Advertisement

Who Should Inhabit Leisure? Disability, Embodiment, and Access to Leisure

  • Mary Ann Devine
  • Ken Mobily
Chapter
  • 955 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter explores who should inhabit or have access to leisure? The purpose of the chapter is to expose the discourses surrounding access of people with disabilities to leisure experiences. From this frame, we discuss ways in which access to leisure is shaped around discourses of the body, how discourses of the body are a response (e.g., political, cultural, historical, and theoretical) to difference, and ways in which leisure can be understood based on the various discourses surrounding embodiment of people with disabilities. One point of discussion is the social context of embodiment and disability. Specifically, we discuss how context shapes discourses around embodiment and disability. Lastly, the chapter considers the ways the discourses around disability shape the leisure discussion with a focus on how some differences are valued and others are not.

Keywords

Post-structuralism Disability Leisure Self-determination Social capital Social construction 

References

  1. Alston, R. J., Harley, D. A., & Middleton, R. (2006). The role of rehabilitation in achieving social justice for minorities with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 129–136.Google Scholar
  2. American Therapeutic Recreation Association. (2013). Standards for the practice of recreational therapy. Hattiesburg: ATRA.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, A. (2001). Critical race theory, feminism, and disability: Reflections on social justice and personal identity. Ohio State University Law Journal, 62, 1–17.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Moshe, L. (2013). “The institution yet to come”: Analyzing incarceration through a disability lens. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 132–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  7. Bullock, C. C., Mahon, M. J., & Killingsworth, C. L. (2010). Introduction to recreation services for people with disabilities: A person-centered approach. Champaign: Sagamore Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, M. J., & Van Andel, G. E. (2011). Therapeutic recreation: A practical approach (4th ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, B. (2013). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 147–160). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, L. G. (2013). Introduction: Disability, normality, and power. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devine, M. A. (1997). Inclusive leisure services and research: A consideration of the use of social construction theory. Journal of Leisurability, 24(2), 3–11.Google Scholar
  14. Devine, M. A. (2004). ‘Being a doer rather than a viewer’: The role of inclusive leisure contexts in determining social acceptance for people with disabilities. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 137–159.Google Scholar
  15. Devine, M. A. (2015). Leveling the playing field: Perspectives of people with disabilities on the ADA, access to reasonable accommodation in public parks and recreation. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devine, M. A., & Dattilo, J. (2000). The relationship between social acceptance and leisure lifestyles of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 306–322.Google Scholar
  17. Devine, M. A., & Lashua, B. (2002). Constructing social acceptance in inclusive leisure contexts: The role of individuals with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 36(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  18. Devine, M. A., & Parr, M. G. (2008). Social capital and inclusive leisure contexts: A good fit or dichotomous? Leisure Sciences, 30, 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devine, M. A., & Piatt, J. (2013). Beyond the right to inclusion: The intersection of social and environmental justice for inclusion of individuals with disabilities in leisure. In K. Schwab & D. Dustin (Eds.), Just leisure: Things that we believe in (pp. 17–26). Champaign: Sagamore.Google Scholar
  20. Devine, M. A., & Sylvester, C. (2005). Disabling defenders?: The social construction of disability in therapeutic recreation. In C. Sylvester (Ed.), Philosophies and issues in therapeutic recreation (3rd ed., pp. 39–51). Ashburn: National Recreation and Park Association.Google Scholar
  21. Devine, M. A., & Wilhite, B. (1999). Application of theory to inclusive leisure services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33, 29–47.Google Scholar
  22. Dieser, R. B. (2013). Leisure education: A person-centered, system-directed, social policy perspective. Champaign: Sagamore.Google Scholar
  23. Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Emens, E. F. (2013)). Disabling attitudes: U.S. disability law and the ADA amendments act. In The disability studies reader (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gergen, K. J. (2003). Knowledge as socially constructed. In M. Gergen & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social construction: A reader (pp. 15–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Glover, T. D., & Hemingway, J. L. (2005). Locating leisure in the social capital literature. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 387–401.Google Scholar
