Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Leisure Theory

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

References

  • 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 

  • American Therapeutic Recreation Association. (2013). Standards for the practice of recreational therapy. Hattiesburg: ATRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Carter, M. J., & Van Andel, G. E. (2011). Therapeutic recreation: A practical approach (4th ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Devine, M. A., & Parr, M. G. (2008). Social capital and inclusive leisure contexts: A good fit or dichotomous? Leisure Sciences, 30, 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Devine, M. A., & Wilhite, B. (1999). Application of theory to inclusive leisure services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33, 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieser, R. B. (2013). Leisure education: A person-centered, system-directed, social policy perspective. Champaign: Sagamore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Glover, T. D., & Hemingway, J. L. (2005). Locating leisure in the social capital literature. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 387–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevey, D. (2013). The enfreakment of photography. In The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 432–446). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hughes, C., & McDonald, M. L. (2008). Special Olympics: Sporting or social event? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(3), 143–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, R. (1984). Recreation and leisure in modern society (3rd ed.). Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoJa, E., Costa, M. A., Hughes, B., & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability and Society, 28(2), 190–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. New York: St. Martins Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, T. (2010). Coverage of recreational therapy: Rules and regulations (2nd ed.). Hattiesburg: ATRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and application in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rusalem, H. (1973). An alternative to the therapeutic model in therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 7(1), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2002). Therapeutic recreation in health promotion and rehabilitation. State College: Venture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., Joiner, T., & Williams, G. (2003). Motivating health: Applying self-determination theory in the clinic. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Smart, J. F. (2009). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin: Bepress.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sylvester, C. D. (1992). Therapeutic recreation and the right to leisure. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 26(2), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. D. (1998). Careers, callings, and the professionalization of therapeutic recreation. Journal of Leisurability, 25(2), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (2009). A virtue-based approach to therapeutic recreation practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 43(3), 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sylvester, C. D. (2014). Therapeutic recreation and disability studies. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 48(1), 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester, C. (2015). Reimagining and transforming therapeutic recreation: Reaching into Foucault’s toolbox. Leisure/Loisir, 39(2), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tremain, S. (2015). This is what a historical and relativist feminist philosophy of disability looks like. Foucault Studies, 19, 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kent State University, 316 White Hall, Kent, OH, 44224, USA

    Mary Ann Devine

  2. University of Iowa, 316 FH, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Ken Mobily

Authors
  1. Mary Ann Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Mobily
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Faculty, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Karl Spracklen

  2. Carnegie Faculty, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Brett Lashua

  3. Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada

    Erin Sharpe

  4. Health and Life Sciences, York St John’s University, Leeds, United Kingdom

    Spencer Swain

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Devine, M.A., Mobily, K. (2017). Who Should Inhabit Leisure? Disability, Embodiment, and Access to Leisure. In: Spracklen, K., Lashua, B., Sharpe, E., Swain, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Leisure Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56479-5_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56479-5_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56478-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56479-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation