Leisure Studies as an academic discipline has emerged from sociology and although it has also been studied by a vast array of academic disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, geography, economics and political science, it still has a very strong relationship with the social sciences. As a discipline, Leisure Studies has come of age in the last thirty years and its interdisciplinarity has been diagnosed as a key factor in its successful development (Rojek et al. 2006: 7). Although hard-line (classical) sociologists hold leisure to be an activity subservient to labour in human life, they pose leisure in the same breath to be ‘the means through which cultural, political, ethical and spiritual existence can be enhanced and refined for the betterment of life in general’ (Rojek et al. 2006: 19). This statement has the character of an outcry, meant to silence the loud voice of labour in social reality.
Leisure Studies might have been a mature discipline and social reality would never have been fully understood if one of its fundamental constituents, namely leisure, had been neglected, but the study of its subject matter seems to have got stuck in a niche in the comprehensive domain of social studies. Some scholars are less subtle in their assessment of the status of Leisure Studies as an academic discipline. They emphatically declare Leisure Studies to be in a state of crisis. Mommaas, for instance, noted as early as 1997 that research within this field was no longer connected to the concepts of leisure or free time (241). One explanation of this is that the orthodox leisure science paradigm, based as it is on outdated sociological insights, fails to accommodate the theoretical and methodological necessities that leisure in the so-called postmodern era demands (Bouwer and Van Leeuwen 2013: 584). To curb this crisis, Coalter suggests that ‘the nature of leisure meanings and their relationship to wider sources of meaning and identity’ should be more adequately addressed in Leisure Studies (1997: 265). According to him neither a normative theoretical approach nor a cognitive theoretical approach to leisure has been able to conquer the impasse Leisure Studies is in. Studying the ontology of leisure should receive much more attention than it has done before. Henderson proposes a four-tiered approach in overcoming the crisis. She suggests that objects, perspectives and contexts that are in a continuing state of transmutation should be studied; a new identity for Leisure Studies in which leisure is seen as a basic value should be searched for; analysis of what makes life meaningful, and cross-disciplinary collaboration with the purpose of generating ‘co-created knowledge’ should be pursued (2010: 397–398). Blackshaw, in forcing a hermeneutical break with the orthodox sociology of leisure, calls for an exploration of the conceptual interconnections between ‘liquid leisure’ and individual meanings of leisure (2010: 120). Positivist analyses have failed to take individual meaning (of leisure activities or attitudes) into consideration. He takes special care to focus on the human search for meaning and authenticity within a ‘liquid modern context’, based as it is on freedom and the exploration thereof by social agents. In this sense, leisure can be viewed as a facilitator of meaning and a domain for individual freedom (Bouwer and Van Leeuwen 2013: 586). These scholars are knocking on the door of philosophy. New impulses seem to be needed.
Remarkably, while leisure has predominantly been studied by a vast array of disciplines within the realm of social sciences, there has only been some modest overlap with disciplines categorised under the heading of the humanities, such as history, anthropology and area studies. Especially the hermeneutic turn in sociology has opened some sociological minds to philosophy and even to religion and spirituality. But, historically speaking, the harvest of studies engaging with philosophical questions in the field of leisure studies is rather small.
In the twentieth century, monographs dealing with foundational aspects of leisure are quite scarce. They are found in different epochs and written from different disciplinary angles. A few ‘modern’ classics that focus on the phenomenon of leisure and have been published in English are the following: Homo Ludens (Huizinga 1950) takes a cultural-historical approach to the phenomenon of play, which is regarded as an essential, but insufficient, element in the generation of culture, while Leisure. The Basis of Culture (Pieper 1998) takes a philosophical-anthropological approach to sharply distinguish between work and leisure, whereby the latter concerns rest, reflection and contemplation, and is posed as the most essential feature of any culture. Another classic that should be mentioned together with the other two is Of Time, Work and Leisure, written by De Grazia (1962). He made a serious attempt to place his sociological reflections on work within the frame of (conceptual) history and the future of leisure. His premise is that leisure is about contemplation, expanding awareness and understanding the world, as opposed to the negative industrial goals of modern society. A ‘non-classic’ monograph, but one which is worth mentioning, is Leisure and Recreation Concepts: A Critical Analysis, written by Shivers in 1981. He examines leisure and recreation as important parts of human behaviour from historical, cultural and intellectual perspectives. In a rather psychological way he holds recreation to be different from leisure. Leisure is seen as time free from work and its adversities, but also entails learning what leisure might bring to humanity, whereas recreation is considered the fulfilment of the human need for ‘psychological homeostasis’ (209), and therefore depicts ‘any nondebilitating, consummatory experience’ (210).
As far as anthologies are concerned, two titles stand out. They are The Philosophy of Leisure (1989), edited by Winnifrith and Barret, and Leisure and Ethics: Reflections on the Philosophy of Leisure (1991), edited by Fain. Winnifrith and Barret hold that leisure cannot be discussed without any reference to work. Work is a necessary condition for leisure while leisure is the end, the goal, of human life (1989: 1). There are all kinds of work including that which was previously seen as leisure, such as writing, painting, playing music, study and teaching, because leisure is fundamentally about the ‘fulfilment of human potential’ (1989: 2). Leisure is about living and how human beings ought to live their lives. The contributing authors reflect on which of the two phenomena is more liberating, and discuss issues like the Aristotelian view of leisure, human value, privacy and quite a range of moral problems. Interestingly enough, Fain has compiled a book of which the contributions are situated either in the realm of ‘moral philosophy or leisure theory’ (1991: vii), while the subtitle of the book could suggest otherwise. Yet leisure, to his mind, is a ‘conceptualisation of freedom, individual liberty, creative expression and developer of human potential’ which fundamentally relate to the ‘freedom to choose how one “ought” to live’ (1991: 316). He holds personal reflection on moral questions to be more basic than the act of leisure, and concludes that the essence of leisure is ‘wonder’ – an act of ‘creative transcendence’ which encourages human experience to ‘reach beyond its known limits’ and calls forth a future of potentiality (1991: 321).
The harvest of publications on issues touching the philosophical foundations of leisure is in the twenty-first century more substantial than in the previous century. A few monographs written by sociologists that cover (parts) of the philosophical grounds of leisure are Rademakers’ Dutch publication Philosophy of Free Time (2003), Rojek’s Leisure Theory: Principles and Practice (2005), Holba’s Philosophical Leisure: Recuperative Practice for Human Communication (2007), Blackshaw’s Leisure (2010), Spracklen’s Constructing Leisure: Historical and Philosophical Debates (2011) and Stebbins’ The Idea of Leisure: First principles (2012). Rade-makers focuses mainly on the analysis of the social history of free time/leisure. His partners in discussion are representatives of the continental European philosophical tradition (e.g. classical German and French philosophers who wrote on existentialism and (post)modernism. This book is a bit limited in scope since it misses the connection with the analytical (Anglo-Saxon) philosophical tradition and the correlations with the exact sciences (e.g. neurophysiology in the case of freedom) and the philosophy of science this connection brings. Rojek has written a systematic philosophical-sociological essay that integrates the study of leisure in the historical and theoretical human sciences. The golden thread in his approach is the operation of leisure within the lifetime and, in so doing, he engages in dialogue with the interdisciplinary field of leisure that has evolved from sociology, psychology, human geography, political science, social history and also environmental, business and management studies. His audience is the novice who wants to get acquainted with the study of leisure. Although he addresses philosophical issues, the tenure of the book essentially is socio-politico-economico-geographical. Holba coins the term ‘philosophical leisure’ as opposed to current conceptualisations of leisure, which focus on short-term activities and interruptions from work. She reverts to Aristotle’s notion of skholē and Pieper’s notion of silence and holds philosophical leisure to be a private and individual concern which embraces aesthetics and communication as ways to recuperation. It offers growth in the long term, transformation and an integrated approach to personal life, which fundamentally is a mental and spiritual endeavour. Blackshaw challenges scholars to take up the philosophical gauntlet. However, his own emphasis shifts from the historical to the sociological while zooming in on modernist and postmodernist positions in the study of leisure. Furthermore, he has chosen to write an essay-like book that conveys and defends his own position on the sociology of leisure, rather than studying the first principles of leisure as such. He does not focus on an exhaustive conceptual analysis of leisure. Spracklen presents a stimulating historical and, to some extent, anthropological discussion of leisure as a concept and as a practice. The attention given to the relevance, in understanding leisure, of modern philosophical-scientific developments is limited to his final chapter, in which he also refers to Blackshaw (2010). Although Roberts values Spracklen’s book as ‘probably the most important contribution to leisure scholarship so far in the twenty-first century’, he asserts that ‘a clear and precise definition of “leisure” ’ is lacking (2013: 229–231). In addition, although the title of Stebbins’ book suggests engagement with a philosophical perspective, it does not. He primarily takes a sociological perspective in trying to analyse the concept of leisure. His discussion is framed in terms of the factors that contribute to social and societal progress – hence the prominent position he affords to the idea of ‘serious leisure’.