  28. Hevey, D. (2013). The enfreakment of photography. In The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 432–446). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hubbard, R. (2013). Abortion and disability: Who should and should not inhabit the world? In The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 74–86). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Hughes, C., & McDonald, M. L. (2008). Special Olympics: Sporting or social event? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(3), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraus, R. (1984). Recreation and leisure in modern society (3rd ed.). Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  32. Lahey, M. P. (1987). The ethics of intervention in therapeutic recreation. In C. Sylvester, J. L. Hemingway, R. Howe-Murphy, K. Mobily, & P. A. Shank (Eds.), Philosophy of therapeutic recreation: Ideas and issues (pp. 17–26). Alexandria: NRPA.Google Scholar
  33. Lane, H. (2010). Construction of deafness. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 77–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  35. LoJa, E., Costa, M. A., Hughes, B., & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability and Society, 28(2), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mobily, K. E. (1996). Therapeutic recreation philosophy re-visited: A question of what leisure is good for. In C. Sylvester (Ed.), Philosophy of therapeutic recreation: Ideas and issues (Vol. II, pp. 57–70). Arlington: NRPA.Google Scholar
  37. Mobily, K. E., Walter, K. B., & Finley, S. E. (2015). Deconstruction of TR/RT: Does TR/RT contribute to the negative construction of disability? Part 1. World Leisure Journal, 57(1), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  39. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. New York: St. Martins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Passmore, T. (2010). Coverage of recreational therapy: Rules and regulations (2nd ed.). Hattiesburg: ATRA.Google Scholar
  41. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and application in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prendergast, C. (2013). The unexceptional schizophrenic: A post-postmodern introduction. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 236–245). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Rusalem, H. (1973). An alternative to the therapeutic model in therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 7(1), 8–15.Google Scholar
  44. Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2002). Therapeutic recreation in health promotion and rehabilitation. State College: Venture.Google Scholar
  46. Sheldon, K. M., Joiner, T., & Williams, G. (2003). Motivating health: Applying self-determination theory in the clinic. Yale: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siebers, T. (2013). Disability and the theory of complex embodiment—For identity politics in a new register. In The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 278–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Smart, J. F. (2009). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin: Bepress.Google Scholar
  50. Sylvester, C. D. (1989). Quality assurance and the quality of life: Accounting for the good and healthy life. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 23(2), 7–22.Google Scholar
  51. Sylvester, C. D. (1992). Therapeutic recreation and the right to leisure. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 26(2), 9–20.Google Scholar
  52. Sylvester, C. D. (1998). Careers, callings, and the professionalization of therapeutic recreation. Journal of Leisurability, 25(2), 3–13.Google Scholar
  53. Sylvester, C. (2009). A virtue-based approach to therapeutic recreation practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 43(3), 9–25.Google Scholar
  54. Sylvester, C. (2011). Therapeutic recreation, the international classification of functioning, disability, and health, and the capabilities approach. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 45, 85–104.Google Scholar
  55. Sylvester, C. D. (2014). Therapeutic recreation and disability studies. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 48(1), 46–60.Google Scholar
  56. Sylvester, C. (2015). Reimagining and transforming therapeutic recreation: Reaching into Foucault’s toolbox. Leisure/Loisir, 39(2), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor, J., Piatt, J., Hill, E., & Malcom, T. (2011). Perception of autonomy support of youth with type 1 diabetes: Medical specialty camps as an intervention. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 20, 46–58.Google Scholar
  58. Tollefsen, C. (2010). Disability and social justice. In C. D. Ralston & J. Ho (Eds.), Philosophical reflections on disability (pp. 211–228). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Tremain, S. (2015). This is what a historical and relativist feminist philosophy of disability looks like. Foucault Studies, 19, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, G., McGregor, H., King, D., Nelson, C., & Glasgow, R. (2005). Variation in perceived competence, glycemic control, and patient satisfaction: Relationship to autonomy support from physicians. Patient Education and Counseling, 57(1), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Young, S. (2012). We’re not here for your inspiration. Blog—ABC Ramp Up (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/07/02/3537035.htm. Accessed 1 June 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Ann Devine
    • 1
  • Ken Mobily
    • 2
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations