24

Leisure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

Chtis Rojek

eisure theory is widely perceived as presenting difficulties for

undergraduates. It is hard to get your head around some of the concepts, and conceptualizing phenomena in abstract, as opposed to
concrete terms, does not come naturally to people. Vet its place 00 the curriculum is indispensable. In essence, leisure theory gives shape to material
that would otherwise appear shapeless. Moreover, privileging me concrete
over the abstract, the practical over the theoretical, itself involves theoretical
assumptions and propositions about what counts as "useful" and "relevant"
knowledge. Thus, the most dogged empiricist is in fact a practical theorist who
makes judgments about me validity of data and the nature of reality albeit
tacitly and often in a non-reflexive way. In short, theory cannot be avoided.
Teaching leisure theory presents special difficulties for the lecturer because the subject is basically parasitic. There are no theories of leisure which
concentrate on leisure first and bring in philosophy, sociology, econornics,
polities and psychology second. The reverse is me case. The topic of leisure is
used to illustrate or test propositions that have been formulated in theoretical
work in philosophy, sociology, econornics, politics and psychology. This reflects
the subordinare status of leisure as an issue in me social sciences. Durkheim's
(1933, p. 26) concJusion that leisure exists "side by side with the serious life
which it serves to balance and relieve" reflects the conventional wisdom in
the field. Classical political economy identified work as me central life interest
and assigned a balancing, secondary funcrion to leisure. The result is that the
battery of concepts and theories operating in leisure theory are drawn from

Source: Society ond ieisure, 20(2) (1997): 383-395.

300

Origlns: Classic:and Coltemporary

Theorles

the grand battalions of social science in which work is treatedas the centrallife
interest. This is evident in me institutional roots of LeisureStudiesin University
departments. Leaving asid the hurnan movement and sporttraditions which
never showed much interest in leisure theory, the germ of thecretical interest in
leisure is to be found in the critiques of industrial society launchedin the 1950s.
It is in the critiques that Friedmann (1961), Riesman (1964), Kerretal. (1973)
and BeU(1974) made of th dehumanizing effects of work in industrial society
that the theoretical inrerest in leisure was bom.
The central motif of this work was the notion that society is moving from
a condition of scarcity to abundance. This condition was perceived as resulting from the increasing autornation of production and the decline of the
working week. Classical political economy was hased on thequestion of how
to share limited resources around many demands. Leisure Theory developed
from the problematic of how post-industrial society was going to cope with
abundant resources and devise princi pIes of allocative justiceequal to the task
of guaranteeing moral order.
At the beginning it developed with nothing but a cursoryinterest in classical social theory. Primafaciethere was little in the classics to interest the leisure
theorist. De Grazia (1962) provided a helpful guide to the philosophical roots
of leisure theory in Classical Antiquity. His work retrieved the classical Greek
and Roman perception of leisure as the key to a civilized existence which the
industrial era had obscured. In the field of social theory, the classic figures
of Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Freud seemed to offer little 01 the question of
leisure. The single unequivocal classic work to take leisure a. its subject, was
Veblen's (1899) Theory of the Leisure Class. However, this book was written
bya figure on the margins af the American academic establishment and was
widely interpreted as being more of a satire on the pecuniaryvalues espoused
by American culture than a theoretical analysis of leisure. This was unfair.
Veblen produces a highly sophisticated and stimulating theory of the connection between leisure and social status and the emulatory importance of leisure in mass society. His stucy demonstrates how the sigo economy of leisure
operates to invest symbolic value in certain activities and lifestyles. lt also
contains a critique of mass leisure as draining the vitality andenergy of industrial culture. Veblen's book was also probably a victim of the foundational
belief in classical political econorny and social theory that work is the central
life interest. This belief is certainly shared by Marx, Durkheim, Weber and
Freud. However, since their social theories aimed to be universal accounts of
human behaviour and processes in industrial society, they provide a basis for
extrapolating distnctive approaches to leisure from them. Elsewhere (Rojek
1985, 1995), I have described these approaches so there is no need to duplicate the task here. Suffice it lo say that the c1assical tradition of social theory
was of negligible irnportance in the early days of postwar leisure theory. On
the contrary, this tradition was rediscovered only after leisure theorists had
atternpted to build leisure rheory on a c1ean slate.

Rojek e Lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

301

It is perhaps useful to picture leisure theory in the postwar period in chronological terms as moving through three distinct periods: the functionalist/
post-industrial society heyday which lasted between 1945 and 1975; the structuralist critique which lasted between 1975 and 1990; and the poststructuralist/
postmodernist phase which describes the current period. Before coming to
the question of the theoretical research agenda which emerges from the poststructuralist/postmodernist
"moment," let me describe the key features of
these three postwar periods.

FunctionalismjPost-industrial

Society

Functionalist approaches are predicated in the concept of the atomized individual. They hold a voluntaristic position on human agency which attributes freedom, choice and self determination to social actors. The context in
which social action occurs is presented as pluralismo That is, a social context
in which power is shared between many different groups and in which, in the
long term, no single group is dominant. Leisure activity is studied from
the standpoint of the individual rather than the situated character in which
leisure choices are made. Post-industrial society theory reproduces many of
the basic assumptions of functionalism. One of its most important propositions is that there is a tendency in advanced industrial societies for leisure
time and space to increase. This is a result of the mechanization oflabour tasks.
Some commentators even posit that there is a "logic" to industrialization
which unfolds regardless of the decisions taken by decision-makers (Kerr et aL,
1973). Functionalism and post-industrial society theories usuallyemphasize
the positive effects of the logic of industrialismo Thty regard normal leisure
practice as enhancing social integration and improving society.
The main weaknesses of functionalist arguments is that they exaggerate
the autonomy of social actors and endorse a meliorist view of leisure. There is
little in them on the role of leisure in change or conflict; instead they endorse
a view of leisure which emphasizes its integrative role in reinforcing social
order. The failure to come to terms with change and conflict adequately derives from an under-:heorized analysis of structural influences such as class,
gender and race.

The Structuralist

Critique

The main forms of structuralism in leisure theory are Marxism and feminismo
Both begin with the situated character of the actor and leisure practice. Marxism suggests that capitalism is the essential context in which human behaviour
and leisure occurs. II presents society as structured around class inequality.
In commodified, consumer culture, leisure is regarded to involve social control. Marcuse (1964) argued that consumer culture requires rnass conforrnity

302

Origins: Classic and Contemporary

Theoriu

and "one dimensionality". On this account, leisure only superficially involves

individual choice. The real question is the social forces which "privilege"
leisure choices.
Feminism also presents society as class ridden and consumer culture as
essentially comrnodified. However, it insists that the structure through which
class and commodfication are expressed is patriarchy. Feminists working in
leisure theory differ about the points of emphasis that they chose to make regarding the practice of patriarchy (Bialcheski and Henderson, 1986; Deem
1986; Green et al., 1987). However, common to ali is the proposition that patriarchy involves the systematic use of male power to subordinate or exclude
women from many aspects of the economy, civil society and leisure practice.
Structuralist approaches insist that human action is conditioned by structural forces which are prior and external to the individual. They denigrate the
pluralist view that power is shared between nany different groups in society
and that lifestyle is a meaningful concept in understanding leisure theory
(Scraton and Talbot, 1989). They also reject the view that study should be disengaged. On the contrary, they demand engagement with the structures of
inequality with a view to exposing and overturning them.
Structuralist approaches are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First,
they underestimate the reflexivity and tacit knowledge of social actors. The
behaviour of individuals tends to be presented as a reflection of their positional
relation to structures of power. This provides a misleading view of the microrelations of leisure. Specifically, it fails to convey the ambiguity, ambivalence
and contingency in leisure relations. Secondly, structuralist approaches tend
to present a skewed analysis of leisure which overstates the significance of
the favoured structural influence at the expense of others. Thus, c1ass analysis tends to attribute too much influence to class in shaping leisure, and not
enough to gender or race. Feminism does the sarne for patriarchy, and the less
developed field of race and leisure follows suit in respect of its claims for the
influence of race. Thirdly, structuralist approaches frequently carry a latent
authoritarianism with them. They stereotype and scapegoat competing positions in the field and deal with ambiguity and ambivalence by attributing to
it an epiphenomenal quality.

Poststructuralist/Postmodernist
Poststructuralism and postmodemism are interrelated forrns of criticizing
the central categories of Modemist thought. Poststructuralisrn emphasizes the
ambiguities ofstructuralist concepts. Concepts likeclass, patriarchy and "the common world of women" are discursively constituted. They are not reflections of
social reality, hut attempts to represent it. Since poststructuralism treats all
forms of representation as intrinsically ambivalent, it follows that it regards

302

Origlns: Classlc and Contemporary

Theories

and "one dimensionality". On this account, leisure only superficially involves

individual choice. The real question is the social forces which "privilege"
leisure choices.
Feminism also presents society as class ridden and consumer culture as
essentially commodified. However, it insists that the structure through which
class and commodfication are expressed is patriarchy. Feminists working in
leisure theory differ about the points of emphasis that they chose to make regarding the practiee of patriarchy (Bialcheski and Henderson, 1986; Deem
1986; Green et aL, 1987). However, common to alI is the proposition that patriarchy involves the systematic use of male power to subordinate or exc1ude
women from many aspects of the eeonomy, civil society and leisure practice.
Structuralist approaches insist that human action is conditioned by structural forces which are prior and externai to the individual. They denigrate the
pluralist view that power is shared between many different groups in society
and that lifestyle is a meaningful concept in understanding leisure theory
(Scraton and Talbot, 1989). They also reject the view that study should be disengaged. On the contrary, they demand engagement with lhe structures of
inequality with a view to exposing and overturning them.
Structuralist approaches are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First,
they underestimate the reflexivity and tacit knowledge of social actors. The
behaviour of individuals tends to be presented as a reflection oftheir positional
relation to struetures of power. This provides a rnisleading view of the microrelations of leisure. SpecifieaUy, it fails to convey the ambiguity, ambivalence
and contingency in leisure relations. Secondly, structuralist approaches tend
to present a skewed analysis of leisure which overstates the significance of
the favoured structural influence at the expense of others. TllUS,c1ass analysis tends to attribute too much influence to c1ass in shaping leisure, and not
enough to gender or race. Ferninism does the same for patriarchy, and the less
developed field of race and leisure follows suit in respect of its claims for the
influenee of race. Thirdly, structuralist approaches frequently carry a latent
authoritarianism with them. They stereotype and scapegoat eompeting positions in the field and deal with ambiguity and ambivalenee by attributing to
it an epiphenomenal quality.

Poststructuralist/Postmodernist
Poststructuralism and postmodernism are interrelated forms of criticizing
the central categories of Modernist thought. Poststructuralism emphasizes the
ambiguities ofstructuralist concepts. Concepts like class, patriarchy and "the common world of women" are di seu rsively constituted. They are not reflections of
social reality, hut attempts to represent it. Since poststrueturalism treats all
forms of representation as intrinsically ambivalent, it follows that it regards

Rojek e Lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

303

the structuralist concepts of Modemism as distortions of reality. That is structuralism imposes categories upon human actions and processes which are nct
confinned by human practice.
Postmodemism seizes upon the idea of ambivalence and stresses the contingency of contemporary life (Bauman, 1986, 1993)_ It insists that our experience of everyday life is marked by fragmentation, differentiation, diversity
and mobility. The economy has shifted from a regulated Fordist system of production to post-fordist accumulation in which flexibility in capital and labour
are the principal characteristics. As befits a poststructuraJist age in whch
representation dominates consciousness, postmodernism regards identity,
association and practice as revolving around the sign economies of consumer
culture. Postrnodemism rejects the notion of a "grand narra tive" which unifies history and practice (Lyotard, 1986). In the diversified, differentiated,
changing world of postmodem culture, the notion that human behaviour can
be satisfactorily explained in terms of class or patriarchy is rejected. Instead,
postmodernism emphasizes the dynamic relation between local and global
processes and the role of micro-politics, One implication of this analysis is
that leisure is a Modemist category which is no longer compatible with postmodem conditions. That is, Modemism detennined that leisure should signify
freedom, choice and self determination. Yetunder postmodemism we experience degrees of freedom, choice and self determination in work and other
reas oflife which negate the proposition thatthese characteristics are uni que
to leisure.
Poststructuralist and postmodernist arguments have been centre stage
for the last twenty years. So it is perhaps not surprising to report that a certa in
sense of exhaustion is now associated with thern. Three points are usually
made. First, these approaches are over-preoccupied with representational and
syrnbolic relations. Their handling of material relations, especially material
inequality, is held to be unsatisfactory. Secondly, in questioning the authority
of collective concepts like class, patriarchy and the nation-state they situate
alI actors at the margins. This diminishes the prospect of an effective reconstructionist politcs of leisure. Thirdly, by privileging arnbiguity and sliding
meanings in the experience and analysis of leisure they limit thernselves to a
descriptive role. Poststructuralisrn and postmodernism are unable to legislate
for qualitative improvements in the organization of leisure. Without legislation it is ali too easy to slip into perpetuaI introspection; and introspection is
tantarnount to colluding with the various injustices associated with material
inequality.
It should perhaps be stressed that these three phases are presented here
as heuristic devices. They are intended to clarify the main features of postwar
development in leisure theory. As with all ideal-type constructions, there will
be more overlap and continuity between phases than is allowed for in the
model. Even so, the delineation may be useful in considering the main characteristics of leisure theory in the postwar period.