As far as handbooks and introductions to leisure are concerned, different works have been published which include sections dealing with philosophical or foundational issues. For example, Cooper has written the opening chapter of Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-first Century (Jackson and Burton 1999: 3–14) titled ‘Some philosophical aspects of leisure theory’. He points out that there is considerable scholarly disagreement about which leisure concept is the most suitable to guide theory. To his mind, it should be leisure as an activity that evokes intrinsic desire, that is, is longed for for its own sake, and is realised ‘authentically and self-expressively’ (1999: 13–14). Edginton et al. have dedicated a chapter to ‘Philosophical and conceptual themes’ in their Leisure and Life Satisfaction: Foundational Perspectives book (2002: 92–115) and Sager gets engaged with the philosophy of leisure in the very first chapter of the Routledge Handbook of Leisure Studies (Blackshaw 2013: 5–14). Whereas Edginton et al. reflect on philosophy with the purpose of looking for guidance regarding the work of the professional, Sager focuses on the philosophical development of leisure and its moral and political relevance (2013: 5). Edginton et al. mainly convey ‘guidelines’ for constructing a (philosophical) framework for action and ‘understanding of the purpose and reasons governing behaviour and actions’ (1999: 113) and not so much on clarifying the conceptual essence of leisure itself. Sager, in an attempt to overcome the work–leisure dichotomy, puts forward that leisure ‘raises central questions about the good life’, which necessitates reflection on the nature and value of activities, and the way in which leisure structures human relationships – including animals and nature (2013: 9–11). It is, as said, both an ethical and political endeavour. In the political realm, philosophy of leisure should consider the subject matter of ‘civic virtue’ in its relatedness to human rights, human needs, distributive justice and education (2013: 12–13). Sager concludes that it is important to assess which, and in what way, social institutions ‘promote or hinder human flourishing’ (2013: 13).
In closing the (non-exhaustive) exposé on literature dealing with foundational and philosophical approaches to leisure, a few journal articles will be mentioned that convey different opinions about the essence of leisure. Weiss states that leisure is:
the time when men can be at their best, making it possible for them to make the rest of their day as excellent as possible by … enabling them to give a new value and perhaps a new objective to whatever is done.
(1965: 7)
Bregha puts forward that the philosophy of leisure embraces both psychological and sociological approaches to the impacts of leisure, as a value and an end, on all aspects of human life, but especially on freedom and ethics (1980); Sylvester identifies different categories such as play, leisure and recreation associated with divine goals such as higher values, contemplation and spirituality; and play, leisure and recreation associated with happiness and self-actualisation (1987); Scruton believes that leisure is instrumental to human fulfilment based on a sense of community, which strengthens personal and communal affirmation (2008); and Wise holds leisure as contributing to human meaning and flourishing, based on community, freedom and virtuous behaviour (2014).
Apparently most of the ‘philosophical reflections’ on the foundations or first principles of leisure explicated above have sociological, anthropological, psychological and even historical concerns, and are primarily ‘operational’ in character. This means that these approaches consciously intend to serve further reflection on leisure practices against the background of developments such as increasing bureaucratisation and commercialisation in the service sector, and quality of life, marketing, environmental issues, benefits-based management and hedonistic approaches (McClean and Hurd 2015: 349–356). Fundamental-ontological approaches to the study of leisure are rather scarce and, to the mind of many leisure scholars, have not been given sufficient (systematic) attention and therefore need to be addressed.
It is therefore the purpose of this book to approach the phenomenon of leisure from a truly ‘pure’ philosophical perspective in the hope that new ideas are born that could contribute to revitalising the study of leisure, or ‘dead leisure theory’ as assessed by Blackshaw (2014), leading to a revisiting of Moorhouse’s assessment that ‘the real orthodoxy of leisure studies is a conceptual and theoretical confusion coupled with unwillingness to break out of its own isolation’ (1989: 27), thereby bringing some relief to the crisis Leisure Studies apparently is in. As is known, philosophy – methodologically speaking – especially aims at the clarification of thoughts, concepts and language. It attempts to ‘understand the general principles and ideas that lie behind various aspects of life and the language we use to convey them’ (Thompson 2010: x–xi), thereby explicating the implicit and illuminating the correlations and coherence among phenomena. It reflects rationally on the past and the present, and anticipates the future. It is not just about thinking, but ‘thinking about thinking’ (Thompson 2010: xiii). The activity philosophy engages in is supported by a philosophical body of knowledge that is divided into different branches. However, in practice they all interpenetrate. The big questions philosophy is concerned with are metaphysics (human identity and meaningful life), aesthetics (beauty in art, music and literature), ethics (the nature of good and evil), social and political philosophy (justice and society) and epistemology and logic (nature of human knowledge). All of these issues will in one or another form be addressed in this study, but the main categories, carrying those issues, are the notions of freedom, meaning, identity and ethics.
A dual approach of philosophising will be followed: it will deal with both traditional concepts and themes in the analysis of the foundations of leisure as well as with new focal points in the domain of leisure that are defined by recent developments in society and the broader discipline of philosophy itself such as embodiment, virtuality and technology, and religion and spirituality and interculturality. Thus the analytical style of the book is to develop an Ideengeschichte (history of ideas) that identifies and clarifies the fundamental ideas on leisure developed throughout history on the one hand, but also ideas that are relevant for the domain of study today on the other. This adventure of analysing and bringing concepts from different historical epochs into dialogue with one another is guided by inquiry into the very nature of reality, being or existence.
More specifically, the book consists of three parts that are thematically bridged by two intermezzos. It ends with a brief conclusion.
Part I, starting with the ancient Greeks and ending with current times, has one chapter that gives an overview of the different leisure ideas as conceived and theorised through history in relating to the leisure ideal. The leisure ideal is arguably the definiendum of the leisure concept.
Intermezzo I links Part I to Part II, which philosophically analyses the foundations of leisure in four chapters, by assessing the (modern/post-modern) nature of the zeitgeist. This bridge is important since leisure is always conceptualised and understood within a specific historical epoch.
The philosophical analysis in Part II is concerned with a dialogue between philosophical themes such as freedom, meaning and experience, identity and ethics, and contemporary reflection on and the application of leisure concepts. These four themes are explored in Chapters 2 to 5. Chapter 2 examines freedom and free will as constitutive of leisure behaviour; Chapter 3 teases out the conceptual attributes, antecedents and empirical referents of ‘meaning’ and ‘experience’, and their relatedness to each other, and to leisure; Chapter 4 is concerned with the contribution of leisure to personal identity; and Chapter 5 addresses the (inter)relationships between leisure and ethics against the background of the ontological value they have for reflection on the leisure idea.
Part III is preceded by Intermezzo II, which bridges the analysis of the foundations of leisure with possible future directions in the study of leisure. Thematically this intermezzo combines leisure, postmodern modes of experience leisure as ‘art of life’. Part III, as said, deals with future directions in the study of leisure. These directions are treated in four chapters. Chapter 6 contrasts embodiment with virtuality as it emerges in the use of the Internet and social media in leisure; Chapter 7 advocates further study into the (conceptual and empirical) interferences between leisure and spirituality, based on the current centrality of spirituality in the (secularisation and public) debate; Chapters 8 and 9 are about the potential role of leisure in improving well-being. In Chapter 8, the focus will be on the role of leisure pursuits in self-actualisation, on using leisure to become who you want to be, or who you perhaps already are. It is about improving personal well-being and mental health through leisure. Chapter 9 is about extrapolating the individualistic self-improvement focus of Chapter 8 into an implementation of leisure and leisure-related concepts to facilitate communal well-being and the co-creation of solutions to shared problems.
In the last, concluding, section, the different constituents of leisure, c.q. the (foundational basis of the) leisure idea, teased out from its historical embedment and the philosophical analysis of its relatedness to freedom, meaning and experience, identity and ethics are mapped. The main question here is whether the philosophical adventure undertaken in this book has delivered a plausible prospect to fertile new approaches to the study of leisure.
To conclude, the authors have divided the chapters between themselves according to themes which are closest to their own expertise or interest. Bouwer has accounted for the Introduction, Chapters 1, 3, 5, 7, Intermezzo I and concluding thoughts, while Van Leeuwen has accounted for Chapters 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and Intermezzo II.
The authors have – as many before them – experienced the agony of dealing with the fuzziness of the concepts which are so central to understanding (one of) the most fundamental constituent of human(e) life: leisure. Whatever its meaning(s) might be, there looms some consolation in Puett et al.’s notion that there hides promise in every attempt to create order in our shredded reality (2016: 229). Hopefully it is also true for the adventure undertaken in this book.
Blackshaw, T. (2010) Leisure. London/New York: Routledge.
Blackshaw, T. (ed.) (2013) Routledge Handbook of Leisure Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Blackshaw, T. (2014) ‘The Crisis in Sociological Leisure Studies and What to do About it’. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2): 127–144.
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.
Bregha, F. (1980) ‘Philosophy of Leisure: Unanswered Questions’. Recreation Research Review, 8(1): 15–19.
Coalter, F. (1997) ‘Leisure Sciences and Leisure Studies: Different Concepts, Same Crisis?’ Leisure Sciences, 19(4): 255–268.
Cooper, W. (1999) ‘Some Philosophical Aspects of Leisure Theory’ in Jackson, E.L. and Burton, T.L. (eds) Leisure Studies. Prospects for the Twenty-first Century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing: 3–14.
De Grazia, S. (1962) Of Time, Work and Leisure. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Edginton, C.R., Jordan, D.J., DeGraaf, D.G. and Edginton, S.R. (2002) Leisure and Life Satisfaction. Foundational Perspectives (3rd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fain, G.S. (ed.) (1991) Leisure and Ethics: Reflections on the Philosophy of Leisure. Reston, VA: American Association for Leisure and Recreation.
Henderson, K.A. (2010) ‘Leisure Studies in the 21st Century: The Sky is Falling?’ Leisure Sciences, 32(4): 391–400.
Holba, A. (2007) Philosophical Leisure: Recuperative Practice for Human Communication. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Huizinga, J. (1950) Homo Ludens. Boston: Beacon Press.
Jackson, E.L. and Burton, T.L. (eds) (1999) Leisure Studies. Prospects for the Twenty-first Century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
McClean, D.D. and Hurd, A.R. (2015) Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. Tenth Edition. London/Burlington, VT: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Mommaas, H. (1997) ‘European Leisure at the Crossroads? A History of Leisure Studies in Europe’. Leisure Studies, 19(4): 241–254.
Moorhouse, H. (1989) ‘Models of Work, Models of Leisure’ in Rojek, C. (ed.) Leisure for Leisure. Critical Essays. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press: 15–35.
Pieper, J. (1998) The Basis of Culture. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press.
Puett, M., Gross-Loh, C. and Noorman, J. (2016) De Weg. Wat Chinese Filosofen ons over het Goede Leven Leren. Utrecht: Ten Have.
Rademakers, L. (2003) Filosofie van de Vrije Tijd. Budel, the Netherlands: Damon.
Roberts, K. (2013) ‘Constructing Leisure: Historical and Philosophical Debates’. Leisure Studies, 32(2): 229–231.
Rojek, C. (2005) Leisure Theory: Principles and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rojek, C., Shaw, S.M. and Veal, A.J. (2006) A Handbook of Leisure Studies. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sager, A. (2013) ‘Philosophy of Leisure’ in Blackshaw, T. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Leisure Studies. London/New York: Routledge: 5–14.
Scruton, R. (2008) ‘The Philosophy of Leisure’ in Lafayette, P.E. Leisure and Liberty in North America. Paris: PUPS, Press-Sorbonne: 11–27.
Shivers, J.S. (1981) Leisure and Recreation Concepts: A Critical Analysis. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Spracklen, K. (2011) Constructing Leisure: Historical and Philosophical Debates. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stebbins, R.A. (2012) The Idea of Leisure. First Principles. New Brunswick, NJ/London: Transaction Publishers.
Sylvester, C. (1987) ‘The Ethics of Play, Leisure and Recreation in the Twentieth Century, 1900–1983’. Leisure Sciences, 9: 173–188.
Thompson, M. (2010) Understand Philosophy. Abingdon/Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Weiss, P. (1965) ‘A Philosophical Definition of Leisure’. Quest, 5(1): 1–7.
Winnifrith, T. and Barret, C. (1989) The Philosophy of Leisure. London: Macmillan Press.
Wise, J.B. (2014) ‘What is Leisure? A MacIntyrian Based Response’. Journal of Unconventional Parks, Tourism and Recreation Research, 5(2): 17–22.