement.” Pacific Sociological Review 25, no. 2 (1982): 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stebbins, R. A. Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  36. Stebbins, R. A. “Serious Leisure and Well-being.” In Work, Leisure and Well-Being, edited by J. T. Haworth. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
  37. Strong, T. B. “Contingency and the Limits of Contract.” In Governance as Social and Political Communication, edited by H. P. Bang, 180–199. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  38. Tarrow, S., and C. Tilly. Contentious Politics and Social Movements. Oxford Handbooks Online, 2009.
  39. Tilly, C. “Citizenship, Identity and Social History.” In Citizenship, Identity and Social History, edited by C. Tilly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. Tilly, C. Stories, Identities, and Political Change, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002.Google Scholar
  41. Tilly, C. Social Movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2004.Google Scholar
  42. Turner, V. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications, 1982.Google Scholar
  43. Waslawek, A. Graffiti and Street Art. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2011.Google Scholar
  44. Wheaton, B. “Identity, Politics, and the Beach: Environmental Activism in Surfers against Sewage.” Leisure Studies 26, no. 3 (2007): 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Kjølsrød
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Human GeographyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations