It has been argued in the first intermezzo of this book that thinking about leisure is influenced by the way scholars conceive the zeitgeist, the times, they are living in. The reception of the leisure idea/ideal in different historical time spans reflects that. For example, leisure was allocated a different value in the era of the Protestant Reformation than in the era of the Renaissance. The meaning of leisure in these eras has shifted from being mere idleness or a recreative precondition for work to being a part of life in which humans beings cultivate their minds in search of wisdom and inner transformation. This obviously also applies to the current sociocultural epoch, which both philosophers and sociologists characterised as ‘modern’ or ‘postmodern’. ‘Modernity’, although a contested term, is usually described as a way of thinking that holds scientific and technological achievements to have induced change on different levels in society, such as the industrialisation of work, individualism, urbanisation, egalitarianism and questioning of the sources of authority and power as expressed in religion and the Church. ‘Postmodernity’, also a contested concept, stands for a discontinuity with modernity and a way of thinking that includes individual feeling, fantasy, intuition and spirituality as sources of knowledge. These interpretations of modern times also determine how the value and meaning of leisure are being conceived.
The purpose of leisure, from a modernity perspective, is to enhance human well-being and fulfilment, while freeing oneself from the constraints of religion, family and citizenship. From a postmodern perspective, the purpose of leisure is to enhance pleasure, satisfaction and self-fulfilment as ‘normal and ordinary’ experiences. Postmodernism opens up new possibilities for the study of leisure. One of the issues that did not receive much attention with regard to modernity, which could open up fertile new approaches to the study of leisure, is the role that religion or spirituality has played in the past and is still playing in society.
Seminal thinkers from sociology, psychology and philosophy like Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche have announced the ‘death’ of religion. They expected, in the words of Wright Mills, that, since ‘the forces of modernization … and secularization … loosened the dominance of the sacred’, religion will ‘disappear altogether, except, possibly, in the private realm’ (1959: 32–33). Modernisation and secularisation apparently are two sides of the same coin and therefore arguably form a unity of mutual implication. It was expected that the dominant rational and scientific world view that emerged from the Enlightenment onward would displace faith and religion and drive them to the margins – a process called ‘secularisation’. Secularisation has different meanings, such as the universal ‘decline of religious beliefs and practices’, the necessary and desirable ‘privatisation of religion’ or the ‘differentiation of the secular spheres’ resulting from their emancipation from the religious domain (Casanova 2006: 7). Yet the most widespread usage of the concept relates to the ‘transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious values and secular institutions’; it denotes a historical process that entails the ‘loss of social and cultural significance’ of religion parallel to the progressive influence of modernisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization). Yet the debate on secularisation – especially against the background of globalisation – has not been closed yet. Scholars still disagree about the way in which it should be interpreted. Some – as indicated above – hold it to run parallel with the process of modernisation, while others put forward that it should be divorced from modernity, based on the thesis that different modes of secularisation and ‘patterns of fusion and dissolution of religious, political and societal communities’ (Casanova 2006: 15) offer better grounds for explanation. However, the bottom line is that religion/religiosity did not disappear from society and is often a central item in the public and political discourse. The decrease in, for example, church attendance and the role religious beliefs play in decision-making processes in the public domain – at least in Western societies – does not imply a decrease in religiosity and spirituality. Religion has been transformed and, more specifically, has been privatised. Religiosity and spirituality are vibrantly present in modern society and currently a source of animated discussion across a wide spectrum of academic disciplines. For example, the philosopher Graham reflects on the question whether especially art, but also music, literature and other phenomena – being freed from their function for religion – are able to ‘re-enchant’ the world (2007), while the sociologist Possamai (and colleagues) investigates the intersections between consumer culture, cyberculture and popular culture and their relation to religion and spirituality (2009). Another philosopher, Pott, finds evidence that Nietzsche’s ‘Dionysian explorations’ – after proclaiming the death of God – rest upon classical religious emotions such as love, trust, gratitude and above all: a new naivety. She remarks that his notion of the ‘God-forming instinct’ (religiosity) of human beings has not lost its relevance today (2007: 15). The psychologist Main uses analytical psychology to explain why subjectivity and the self do not necessarily have to be sociological determinants in explaining secularisation as is the case in mainline sociology (Main 2008: 381) and the sociologist Bruce even implicates leisure in his secularisation thesis by believing that the ‘motive for religion lies in the interplay between social structure and leisure time’ for as ‘alternative ways of leisure time emerge, which offer individual structuring of leisure, large parts of the populace cease to attend church’ (Kosmin 2014: 169). Hereby a link between religion and/or spirituality and leisure has been made. However, this connection is not new.
As might be presumed from the historical survey made of the development of the leisure idea at the beginning of this book, religion was for many, many years a predominant force in determining the nature of leisure. Actually, Goodale and Godbey trace its influence even back to the time before Thales (c. sixth century bc), who was known for ‘starting’ philosophy. Ethical codes – although secular (like the Code of Hammurabi, c.2000 years bc) – were seen as gifts from the gods and gave rise to the development of, or were embedded in, religious systems (1998: 15). Religion tried to convey ‘answers’ to the existential questions people encountered in their lives. It is against this background that the ancient Greeks developed their philosophies and that the leisure idea was born. Leisure scholars have acknowledged the place and importance of religion and spirituality in society and its connection with (the) leisure (idea) for quite some time – as Heintzman has described quite thoroughly in his book Leisure and Spirituality (2015: 57–79). As the secularisation debate unfolds in time and becomes conceptually more sophisticated through the years, and terms like ‘invisible religion’ (Luckmann 1967), ‘anonymous religiosity’ (Rahner 1969 and Ott 1981), ‘hidden religiosity’ (Sylvain 2002), ‘implicit religiosity’ (Bailey 1997) and ‘spirituality’ (Waaijman 2006 and many others) are coined, leisure scholars start to reflect on the relationship of leisure to these developments as well. From all these concepts, ‘spirituality’ speaks the most to the scholarly imagination, since – as will be shown later on – religion and spirituality are conceptually different and the latter is detached from traditional structures and theories about religion. Discussion about and research on the interrelations between leisure and spirituality increased at the end of the previous century. Godbey even predicted that the ‘development of spiritual life will become more central to leisure’ and that it will be an ‘increasingly important factor shaping everyday life during the next few decades’ (1997: 86–87) – which actually turned out to be true.
The outline of this chapter is as follows: the concept ‘spirituality’ will be explored first and its core characteristics identified. Second, a rough portrait of research that has been done on the relationship between leisure and spirituality will be drawn, and third, themes that could open up new possibilities for reflection and research with regard to leisure and spirituality will be proposed and briefly discussed.
The concept ‘spirituality’ will be explored from different perspectives, starting with theology and religious studies, followed by philosophy, psychology and sociology.
Theologians and scientists of religion usually distinguish between religion and spirituality. For some, they are synonyms. For others, they are antonyms. Yet when it comes to spirituality, mainly two approaches can be identified in the last century. One approach, a deductive one, is strongly theologically oriented. The other, an inductive one, starts from the lived experience. The Dutch scholar, Waaijman, holds that Christian spirituality, from a phenomenological viewpoint, shows three basic forms. First, there are the established schools of spirituality which display a great diversity of forms such as the Benedictine, Jesuit and Reformational spirituality, and which are regarded as historical syntheses. The second form of spirituality concerns primordial, directly lived spiritualities such as lay or everyday spirituality, indigenous spirituality and secular spirituality, and the third form relates to counter spirituality, which offers opposition against established power configurations (2006: 5–12). Three fundamental structures underlie all these forms of spirituality. The first structure concerns a relational process between the Divine and the human. The second relates to a gradual process from awe to love and the third entails transformation that takes place on personal, social and sociocultural levels of human existence.
Spirituality has also been studied by philosophers. Solomon, for example, studied spirituality as a source of inspiration for sceptics. He advocates a ‘natural’ spirituality that embraces the material world, the desires, sex and sensuality, the body and, perhaps, fast cars, money and luxury as well – all in the right proportions (2004: 51). Such a ‘natural’ spirituality depicts a broader consciousness of life that embraces both rationality and emotionality and seeks to discover a bigger ‘I’. The most important passions of spirituality are love (compassion), awe and (cosmic) trust (2004: 62–71). These properties are all seen as forms of acceptance. Roothaan (2007) designed a spirituality ‘for the future’ based on four coordinates. These are the definition of what life is; orientation towards life; life in the spiritual Western tradition and openness towards the future. Inspired by the thought of Hannah Arendt, Roothaan advocates a spirituality that should be able to deal with dilemmas surrounding the vulnerability of human life. Puchalski, a medical doctor, defines spirituality as ‘the aspect of humanity that refers to the way individuals seek and express meaning and purpose, and the way they experience their connectedness to the moment, to self, to others, to nature and to the significant or sacred’ (2009: 1). Spirituality often gives people a sense of well-being, improves quality of life, and provides social support.
Within psychology, spirituality has emerged as a domain of study opposite to religion. Spirituality relates to an individual’s striving to reach sacred or existential goals in life, such as meaning or wholeness, exploring one’s inner potentials to the best of one’s ability, or connecting with fellow human beings in an uplifting way. Spirituality is more and more seen as a conviction that is related to the world, and gives meaning to life. Zinnbauer analysed the commonalities and differences between religion and spirituality and concluded that spirituality denoted ‘a personal or group search for the sacred’ while religiosity denoted a ‘personal or group search for the sacred that unfolds within a traditional sacred context’ (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005: 35). Spirituality is thus defined as the broader of the two concepts. Pargament, in opposition to Zinnbauer, holds religion to be the broader concept by relating spirituality to the ‘search for the sacred’ and religion to the ‘search for significance in ways related to the sacred’ (Zinnbauer and Pargament 2005: 36). Although different in perspective and definition, the common denominator between spirituality and religion seems to be the sacred. The sacred is central to both traditional religious communities with articulated sets of convictions and rituals, and to domains of everyday life in which individuals have experiences they interpret as such.
Sociology got interested in spiritually as a social phenomenon fairly recently. The study of spirituality, from a sociological perspective, still focuses on the connections between the individual and the institution and their relationships with the sacred, but acknowledges that simplistic oppositions between the individual and community and public and private are no longer satisfactory. The sacred is no longer determined by traditional religious institutions with their demand of obedience to an external authority, but is ‘assessed by the individual’s freedom of choice, their need to search for meaning and their hopes for self-realisation and the need to express creatively the relationship with the transcendent’ (Giordan 2010: 176). Sociologists also explore, among other themes, the relationships between spirituality and social themes like gender, embodiment, the visual, identity politics, education and cultural capital as Flanagan and Jupp demonstrate in their anthology A Sociology of Spirituality (2010).
From this very brief overview some distinct characteristics of ‘spirituality’ can be distilled. It involves a direct and personal experience of what is deemed to be sacred or transcendental, resulting in a broader consciousness of life, with a specific focus on compassion or love, and inspired by awe and cosmic trust. The psychological and, in a sense, ethical implications are that spiritual experiences evoke a sense of meaning, purpose and connectedness (relationality) and instigate a process of transformation in/of human existence. Spirituality is therefore to be distinguished from the concept of ‘religion’, which involves a more narrow application of spirituality, namely within a communal, ‘traditional religious’, setting and based on a set of (communal) beliefs and rituals.
The viewpoint that leisure has positive effects and meanings and is important for the well-being or happiness of people has come a long way. It has been pointed out in other chapters of this book. Considerable research has been done within leisure studies on the positive effects of leisure and different, but related, concepts have been used as variables. For example, leisure not only contributes to the physical and mental health of people, but also to recuperation from stressful conditions such as work, strengthening personal relationships and social networks, the enhancement of overall quality of life (Johanson and Backman 2010: 112), life satisfaction (Edginton et al. 2002: 9), happiness during vacations (Nawijn 2011), relieving stress and facilitating coping (Schneider and Iwasaki 2003), enhancing psychological well-being of the elderly (Heo et al. 2010) and also to benefitting people with disabilities (Lord and Patterson 2009).
Although there is growing interest in the religious or spiritual value of leisure practices from the perspective of theology or religious studies – see for instance the work Stausberg has done on the intersections between religion and tourism (2010) or Post on pilgrimage as a form of spiritual tourism (2013) or even Heintzman, a leisure scholar, whose latest book Leisure and Spirituality (2015) is nothing less than an apologetic for a specific kind of Christian spirituality of leisure – it is also true for some leisure scholars who have, although ‘anecdotally’ (Schmidt 2007: 175), done research on the spiritual potential of leisure, the spiritual benefits of leisure and the relationship of leisure to the spirituality of people in general. This falls within the reach of research done on the positive effects and meanings of leisure indicated above. However, given the purpose and tenor of this book (philosophical approach to leisure), the focus in the following paragraphs will be on the implications that research done in this regard has for the conceptualisation of leisure and spirituality. Three leisure scholars will be consulted: Willson, the aforementioned Heintzman, and Schmidt. All three of them did conceptual and empirical work on the relationship between leisure and spirituality, albeit their approaches were different.
Willson explores the role that travel plays in the lives of individuals who, whether they are religious or not, are in search of meaning and purpose in life. The respondents from his research differentiate between religion and spirituality and it turns out that everyone considers themselves as spiritual, while only a few qualify themselves as religious. Spirituality is understood as the personal, individual search for meaning in life. Willson’s conceptualisation of ‘spirituality’ in the context of tourism has three core constructs, namely, the search for personal meaning and purpose in life, transcendence, and connectedness in life (2010: 236). Based on these three constructs, he made a thematic analysis of his research data which resulted in four themes. These entail ‘spirituality as the essence of being human’, ‘spirituality experienced subjectively and objectively’, ‘life-defining moments’ and ‘search for meaning fuelled by modern frustrations’ (2010: 250). These themes were in turn analysed and the following main findings were noted: First, the fact that each person could conceptually be regarded ‘spiritual’ has implications for how ‘spiritual tourism’ could be conceptualised. Second, the way in which the respondents experience meaning and purpose in their lives determines their interpretation of their travel experiences: they do not separate spirituality from travel. Third, spirituality is expressed both subjectively and objectively which means that individuals give personal expression of an objective set of values related to a world view which they embrace. Fourth, ‘life-defining’ moments encountered within the realm of travel are seen as moderators for deriving personal meaning in life and influencing the spirituality of the respondents. Fifth, frustration with current modern issues in the Western world, such as materialism and secularism, influences the search for meaning and purpose through travel.
Heintzman developed a conceptual model of the relationship between leisure and spiritual well-being, on the basis of theoretical analysis and empirical study (2002: 147–169). He thereby draws heavily on the conceptual work of Chandler et al. (1992). The background for this endeavour was the need of professional practitioners in the leisure industry (in this case, among others, in the fields of camping, public land management, tourism and community recreation) to contribute to the spiritual well-being of partakers in recreation, whereby a good understanding of this interrelationship was necessary. His model rests on two conceptual pillars: leisure style and spiritual well-being. Leisure style, on the one hand, refers to ‘overall patterns of leisure activity engagement and time usage’ and has the following dimensions: time, activity, setting and motivation (Mannell and Kleiber 1997: 59). Leisure experience, which involves interplay between these four dimensions, is capable of becoming a context in which spirituality can be explored. According to Heintzman, leisure style is the medium through which leisure experiences with a spiritual character can lead to spiritual development. Spiritual well-being, on the other hand (used as a synonym for spiritual wellness and spiritual health by him), is related to the following factors:
a sense of life purpose and ultimate meaning; oneness with nature and beauty and a connectedness with others; deep concern for and commitment to something greater than self; a sense of wholeness in life; strong spiritual beliefs, principles, ethics and values; love, joy, peace, hope and fulfilment, and experience of communion or having a personal relationship with a higher power.
(Heintzman 2002: 151)
In follow-up research, Heintzman came up with a more articulated definition of spiritual well-being. He holds it to have:
a high level of faith, hope, and commitment, in relation to a well-defined worldview or belief system that provides a sense of meaning and purpose to existence in general, and that offers an ethical path to personal fulfilment, which includes connectedness with self, others and a higher power or larger reality.
(Heintzman 2009: 423)
Activities that enhance personal development, such as reading, culture and outdoor activities, were significantly correlated with spiritual well-being. Nature-related recreation, like picnicking, gardening and zoo or park visits, were identified as facilitators of outdoor activities leading to spiritual well-being (Heintzman 2010). Sacralisation (the process in which an individual is sensitised to the spiritual (Heintzman 2015: 238)), sense of place and repression avoidance are posed by him as specific spiritual functions of leisure. Leisure can therefore be either a catalyst or a suppressant in facilitating spiritual experience, c.q. spiritual well-being, but most of all, in following Doolan, Heintzman holds: ‘spirituality requires a leisured approach to life’ (2015: xxiv).
Schmidt did phenomenological research on the experiences of twenty-four co-researchers that could be related to the spiritual dimensions of leisure. His study was done against the background of research findings or notions that regard leisure as capable of enhancing people’s physical health, sense of well-being and quality of life; of inducing a spiritual experience and as being a ‘space’ in which people explore what it means to be fully human (Schmidt 2007). Following Chandler et al. (1992), he relates spirituality to the human capacity and an inclination of transcending existing knowledge, expressing belief in a higher power and to a mystical state (Schmidt 2007: 174–175; Schmidt and Little 2007: 224). The data reported that spiritual experiences could occur in different places, environments (both urban and nature) and contexts, including both individual and social experiences, and active and passive activities. More specifically, activities like bushwalking, travel, reading, walking, rock climbing, being in nature, meditation, fire walking, among others, were reported to have been instrumental value for spiritual experiences (Schmidt and Little 2007: 229). The outcomes suggested that the respondents experienced greater consciousness of and connection with themselves, others and/or God. They also experienced personal growth and greater freedom through learning and transformation. The spiritual experiences were triggered by nature, combined with newness and difference which, in turn, evoked a challenge of some kind (e.g. a physical test or mastering technical abilities). Another trigger is related to the role ritual and tradition played in the creation of those experiences. These triggers led respondents to focus on the world and find new ways of looking at it. Feelings and sensations, or emotions, were reported to be central in these leisure experiences, which concurs with the awareness that these experiences were spiritual (Schmidt and Little 2007: 242). The meanings ascribed to these experiences are essentially related to awareness of self as being, becoming and belonging, and the valuation of time and place as ‘spaces’ for self.
Spiritual experience seemingly varies with regard to context, conditions, kinds of activity and situations. Schmidt draws the same conclusions as Heintzman: spirituality relates to the human capacity and inclination of transcending existing knowledge, expressing belief in a higher power and to a mystical state. Spirituality includes a frame of reference that is wider than the immediate, the material, the everyday and leads the believer to seek or experience a personal meaning in their own life (Schmidt 2007: 174–175; Schmidt and Little 2007: 224). Strikingly, Schmidt discovers from his research that the ‘sacred’ dimension of spirituality – as explicated in the conceptual analysis above – is not primary. However, he does identify a ‘transcendence’ dimension, but apparently the respondents in his research did not see that as identical with ‘sacred’. This aligns with Willson’s position as described above.
Some of the characteristics of ‘spirituality’ as outlined have been confirmed by the studies done by these three scholars. However there is one striking difference: the non-synonymity of the above-mentioned two varieties of spirituality in a leisure context. It demands additional conceptual exploration. In particular, such an investigation might help to make better sense of, for example, Blackshaw’s (2010) reference to leisure as something ‘holy’. Which kinds of spirituality should be connected to leisure experiences? Are they two separate dimensions of a certain kind of (primordial) spirituality, or is there conceptual ‘confusion’ in play? In addition, what is the relevance of this apparent duality for Blackshaw’s notion that the meaning ascribed to leisure is of an ultimate or ontological nature?
To be brief: a possible ‘answer’ might be found via reflection on the distinction between the psyche and the spirit as two domains of the human mind which are concerned with the creation and experiencing of (two kinds of) meaning. Whereas the psyche deals with making and experiencing meaning in life, which relates to possible structures in the mind that prevent or promote psychological well-being, the spirit deals with the quest for the meaning of life (ultimate or ontological meaning) and is therefore related to spiritual well-being (Bouwer 2008: 446). This could mean that Willson’s, Heintzman’s and Schmidt’s conceptualisations are fundamentally related to psychological well-being and not spiritual well-being. The nature of the meaning people experience determines that. This conceptual confusion also applies to the leisure concept they brought into dialogue with spirituality. Although they acknowledge the moral and divine nature of the classical concept of leisure, they especially relate spirituality in their research – as is shown by the examples of leisure activities mentioned above – to leisure as anapausis (recreational activities). The lead back to skholē (condition of the soul) has conceptually not seriously been followed and explored. A retrospective move (from leisure to spirituality) could have led, for example, to consider self-discovery or self-development as a structural motive of a specific kind of (primordial) spirituality. It could also have shined more light on the value of and the conceptual interrelationships between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘transcendental’ or the ‘holy’ as dimensions of spirituality (Bouwer 2013: 290), and also on the cultural and normative presuppositions underlying their conceptual choices. Research done in South Africa confirmed this critique: it pointed out that leisure (as relaxation), among other factors, was regarded as less meaningful in the lives of the respondents than family and spirituality, which were regarded as factors that had the highest impact on meaning in life (Coetzee et al. 2010). More rigorous and robust conceptual analysis is needed with regard to the interrelations between leisure (skholē) and spirituality.
It has been pointed out earlier that Blackshaw holds leisure to be a devotional practice, which entails that the conscious individual appropriation of leisure practices is based on a feeling that deems those practices to be something ‘holy’, as ‘though engaging in it were a religious function’ (2010: 142). His position concurs with how Pieper regards leisure: it is to be compared with contemplation, it resembles a higher order than the active life, it is the very basis of any culture, it is an attitude of mind, a condition of the soul (1998). This is a more foundational point of view than merely acknowledging the prevalence of a relationship between leisure (activities) and spirituality. In turn, the ‘spiritual’ moniker has been shown to be much broader than merely religious, for it also involves profound intellectual insight and overwhelming aesthetic experience. Through these experiences, a person can place meaningful markers in their life: they can make (ontological) sense of what they experience. A broad conceptualisation of spirituality as explained above could open up fertile new approaches to the study of leisure. A few suggestions, inspired by the four main coordinates of the concept of spirituality, will be briefly explicated below.
First, conceptual reflection and empirical research could be undertaken into the most essential denominator of spirituality, indicated as the sacred, but also as the holy, the transcendent or the mystical. These categories resonate with reflection on the other three main aspects as well. The sacred and the holy are often seen as synonyms, but there is a semantic and conceptual difference indeed. The ‘sacred’ is seen as the core of religiosity (not the other way round); it denotes something that is different from the profane or mundane, and which is worthy of being venerated. The holy denotes completeness or perfection in a religious context (www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-sacred-and-holy/). Whereas the sacred ‘sacralises the social world’ (reinforces the routine order of the social world), the holy ‘desacralises the social world’ (transforms the social order). A social phenomenon, for example soccer, can be regarded as sacred, but without having any religious connotations (Surrency 2007: 44). On the other hand, ‘secular’ facets of social reality could indeed be allocated religious value. Take, for example, the experience of place. It has been investigated for centuries as a key category for understanding religiosity, c.q. spirituality and identity (Sheldrake 2001). Gumbrecht’s work on the fascinating dimension of ‘presence’ (taken as a spatial and not a temporal phenomenon) in which cultural phenomena and events become tangible and have an impact on the senses and bodies, could also greatly add to this discussion (2004: xiii). This also applies to other social phenomena in the leisure domain such as consumerism, silent marches, rituality, meditation, yoga and sex. As far as transcendence and the mystical are concerned: transcendence could be experienced as both a vertical (religious or spiritual) and a horizontal category (secular, but still experienced as beyond the self). And a mystical state refers to an advanced state of self-transcendence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)).
Second, conceptual reflection and empirical research could be undertaken into the nature and constituents of experience that is related to a broader consciousness of life and that embraces compassion, awe and cosmic trust. These aspects of spirituality point towards self-development or the art of life, but also to the sacred or transcendence as stated above. Fundamentally, it revolves around the ethical heart of being or becoming fully human. It concerns the good life; eudaimonia; the art of life and wisdom. It also focuses on the question of the spiritual value of the beauty and the sublime that are often recorded as experiences that emerge from the leisure domain. As far as beauty is concerned: the German philosopher Reinhard puts forward the concept of kalokagathia, which she holds to be a unified ideal that embraces goodness, beauty and truth (2014: 18). Beauty, according to this ideal, is dependent on intelligence and moral competence; it comes from inside. But, she holds, nowadays people often turn it around: goodness and truth are derived from beauty. There is only form. No content. The body receives a central place in conscious living. There have been some significant advances in body-based ethical theories in the past decade or so, which have a strong pedigree not just in phenomenology (cf. Bergson, Nietzsche, Husserl), but also in biology and neuroscience. The embodied and embedded cognition paradigm holds that information is not processed by the brain only, but by the entire body, which implies that morality should be seen as a by-product of particular biological predispositions (Bouwer and Van Leeuwen 2013: 590). People commit a lot of effort to experience the sublime via sensory stimulation. The body, through all kinds of activities – among others, sport, fitness, jogging, ballet – is instrumental in experiencing transcendence and spirituality. The work of Merleau-Ponty and Rowlands, but also Nietzsche, Aristotle and Hume, could offer new insights in this regard.
Third, conceptual reflection and empirical research could be undertaken into the interpretations of personal meaning, purpose and connectedness of individuals. As has been described in Chapter 3 of this book: (personal) meanings could be of a different – lower or higher – order and can be contributive or subordinate to ultimate meaning in life. Meaning has to do with flourishing and human fulfilment and calls for reflection on the relationship between pluralistic perspectives on the meaning of life, kinds of connectedness and spirituality. When it comes to the experience of being connected to self, others, nature and the Other, the work of Puett might induce new perspectives on self and connectedness, and therefore also on spirituality. Drawing on Chinese philosophy, he holds that there is no unique self or essence that has to be discovered. In order to flourish, one needs to create the preconditions for it and continuously adapt to events in life without trying to control them. Individuals should cease to search for themselves, but create a new world by making new connections (Puett 2016:47). The spiritual pointe does not reside in who people think they are, but in their views of what they could be. It embraces a dynamic process through which one can have influence and transform the world. It also calls for new rituals that offer new meanings, purpose and connectedness. Puett believes that a good person and a mystic saint are not two separate beings (2016: 53).
Fourth, conceptual reflection and empirical research could be undertaken into the different kinds of transformation human beings experience in their lives when involved in leisure activities and/or experiencing leisure time. These transformations could be brought into dialogue with the coordinates of meaning and spirituality. More specifically, studying the process of spiritual transformation, which entails a fundamental change in the place and/or nature of the sacred in the life of the individual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_transformation), and which ‘constitutes a change in the meaning system that a person holds as a basis for self-definition, the interpretation of life, and overarching purposes and ultimate concerns’ (Paloutzian 2005: 334) could offer fruitful opportunities for leisure studies. Analyses of notions such as idleness, rest, laziness, time and silence in their relatedness to transformation and the different dimensions of spirituality could also add to developing fertile new approaches to the study of leisure.
This section starts with a brief analysis of the secularisation thesis, which entails that religion would experience a downturn as human autonomy and independence increased due to modernisation. Religious institutes would lose their grip and impact on society. This did happen, but the decrease in, for example, church attendance and the role religious beliefs play in decision-making processes in the public domain – at least in Western societies – does not imply a decrease in religiosity and spirituality. On the contrary, religion – although becoming more and more privatised (and called ‘spirituality’ instead) – is currently a central issue in the public domain. Spirituality received a central place in the study of religion and meaning and seems to have the following conceptual constituents: a sense of the sacred or transcendental, a broader consciousness of life, a specific focus on compassion or love, awe and cosmic trust, a sense of meaning, purpose and connectedness, and a process of transformation in/of human existence.
For quite some time now, leisure scholars have studied the impacts of leisure on individuals and societies, and in recent years also the interrelationships between leisure and spirituality. The work of three leisure scholars who did conceptual and empirical work on this relationship has been investigated. Willson regards the conceptual constituents of spirituality in a leisure context as the search for personal meaning and purpose in life, transcendence, and connectedness in life; Heintzman (2009: 423) as:
a high level of faith, hope, and commitment, in relation to a well-defined worldview or belief system that provides a sense of meaning and purpose to existence in general, and that offers an ethical path to personal fulfilment, which includes connectedness with self, others and a higher power or larger reality;
and Schmidt as the human capacity and inclination of transcending existing knowledge, expressing belief in a higher power and a mystical state. Yet Schmidt discovered that the sacred and the transcendent are conceived differently and that two kinds of spirituality could be identified.
This need for further reflection is strengthened by the fact that different kinds of meaning and different conceptualisations of spirituality emerged from research. The (at times uncritical) application and understanding of the construct spiritual well-being in relation to the essence of skholē, gives rise to the suspicion that conceptual confusion is in play. Given the two modes of (ultimate) meaning related to the psyche and the spirit respectively, more rigorous research and refined conceptual analysis is needed in order to assess the different facets of the sacred and transcendence within different contexts and settings. Therefore, it is proposed that conceptual reflection and empirical research should be undertaken into the above-mentioned main coordinates of spirituality and their (adjacent) constituents. It could stimulate fertile new approaches to the study of leisure.
Bailey, E. (1997) Implicit Religion in Contemporary Society. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
Blackshaw, T. (2010) Leisure. London/New York: Routledge.
Bouwer, J. (2008) ‘The domain and formal object of spiritual care’, in Blommestijn, H. and Waaijman, K. (eds) Seeing the Seeker: Explorations in the Discipline of Spirituality. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters: 443–451.
Bouwer, J. (2013) ‘Leisure as Moderator for Spiritual Well-being?’ in Westerink, H. (ed.) Constructs of Meaning and Religious Transformation. Current Issues in the Psychology of Religion. Göttingen: V&R unipress: 275–296.
Bouwer, J. and van Leeuwen, M. (2013) ‘The Meaning of Liquid Leisure’ in Blackshaw, T. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Leisure Studies. London/New York: Routledge: 584–596.
Casanova, J. (2006) ‘Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective’. The Hedgehog Review, 8(1–2): 7–22.
Chandler C.K., Holden, J.M. and Kolander, C.A. (1992) ‘Counselling for spiritual wellness: theory and practice’. Journal for Counselling and development, 71: 168–175.
Coetzee, H.K., Wissing, M.P. and Temane, Q.M. (2010) ‘Meaningfulness as experienced by a group of South Africans’. Tijdskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 50(3): 293–312.
Edginton, A.R., Jordan, D.J., DeGraaf, D.G. and Edginton, S. (eds) (2002) Leisure and life satisfaction: foundational perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Flanagan, K. and Jupp, P. (eds) (2010) A Sociology of Spirituality. Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Giordan, G. (2010) ‘Spirituality: From a Religious Concept to a Sociological Theory’ in Flanagan, K. and Jupp, P.C. (eds) A Sociology of Spirituality. Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate: 161–180.
Godbey, G. (1997) Leisure and Leisure Services in the 21st Century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Goodale, T. and Godbey, G. (1988) The Evolution of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Graham, G. (2007) The Re-enchantment of the World. Art versus Religion. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Gumbrecht, H.U. (2004) What meaning cannot convey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heintzman, P. (2002) ‘A conceptual model of leisure and spiritual well-being’. Journal of Park and recreation administration, 20(4): 147–169.
Heintzman, P. (2009) ‘The spiritual benefits of leisure’. Leisure/Loisir, 33(1): 419–445.
Heintzman, P. (2010) ‘Nature-based recreation and spirituality: a complex relationship’. Leisure Studies, 32(1): 72–89.
