Advertisement

Max Weber and Leisure

  • Pauwke Berkers
  • Koen van Eijck
Chapter
  • 977 Downloads

Abstract

The chapter discusses Max Weber’s theories on leisure, how his ideas have affected contemporary leisure studies, and how his insights could inform future research. We focus on three aspects of Weber’s rich sociological legacy: (1) the Protestant Ethic and the absence of leisure, focusing on the relationship between religion and consumption, (2) bureaucracy and rationalization of leisure, discussing McDonaldization and re-enchantment, and (3) social inequality and leisure: class, status, party, discussing how status—vis-à-vis class—matters for lifestyle studies. Exploring the Weberian influence on leisure theory, we suggest future research might focus on the renewed importance of religion, online leisure activities as enchantment, and changes in the legitimacy of leisure practices.

Keywords

Max Weber Bureaucracy Rationalization Consumption Social class Lifestyles 

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge and Kegan.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, C. (1987). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, C. (2006). Do today’s sociologists really appreciate Weber’s essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? The Sociological Review, 54, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan, T. W. (2010). Social status and cultural consumption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction an its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. (2010). Social status and cultural consumption. In T. W. Chan (Ed.), Social status and cultural consumption (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DellaPosta, D., Shi, Y., & Macy, M. (2015). Why do liberals drink lattes? American Journal of Sociology, 120, 1473–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, P. (1996). Are art-museum visitors different from other people? The relationship between attendance and social and political attitudes in the U.S. Poetics, 24, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, S., & Kuipers, G. (2013). The divisive power of humour: Comedy, taste and symbolic boundaries. Cultural Sociology, 7, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holt, D. (1997). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 326–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (2002 [1947]). The dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jarness, V. (2015). Modes of consumption: From ‘what’ to ‘how’ in cultural stratification research. Poetics, 53, 65–79.Google Scholar
  14. Katz-Gerro, T., & Jaeger, M. M. (2012). Religion, religiosity, and cultural stratification: Theoretical links and empirical evidence. In L. A. Keister, J. Mccarthy, & R. Finke (Eds.), Religion, work and inequality (pp. 337–366). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz-Gerro, T., Raz, S., & Yaish, M. (2009). How do class, status, ethnicity, and religiosity shape cultural omnivorousness in Israel? Journal of Cultural Economics, 33, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lahire, B. (2011). The plural actor. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71, 778–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mark, N. (1998). Birds of a feather sing together. Social Forces, 77, 453–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ollivier, M. (2008). Humanist, populist, practical, and indifferent modes of openness to cultural diversity. Poetics, 36, 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ridgeway, C. L. (2013). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ritzer, G. (1999). Enchanting a disenchanted world: Revolutionizing the means of consumption. Thousand Oaks: Pin Forge Press.Google Scholar
  24. Turner, J., Beeghley, L., & Powers, C. H. (1995). The emergence of sociological theory. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  25. Van Eijck, K., & Lievens, J. (2008). Cultural omnivorousness as a combination of highbrow, pop, and folk elements: The relation between taste patterns and attitudes concerning social integration. Poetics, 36, 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Eijck, K. (2012). The impact of religious identity and social orientations of visual arts appreciation. European Sociological Review, 28, 394–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wacquant, L. (1991). Making class: The middle class(es) in social theory and social structure. In S. G. McNall, R. F. Levine, & R. Fantasia (Eds.), Bringing class back in: Contemporary and historical perspectives (pp. 39–64). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  28. Weber, M. (1947a). The social psychology of the world religions. In M. Weber (Ed.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 267–301). London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  29. Weber, M. (1947b). Religious rejections of the world and their directions. In M. Weber (Ed.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 323–359). London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Weber, M. (1997 [1930]). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M. (2013 [1968]). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pauwke Berkers
    • 1
  • Koen van Eijck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Arts and Culture StudiesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations