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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
American Therapeutic Recreation Association. (2013). Standards for the practice of recreational therapy. Hattiesburg: ATRA.
Asch, A. (2001). Critical race theory, feminism, and disability: Reflections on social justice and personal identity. Ohio State University Law Journal, 62, 1–17.
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.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.
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.
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.
Carter, M. J., & Van Andel, G. E. (2011). Therapeutic recreation: A practical approach (4th ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Coleman, B. (2013). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 147–160). New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Devine, M. A., & Dattilo, J. (2000). The relationship between social acceptance and leisure lifestyles of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 306–322.
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.
Devine, M. A., & Parr, M. G. (2008). Social capital and inclusive leisure contexts: A good fit or dichotomous? Leisure Sciences, 30, 391–408.
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.
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.
Devine, M. A., & Wilhite, B. (1999). Application of theory to inclusive leisure services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33, 29–47.
Dieser, R. B. (2013). Leisure education: A person-centered, system-directed, social policy perspective. Champaign: Sagamore.
Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2003). Knowledge as socially constructed. In M. Gergen & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social construction: A reader (pp. 15–17). London: Sage.
Glover, T. D., & Hemingway, J. L. (2005). Locating leisure in the social capital literature. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 387–401.
Hevey, D. (2013). The enfreakment of photography. In The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 432–446). New York: Routledge.
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.
Hughes, C., & McDonald, M. L. (2008). Special Olympics: Sporting or social event? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(3), 143–145.
Kraus, R. (1984). Recreation and leisure in modern society (3rd ed.). Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.
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.
Lane, H. (2010). Construction of deafness. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 77–93). New York: Routledge.
Loewen, G., & Pollard, W. (2010). The social justice perspective. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 23(1), 5–18.
LoJa, E., Costa, M. A., Hughes, B., & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability and Society, 28(2), 190–203.
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.
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.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological approach. New York: St. Martins Press.
Passmore, T. (2010). Coverage of recreational therapy: Rules and regulations (2nd ed.). Hattiesburg: ATRA.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and application in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
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.
Rusalem, H. (1973). An alternative to the therapeutic model in therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 7(1), 8–15.
Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press.
Shank, J., & Coyle, C. (2002). Therapeutic recreation in health promotion and rehabilitation. State College: Venture.
Sheldon, K. M., Joiner, T., & Williams, G. (2003). Motivating health: Applying self-determination theory in the clinic. Yale: Yale University Press.
Siebers, T. (2008). Disability theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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.
Smart, J. F. (2009). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin: Bepress.
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.
Sylvester, C. D. (1992). Therapeutic recreation and the right to leisure. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 26(2), 9–20.
Sylvester, C. D. (1998). Careers, callings, and the professionalization of therapeutic recreation. Journal of Leisurability, 25(2), 3–13.
Sylvester, C. (2009). A virtue-based approach to therapeutic recreation practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 43(3), 9–25.
Sylvester, C. (2011). Therapeutic recreation, the international classification of functioning, disability, and health, and the capabilities approach. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 45, 85–104.
Sylvester, C. D. (2014). Therapeutic recreation and disability studies. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 48(1), 46–60.
Sylvester, C. (2015). Reimagining and transforming therapeutic recreation: Reaching into Foucault’s toolbox. Leisure/Loisir, 39(2), 167–191.
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.
Tollefsen, C. (2010). Disability and social justice. In C. D. Ralston & J. Ho (Eds.), Philosophical reflections on disability (pp. 211–228). New York: Springer.
Tremain, S. (2015). This is what a historical and relativist feminist philosophy of disability looks like. Foucault Studies, 19, 7–42.
Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
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)