Structural Constraints of Leisure - Essay Example

Reflective Study (Personal Critique) Week 6 - Leisure Constraints Name Instructor Course Institution Submission Date Structural Constraints Of Leisure An activity is defined as leisure if it arises from an intrinsic motivation and chosen freely. Most importantly, individuals should derive enjoyment from it. This is in line with the findings of a national study conducted in the United States by DeLeire and Kalil (2010). The two authors examined the association between different components of expenditure and happiness. The findings showed that leisure consumption was the only component positively related to happiness. So, if leisure must be freely chosen, enjoyable, and arise from an intrinsic motivation, does a breach of any of these three tenets undermine the leisure concept and thus act as a leisure constraint? My answer is "Yes" because “The extent of an individual’s interest and involvement may be influenced by a number of factors” (Raymore, Godbey. Crawford & von Eye 1993, P.99). In this regard, the factors are related to motivation, freedom, and enjoyment. Additionally, Lynch and Veal (2006), suggest that leisure should be defined on the basis of legality, morality and individuals’ wellbeing. This may in one way or the other limit participation, freedom, and enjoyment of leisure. In this paper, I will discuss the various factors that act as constraints to leisure and prove that leisure is not as much of a free choice as it ought to be. Most particularly I will base this reflective study on the structural constraints of leisure which include but not limited to: rules and regulations, occupational status, income, one's lifestyle, and transport issues (Aslan 2002; Raymore, Godbey & von Eye 1993; Shaw, Bonen & McCabe 1991). When an activity is expected to be morally acceptable, legal, and healthy, rules and regulations become part and parcel of this activity. Therefore, the contemporary expectation of leisure to be as described by Lynch and Veal (2006) in terms of health, legality, and morality and a number of other structural factors consequently inhibit individuals’ enjoyment of leisure. In this case, specific rules and regulations are put in place either by the authorities or guardians and individuals are expected to conform to them. When this happens, the freedom to engage in a particular activity is infringed upon and the freedom of leisure is undermined. In this case, an individual can no longer choose to explore their leisure activity of choice without fear of the consequences. On the same note, these rules and regulations determine the time of activity. For example, an individual may be a great lover of an afternoon swim, or work out at the gym however, the person may be required to be at work at that particular time for one reason or the other. This is where the constraints of occupational status apply. Therefore occupational status and the rules and regulations set as work policy inhibit the workers from freely engaging in what they may term as leisure at the time of their choice. They are therefore constraints to leisure because according to Raymore, Godbey, Crawford & von Eye (1993), a factor is a constraint to leisure if it limits or inhibits individuals' participation in a given leisure pursuit. Income is another structural constraint of leisure. In this world, nothing good comes cheap. For the best experience or service, one must be willing to part with a handsome amount of money. According to Aslam (2002), an individual's habits, tastes, and choice of leisure is viewed as a "consumer's purchasing decision process" (P.14). In this case, leisure is no longer a mere choice, but a battle for the contents of one's wallet or purse as the budget allows. In other words, leisure at this point is neither determined nor defined by motivation, enjoyment or freedom, but one's income. Additionally, one’s level of income may in one way or the other determine the time that an individual can spend as free time. For example, in order to make ends meet, some individuals have to work more than one job in a day. Consequently, there is limited free time to allow even a simple leisurely siesta and consequently the individual has no time to engage in any leisure activity of their choice. At the end of the day, the individual is too tired to do anything else other than shower and sleep for the remaining few hours. In this case, sleep is not a leisure activity, but a human necessity. According to DeLeire and Kalil (2010), leisure brings happiness. So can money buy this happiness? To answer this question, Weiss (2010) says that money can buy happiness only if and when spent on leisure. Therefore, one's happiness derived from leisure is primarily determined by income. The things that individuals decide t do on a daily or regular basis becomes their way of life. In this way, individuals develop their lifestyle around those activities, things or people. Aslam (2002, P.11), states that in the 21st Century "leisure has become a lifestyle" because leisure activities permeate all other activities and thus have the ability to initiate a particular lifestyle and quality of life. However, Shaw, Bonen and McCabe (1991) classify lifestyle as a structural constraint of leisure. In this case, one's lifestyle may inhibit him or her from engaging in particular leisure activities. For instance, as individuals grow older, their tastes and preference of leisure may change significantly. Similarly, one may be required to stay away from some leisure activities in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. For example, an individual who decides to quit gambling, drinking or smoking, referred to as "deviant leisure" in Week 11's study, as a way of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Raymore, Godbey & von Eye (1993) refer to leisure constraints as a subset of reasons for not engaging in a particular behavior. Therefore, healthy lifestyle becomes a constraint because it is the individual's reason not to engage in the leisure activities that he or she was used to. Similarly, Aslam 2002) concurs with Shaw, Bonen and McCabe (1991) that lifestyle can be constraints to leisure. In this case, Aslam acknowledges that structural issues such as social class affects one's lifestyle that in turn affects individuals' leisure behavior. In an analysis conducted on Canadian national data Shaw, Bonen, and McCabe (1991) found that levels of individuals’ leisure participation were either unaffected or inversely correlated with the experience of leisure constraints. According to Aslam, (2002) lack of transport is a structural constraint to leisure. Sometimes, one needs to travel far and wide to attain their leisure experience. For instance, an individual who fancies travelling as a leisure activity may desire to travel from Australia to Africa on a safari to see wildlife. Similarly, another one may decide to travel from Africa to the Bahamas for a vacation. In both cases, travelling and transport are major components of leisure. In relation to the findings of Shaw, Bonen, and McCabe (1991) leisure will be unaffected by transport if the activity is carried out indoors without transport expenses. A good example would be engaging in a chess game in the house after dinner. On the other hand, transport will become a constraint where travelling is required and expenses incurred. Brown, Miller and Hansen (2001) conducted a research in Australia on a number of women to find out the perceived constraints to active leisure. They found that although a majority of the women expressed a great desire to be active during their leisure time, structural constraints such as money, time, and energy were a great inhibition. Transport requires money, time, and at times consumes individuals' energy as they move up and down. Lack of any of these may therefore mean lack of transport and consequently leisure will be inhibited. In conclusion, it is clear that structural constraints such as rules and regulations, income, lifestyle, and transport influence individuals’ experiences of leisure in one way or the other. Putting these factors into consideration, it becomes apparent that leisure is not as free as it should be. Neither is it solely determined by the factors of intrinsic motivation, freedom and enjoyment. Through this reflective study, one other thing that has come out explicitly is the fact that individuals may feel greatly motivated to engage in a leisure activity, but ends up not doing anything related to leisure because the constraints make it impossible. Additionally, one may have the freedom to choose the kind of leisure to engage in. In this case, the leisure activity may be deviant or productive and beneficial to the individual. However, the existence of a subset of reasons may inhibit this from happening. In this case, the inhibition will not emanate from an authoritative rule or regulation, but from a personal decision to do things differently in line with the desired lifestyle. So this only means that the notion that an individual's leisure activity emanates from choice and freedom, is incomplete and misleading to some extent. Therefore, in defining what makes up leisure, perhaps it would be wise to also include that the three-fold criteria used can be contended in some cases where structural constraints and other forms of constraints as discussed in the 6th week's lecture are concerned. With all these constraints, leisure is not free and neither does individuals' freedom prevail beyond the constraints. References Aslan, N., 2002. The impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Brown, P. R., Brown, W. J., Miller, Y. D., & Hansen, V., 2001. Perceived constraints and social support for active leisure among mothers with young children. Leisure Sciences, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 131-144. DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A., 2010. Does consumption buy happiness? Evidence from the United States. International Review of Economics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 163-176. Lynch, R & Veal A 2006, Australian Leisure, 3rd edn, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, NSW. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A., 1993. Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 99-113. Shaw, S. M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J. F., 1991. Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of leisure Research. Weiss, C. D., 2010. Does Money buy happiness? Only if you spent it on leisure, Research suggests. Available from: . [10, May 2015] Read More