Is Leisure a Social Construct - Essay Example

Is Leisure a Social Construct? Name ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ Author note Introduction Whether or not leisure is a social construct, it is first important to understand what leisure in its isolation is and what is its relationship with or within a social perspective? Defined in isolation, it actually means free time; the time that one spends away from domestic or business work. Leisure doesn't necessarily mean time spent on certain compulsory and necessary activities like education and sleeping, but generally is inclusive of the 'pleasure' component in work or otherwise. That sets a thin line between unavoidable activities and leisure which takes the explanation of distinction away from rigidity. For example, sometimes people take up some tasks deliberately to seek pleasure which, for those, involved with such tasks regularly might actually be monotonous. The pleasure that is sought from such tasks is, according to Goodwin et al (2005), having long-term utility. This can be understood further when leisure is discussed in combination with social perspectives and settings. That brings one to social leisure. When leisure is undertaken in social settings either by choice or on account of some compulsions, it becomes social leisure. These also include extracurricular activities like indulging in sports and club activities. Social leisure is supposed to be instrumental in the development of self-identity, character and dilution of hierarchy and communal setting. For example, in workplaces one time for social leisure could be the mealtime because during such times people from different cultures and backgrounds come to one spot, interact, add to their social skills and in the process defines their individuality. The indulgence into leisure, thus, can be constructed as according to different social settings. There could be leisure in academics, leisure in sports, and leisure among different groups wanting to accomplish different goals. On account of this, leisure is an umbrella term applied to a number of possibilities like outdoors and adventure, outings and socialising, craft and handiwork, art and self-expression, home and gardening, health and wellbeing, games and sports, lifelong learning, personal development, and music and entertainment (AustinHealth, nd). As part of this physical education study, this National Institutes of Health research done on 650,000 adults is worth mentioning here. The study said leisure-time physical activity, irrespective of the body weight and the low levels of activity, was associated with longer life expectancy. Considering different parameters at work, the life expectancy was 3.4 years longer in some and 4.2 years longer in some other parameters. The study was conclusive that longer life expectancy resulted on account of more physical activity (Moore et al, 2012). Is Leisure a Social Construct? To say whether or not leisure is a social construct, it will be prudent to go through a number of theories that have been used to understand leisure experiences in general and its role in society. To explain this, different perspectives can be put to work. One of the foremost is the functional perspective according to which each individual in a social set up performs a role and a number of social roles put together give rise to a social system. Leisure is a component that not only binds the two but also has a role to play in shaping both. Then there are social determinants that dictate the quality and quantity of leisure that could be indulged in. Leisure could be restricted by less income and permitted by greater income and another group of people called workaholics might not be as much in control of leisure as those who do not make too much of work their staple diet. The gender could be another determinant as even in today's world there is an air of inappropriateness attached to some forms of leisure that are said to be more men dominated than women dominated. Both feminist perspective and Marxian perspective believe that social divisions are reflected by leisure, but at the same time, as Kelly (1983) believes social interaction and social solidarity revolve around the leisure experience. It contributes to social cohesion and identification. It is a social space that stems out branches as that of parenting, friendship, community and family interaction. Historically, the concept of leisure started becoming 'decentred' since late 1990s; it almost became a fashion to discuss it with regard to its plasticity. It became part of the mainstream; part of many other people experiences and it became a focal point around which people developed their identities. Leisure became a toll to define and understand life politics that led to individual self-realisation. There is probably no other way to explain social construct of leisure as through the functional approach. This is because leisure has a function to play in a social setting. It has a meaning within overall social system, which includes being the instrument that bridges the individual-social system gap. National sporting events could be cited as one example that brings about overall social integration. Functionalism, in this context, attains a greater meaning in the sense that it allots each individual a specific role that he or she plays in a social system. The systems, on the other hand, are formed by these smaller roles each individual plays. Social systems further have smaller institutions within them that, in turn, perform functions for the social system as a whole and for individuals. A common set of rules, in turn, underpin the social system. Leisure, according to Roberts (1999) plays multiple functions in a social system that includes consolidating the system, acting as a safety valve by erasing strains and stresses on the wider social system, creating on it an imprint of fair play, teamwork and leadership, empowering people towards skills development, and fill the gaps when a life is dotted with unsatisfying and unrewarding situations. Roberts further explain that there could be no end to leisure choices. This, however, is pluralist approach which rebuffs the Marxian one that says leisure choices are determined by societal classes. The social construct of leisure has been discussed for many decades now and it was as early as 1976 when Stanley Parker attempted to explain it with respect to work. He stated that both are linked to each other either by fusion or by polarity. In fusion, it is argued that leisure and work cannot be held as two separate parts of our lives. In polarity, it is just the opposite. In what could be seen, Parker and Kelly hold somewhat contrasting views on leisure as applied to social context. For former, it is a leftover period of time but for latter it is very much embedded changing social roles and responsibilities and social networks. Kelly believes leisure is complementary to what a person does otherwise in a social system i.e., it is complementary to other roles a human being plays. He uses several central concepts to build leisure's dialectical relationship that include personal identity, social identity, presentation and role identity. One interesting argument put forward on the social construct of leisure is that a leisure activity must be measured more in terms of the quality of activity rather than what the activity is constituted of. The ‘quality’ concept brings it under the purview of the term ‘lifestyle’, which has been an in-word when today’s consumer-ruled life is discussed. This can also be seen in view of the term 'life politics' as used above. Leisure is an outlet through which people move from one setting to another in a social setup. Giddens (1994) has discussed this in context of what he terms as 'high modernity'. The role of leisure has been that it has helped people to move to 'life politics' from 'emancipatory politics' that was in vogue in earlier times. According to Rojek (2001), in a political social setup, leisure is a non-political component that gives human beings freedom to do what adds little or more meaning to their personal lives or their surroundings. This falls within the purview of social construction theory as explained by Berger and Luckmann (1966) according to which meaning is associated by people with behaviours, languages and objects by interacting with each other. Social interactions between people result in unquestioned reality which is rationally followed by them during human interactions (Doughlas, 1970). Furthermore, on a deeper analysis of leisure vis-a-vis society, it can be seen that leisure tends to be redefined from time to time as society changes. Pronovost and D'Amours (1990) have remarked that as society changes, players and problems within it change, there is a modification in perspectives, research into leisure changes along with. This echoes Rojek (1995) who has remarked that leisure exists because society exits. They are not apart from each other. Conclusion The conventional definition of leisure is free time, away from work and domestic chores. But more often than not leisure is executed within a social setting on which it exerts some effect either on individuals or as a whole. As this paper has developed a discussion on whether or not leisure is a social construct, deeper insights into leisure and its relationship with society emerge. Different scholars have argued from different perspectives on social construction of leisure but one thing that emerges at the end is that both leisure and society cannot be seen apart from each other. References AustinHealth.org.au. (nd). What is leisure? Available http://www.austin.org.au/page?ID=131. Accessed March 21, 2014. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co. Douglas, J.D. (1970). Understanding everyday life. In J.D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge (pp. 3-43). Chicago: Aldine. Goodin, Robert E.; Rice, James Mahmud; Bittman, Michael; & Saunders, Peter. (2005). "The time-pressure illusion: Discretionary time vs. free time". Social Indicators Research 73(1), 43–70. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity. Kelly, J.R. (1983) Leisure Identities and Interactions. London: George Allen and Unwin. Moore SC, et al (2012). Leisure Time Physical Activity of Moderate to Vigorous Intensity and Mortality: A Large Pooled Cohort Analysis. PLoS Medicine. Parker, S. (1976) The Sociology of Leisure. London: George Allen and Unwin. Pronovost, G., & D’Amours, M. (1990). Leisure studies: A re-examination of society. Loisir & Societe, 13(1), 39–62. Roberts, K. (1999) Leisure in Contemporary Society. Wallingford: CAB International. Rojek, C. (1995). Decentering leisure. London: Sage Publications. Rojek, C. (2001) ‘Leisure and life politics’, Leisure Sciences, 23: 115–25. Read More

