Leisure, Community, and the Stranger

  • Elie Cohen-Gewerc


The new era of leisure and all its new concepts are already quite with us, but we are still anchored in the state of mind of the “old world”. We will need to move from a standard, quite passive condition of adaptation towards a creative one. Leisure, the word by itself, invites us to enter into a special mood of liberty and leads to review our “obvious” concepts as community’s concrete reality or imagined (Anderson 1991); “countries”, “homelands”, and the supermarket of populations; “nation” and its genuine members, “citizen” or “stranger”, “client” or “customer” of an interchangeable state, and so on. How we perceive our identity? Who is a stranger? Meursault, the stranger of Camus’s novel, has all the attributes of citizenship. How can collective identities preserve their pertinence in leisure’s open nature, which is mostly individual, far from clear-cut definitions, categories, and belongings?


Identity Imagined community Individuality Leisure Particularity Stranger Universality 


  1. Anderson, B. (1983/1995). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Atal, Y. (2004). Outsiders as insiders. In N. Jayaram (Ed.), The Indian diaspora: Dynamics of migration. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (1990). Modernity and ambivalence. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture, nationalism, globalization and modernity (pp. 143–169). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (1998). Europe of strangers. WPTC, 98(3), University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Buber, M. (1923). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Camus, A. (1942). The stranger (S. Gilbert, Trans.). New-York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  7. Camus, A. (1957). Exile and the kingdom (J. O’Brien, Trans.). New-York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  8. Chivallon, C. (2007). Retour sur la “communauté imaginée” d’Anderson. Essai de clarification théorique d’une notion restée floue. Raisons Politiques, 3(27), 131–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen-Gewerc, E. (2012). Why leisure education? World Leisure Journal, 54(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen-Gewerc, E., & Stebbins, R. (2013). Serious leisure and individuality. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Daoud, K. (2013/2014). Meursault, contre-enquête. Paris: Editions Actes Sud.Google Scholar
  12. de La Bruyère, J. (1688). Of opinions. In The characters (H. van Laun, Trans.), p. 104.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G. (1990/2003). Pourparlers, 1972–1990. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, W. C. (1906). The social ideals of Alfred Tennyson as related to his time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Graham, T. T. M. (2008). Oncoming “leisure era”: How we are getting in there. Journal of Futures Studies, 12(3), 109–120.Google Scholar
  16. Hobsbawm, E., & Terrence, R. (Eds.). (1984). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jankélévitch, V. (1963). L’aventure, l’ennui, le sérieux. Paris: Editions Aubier- Montaigne.Google Scholar
  18. Levinas, E. (1971/1991) Totality and infinity (A. Lingis, Trans.). London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Misrahi, R. (2009). La jouissance d’être, le sujet et son désir. Essai d’anthropologie philosophique. Paris: Encre Marine.Google Scholar
  20. Renan, E. (1882) Qu’est-ce qu’une nation, a lecture at the Sorbonne, Paris.Google Scholar
  21. Shakespeare, W. (1968). The merchant of Venice. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  22. Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York: Bentham.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elie Cohen-Gewerc
    • 1
  1. 1.Beit Berl CollegeKfar SabaIsrael

Personalised recommendations