Heintzman, P. (2015) Leisure and Spirituality. Biblical, Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Heo, J., Lee, Y., McCormick, B.P. and Pedersen, P.M. (2010) ‘Daily experience of serious leisure flow and subjective well-being of older adults’. Leisure Studies, 29(2): 207–225.
Johanson, A. and Backman, K.F. (2010) ‘Leisure and community type as indicators of overall quality of life’. World Leisure Journal, 2: 104–115.
Kosmin, B.A. (2014) ‘Secular Republic or Christian Nation? The Battlefields of the American Culture War’ in Hartney, C. (ed.) Secularisation: New Historical Perspectives. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 151–172.
Lord, E. and Patterson, I. (2009) ‘The benefits of physically active leisure for people with disabilities: an Australian perspective’. Annals of Leisure Research, 11(1/2): 123–144.
Luckmann, T. (1967) The Invisible Religion: the Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New York: Macmillan.
Main, R. (2008) ‘Secularisation and the “Holistic Milieu”: Social and Psychological Perspectives’. Religion Compass, 2(3): 365–384.
Mannell, R.C. and Kleiber, D.A. (1997) A social psychology of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Nawijn, J. (2011) ‘Determinants of daily happiness on vacation’. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5): 559–566.
Ott, H. (1981) Die Antwort des Glaubens. Stuttgart/Berlin: Kreuz-Verl.: 340–341.
Paloutzian, R.F. (2005) ‘Religious conversion and spiritual transformation: A meaning-system analysis’ in Paloutzian, R.F. and Park, C.L. (eds) Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York: Guilford: 331–347.
Pieper, J. (1998) Leisure: The basis of culture. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
Possamai, A. (2009) Sociology of Religion for Generations X and Y. London/Oakville, CT: Equinox.
Post, P. (2013) ‘De Pelgrim en de Toerist: Verkenning van een topos’. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 67(2): 135–149.
Pott, H. (2007) ‘Schaduwen van een dode God’. Filosofie en Praktijk, 28(1): 5–15.
Puchalski, C.M. (2009) ‘Ethical concerns and boundaries in spirituality and health’. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 11(10): 804–815 (electronic version).
Puett, M. (2016) ‘Zoek niet naar jezelf, maar creëer een nieuwe wereld’. Filosofie Magazine, 24(5): 47–53.
Rahner, K. (1969) Theological Investigations (6). London: DLT: 390–398.
Reinhard, R. (2014) ‘Ware Schoonheid bevindt zich onder de oppervlakte’. Filosofie Magazine, 23(10): 18–21.
Roothaan, A. (2007) Spiritualiteit begrijpen: een filosofische inleiding. Amsterdam: Boom.
Sacred and holy, www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-sacred-and-holy/ (retrieved on 5 May 2016).
Schmidt, C. (2007) ‘The lived experience of the spiritual potential of leisure’. Annals of Leisure Research, 19(3): 173–193.
Schmidt, C. and Little, D.E. (2007) ‘Qualitative insights into leisure as a spiritual experience’. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(2): 222–247.
Schneider, I.E. and Iwasaki, Y. (2003) ‘Reflections on leisure, stress and coping research’. Leisure Sciences, 25(2): 301–305.
Secularization, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization (retrieved on 26 April 2016).
Sheldrake, P. (2001) Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory and Identity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Solomon, R. (2004) Spiritualiteit voor sceptici. Baarn, the Netherlands: Ten Have.
Spiritual transformation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_transformation (retrieved on 7 May 2016).
Stausberg, M. (2010) Religion im modernen Tourismus. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen.
Surrency, D. (2007) ‘The proliferating sacred: Secularization and postmodernity’ Graduate Theses and Dissertations http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2379.
Sylvain, R. (2002) Traces of the Spirit. The Religious Dimensions of Popular Music. New York/London: New York University Press.
Transcendence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy) (retrieved on 5 May 2016).
Waaijman, K. (2006) ‘What is spirituality?’. Acta Theologica Supplementum, 8: 1–18.
Willson, G.B. (2010) Exploring Travel and Spirituality: The role of travel in facilitating life purpose and meaning within the lives of individuals. University of Waikato (PhD) http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/4030/thesis.pdf?sequence=3 (retrieved on 14 May 2012).
Wright Mills, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zinnbauer, B.J. and Pargament, K.I. (2005) ‘Religiousness and spirituality’ in Paloutzian, R.F. and Park, C.L. (eds) Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York: The Guilford Press: 21–42.
[Parts of this chapter have been previously published in Bouwer, J. (2013) ‘Leisure as Moderator for Spiritual Well-being?’ in Westerink, H. (ed.) Constructs of Meaning and Religious Transformation. Current Issues in the Psychology of Religion. Göttingen: V&R unipress: 275–296. The permission given by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht for using this material is greatly appreciated.]