It is also one of the few leisure texts that attempt to incorporate research on marginalized groups such as women, African Americans, and people with disabilities; this book points out that such groups have been largely ignored by researchers. More significantly, it argues that we cannot generalize about leisure based on white, male experience. This is something that too few writers on leisure (with the exception of therapeutic recreation scholars) have done, and the effort to discuss the experiences of those who are outside of the mainstream is laudable.However, in other respects, this text is profoundly flawed. It fails in its presentation of theory and in its writing, perhaps because the authors try to do too much, and therefore do too little well. The problems arise in five areas: a lack of theoretical focus; inaccuracies in the presentation of theory; the absence of some important leisure research issuing out of sociology and other disciplines; poor writing; and poor editing.As the preface declares, the point of the book is to produce a sociology of leisure based on three sociological perspectives: Functionalist, Symbolic Interactionist, and what the authors sometimes designate as Critical Theory, and sometimes designate as Conflict Theory. This third perspective seems to incorporate elements of both sets of theories without making a distinction between them. Weaving the strands of three (or four) disparate schools of thought into a focused treatment is a monumental task. Unfortunately, Kelly and Godbey are not able to make these strands come together in a coherent way. Part of the problem may be that these perspectives are not wholly compatible. Functionalist theory is modelled along the lines of more traditional scientific positivism, while Critical Theory relies on open, self-critical analysis. Conflict theory and Symbolic Interactionism fall somewhere in between.
IntroductionDrawing on recent developments in critical theory, particularly the work of J. Habermas,(2) a second purpose in writing this essay was to point out the specifically political nature of freedom in leisure, with the central thesis that leisure has been deformed through increasing commodification and consumerization, themselves reflecting the growing instrumentalism accompanying modernization. Instrumentalism undermines the discursive, civic foundations of Aristotles original association of freedom and leisure. The application of critical theory to this topic yields a theoretically richer and politically more substantive understanding of the issues involved than is presently available in the leisure studies literature.Marx (1977, p. 38) defined critique as the effort to attain a reflective self-understanding by the participants of the principles underlying social practices. Practices are patterns of human activity defined by two sets of socially determined rules: regulatory, which operate within practices to direct activity; and constitutive, which define practices themselves by forming the boundaries between them and the rest of the world (see Hemingway, 1995, pp. 37-39). Critique of practices proceeds along two axes. Empirically, critique examines the historical development of practices from within to understand the principles out of which their constitutive rules emerged and to explore the contemporary content of their regulatory rules. Normatively, critique states this as the relationship between the original emancipatory potential of a practice and its current emancipatory content, with emancipation understood as the process of exposing, and preparing the ground for the elimination of the often latent restrictions on the development of human capacities embedded in existing social practices. As Horkheimer (1968) noted, the critical attitude challenges both the content and the justification of social practices in the name of emancipation so defined. A critical analysis of freedom in leisure will therefore address the social practices of leisure and particularly their historical evolution, being attentive to ruptures between principle and practice; between, for example, claims of enabling freedom in leisure and particular forms of leisure that in fact restrict freedom or channel it into a narrow range of practices.
Studying leisure has been the subject of interest by a wide range of scholars representing a wide range of disciplines. In so doing, these scholars have largely used leisure instrumentally as means to test some aspect of their own discipline such as psychological, sociological, or economic concepts. Over the last couple of decades there has been a sustained number (and occasional decline) in university departments dedicated to the study of leisure and to various applications in leisure services. There has been a corresponding number of researchers who have, as their primary interest, the study of leisure and leisure services. While this is a relatively short period of time in the context of knowledge development, it is nonetheless interesting that as a field of study that asserts through accreditation and professional certification processes to have its own body of knowledge, there has been a paucity of theory development. For those of us whose principal identity is with leisure research, we cannot point to many theories that seek to explain leisure behavior, leisure services management, or various other dimensions of leisure services. We do not have a many theories that address the various dimensions of leisure including motivations, satisfactions, constraints, etc. What we do have is a large body of literature that has borrowed theories from other, more established disciplines, to test them and then apply them to understanding leisure phenomena. While this is not intended as a diatribe about the lack of theory, it is intended to raise the question about what the field of study seeks to become in the next century. This effort is directed at outlining the importance of theory development for the health of the field, for the enrichment of our professionals who serve the public, and for strengthening our place among the larger academic community. To do so, I must borrow a theory from social psychology and sociology. Using Social Exchange Theory (c.f., Homans, 1950; Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1972a, 197b; Cook, 1987), I hope to present an argument that will have us address the question of our role in theory development in a more meaningful and systematic fashion. This is an important issue for the field to address as we enter the new millennium and prepare for changes in lifestyles that will have dramatic and important implications for the field of leisure. Briefly stated, Exchange Theory posits that (a) individuals enter into relationships seeking some reward; (b) relationships are sustained over time if the rewards are valued and continue to evolve; (c) individuals will continue in the relationship if the other party reciprocates and provides rewards that are deemed fair in relation to others; (d) the costs of the relationship do not exceed the benefits; and (e) the probability of receiving desired rewards is high. In addition, there is a tenet of social exchange theory that states the relationship does not sustain when one party to the relationship in is a power dependent position.
Garden Furniture Singapore
No comments »