Then there are social determinants that dictate the quality and quantity of leisure that could be indulged in. Leisure could be restricted by less income and permitted by greater income and another group of people called workaholics might not be as much in control of leisure as those who do not make too much of work their staple diet. The gender could be another determinant as even in today's world there is an air of inappropriateness attached to some forms of leisure that are said to be more men dominated than women dominated.

Both feminist perspective and Marxian perspective believe that social divisions are reflected by leisure, but at the same time, as Kelly (1983) believes social interaction and social solidarity revolve around the leisure experience. It contributes to social cohesion and identification. It is a social space that stems out branches as that of parenting, friendship, community and family interaction. Historically, the concept of leisure started becoming 'decentred' since late 1990s; it almost became a fashion to discuss it with regard to its plasticity.

It became part of the mainstream; part of many other people experiences and it became a focal point around which people developed their identities. Leisure became a toll to define and understand life politics that led to individual self-realisation. There is probably no other way to explain social construct of leisure as through the functional approach. This is because leisure has a function to play in a social setting. It has a meaning within overall social system, which includes being the instrument that bridges the individual-social system gap.

National sporting events could be cited as one example that brings about overall social integration. Functionalism, in this context, attains a greater meaning in the sense that it allots each individual a specific role that he or she plays in a social system. The systems, on the other hand, are formed by these smaller roles each individual plays. Social systems further have smaller institutions within them that, in turn, perform functions for the social system as a whole and for individuals. A common set of rules, in turn, underpin the social system.

Leisure, according to Roberts (1999) plays multiple functions in a social system that includes consolidating the system, acting as a safety valve by erasing strains and stresses on the wider social system, creating on it an imprint of fair play, teamwork and leadership, empowering people towards skills development, and fill the gaps when a life is dotted with unsatisfying and unrewarding situations. Roberts further explain that there could be no end to leisure choices. This, however, is pluralist approach which rebuffs the Marxian one that says leisure choices are determined by societal classes.

The social construct of leisure has been discussed for many decades now and it was as early as 1976 when Stanley Parker attempted to explain it with respect to work. He stated that both are linked to each other either by fusion or by polarity. In fusion, it is argued that leisure and work cannot be held as two separate parts of our lives. In polarity, it is just the opposite. In what could be seen, Parker and Kelly hold somewhat contrasting views on leisure as applied to social context. For former, it is a leftover period of time but for latter it is very much embedded changing social roles and responsibilities and social networks.

Kelly believes leisure is complementary to what a person does otherwise in a social system i.e., it is complementary to other roles a human being plays. He uses several central concepts to build leisure's dialectical relationship that include personal identity, social identity, presentation and role identity. One interesting argument put forward on the social construct of leisure is that a leisure activity must be measured more in terms of the quality of activity rather than what the activity is constituted of.

The ‘quality’ concept brings it under the purview of the term ‘lifestyle’, which has been an in-word when today’s consumer-ruled life is discussed.

Read More