304

Orlglns: Classic and Cootemporary

Theorles

As an aside, before going on to the research agenda facing leisure theory

today, ir might be observed that it is unfortunate that the various theoretical
nositions in leisure theory in the postwar period have proved so hostil e to one
another. Scraton and Talbot's (1989) brutal rejection ofVeal's (1989) pluralist
position is just one case in point. Scraton and Talbot do not set out to critique
the pluralist position, they serout to demolish it and raise a structuralist version
of feminism in its place. The character of the argument is to stereotype and
scapegoat Veal's pluralist position so that the reader acquires the impression
that the position under attack is without value. The approach is typical of what
1(1995) elsewhere, calIed thegladiatorialparadigm in Leisure Studies. In such
a paradigm the value of each theory is shown by its ability to triumph over
rival theories in the field and thereby claim theoreticalascendancy. The result
is that rival theoretical positions are polarized and caricatured and that the
interconnections between theories are grossly understated. Forexample. Veal's
(1989) emphasis on Ifesty'e has now re-emerged in several poststructuralist
feminist accounts of contemporary leisure and culture (Thornton, 1995; Gross
and Probyn, 1995; Ang, 1996), while the structuralist feminism espoused by
Scraton and Talbot (1989) now looks like a period piece'. This is not to deny
the value of structural feminism in exposing aspects of male domination in
leisure theory and leisure practice; nor is it to imply that structural feminism
aIone is guilty of stereotyping and scapegoating in leisure theory. For example,
Roberts (1978) and Parker (1983) on behalf of the structuralist position, and
Clarke and Critcher (1985) and Tornlinson (1989) in the Marxist tradition produced some very questionable criticaI readings of competing theories".
In making these general points my purpose is not to try and "get at" particular positions. Rather I want to cJaim that times have moved on. The emphasis
that the poststructuralist/postmodemist
moment places upon ambivalence
alld contingency offers a better chance of recognizing lhe mutualities berween
rival theories. From this, it is to be hoped that more inclusive and relevant
general theories of leisure can be constructed. In particular, I want to criticize
the view that is often expressed that there is little mutual hostility between
approaches to leisure. This is at worst a tendentious view which merely encourages the perpetuation of hostility by denying that it exists. At best, it is
rrerely self-deceiving. The presence of the gladiatorial paradigm is, I propose,
lhe main reason why functionalists find it hard to agree with Marxists and
why postmodemists and feminists seem unable to understand many aspects of
each other's position. I further propose that a cJear awareness of the gladiatorial
paradigm is an essential preliminary requirement in producing better theories
which draw from the best of alI of the competing traditions.
So much for the aside. Turning now to the question of the main subjects of
research in leisure theory. I should first state that this is a personal view. I am
writing from a poststructuralist/postmodernist
position and this will influence
what I take to be the impo:tant issues facing us in leisure theory. I am not

Rojek e lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

305

attempting to legislate for what Leisure Studies should concem itself with in
the future. I have read Bauman's (1986) book on legislators and interpreters
toa carefully to fali into that trap! What I offer here is my own partial/limited
view on the key issues facing Leisure Studies. The personal nature of this view
will he apparent in all that follows. With that understood. I believe that four
points should be made.

Leisure in Post-Fordist Society

The consequences of post-Fordist society threaten leisure as a meaningful
category of social life. To understand why, a little needs to be said about
Fordism and the categories of work and leisure that it delineated. Fordism
is the system of automated mass production developed by Henry T. Ford in
the second decade of the twentieth century. It borrows the strategy of dividing labour tasks into a simple string of standardized components from the
principles of scientific management devised by Frederick Taylor. Added to
this is the ingredient of a high wage labour force. Ford attracted workers by
prornising them high wages in retum for guaranteed, albeit repetitive and
mechanical, jobs. The factor of high wages is crucial. Fordism conceives the
consumption process as being interdependent with production. Henry Ford's
workers exchanged their take home pay for the Model T. Fords that they produced on the assembly line. Routinized, mechanical production activity becarne the foundation of consumer culture. Workers were enticed to accept low
leveIs of work satisfaction in retum for an income that enabled them to engage
fully with the commodity world of consumer culture. Even so, the category
of leisure under Fordism did not entirely abandon Victorian precedents. The
Victorian rational recreationist ideal of leisure as the reward for work was
reinforced by Ford. He even employed bis own company social workers to
monitor the moral behaviour of workers in their free time.
One of the revolutionary aspects of Fordism is that it treated leisure as
being dominated by commodity consumption. The emphasis in Fordist ideology
was twinned between eaming enough money to buy the commodities on
offer and eaming more in the future to improve consumption capacity. For the
rational recreationists, self-improvement complemented rest and relaxation
as the characteristics of healthy leisure. Ford redefined the centre of leisure
activity as consumer acquisition. Under Ford's system leisure became connected
with the idea of accumulating commodities and savouring them in non-work
time. Fordism acted as the model for the demand management strategies applied in Westem economies in the period between 1920 and 1965. Planned,
auto-rnated production was developed in partnership with a concept of leisure
rooted in acquisitive consumer culture. The impressivr ~
of econoinic
growth achieved in the period between 1945 and 1965 ~~ed1.o-legitlmate
the system.

'. '..';' ':.

306

Orfgins: Classic and Contemporary

Theories

However, Fordism always had its critics. In particular, three points were
regularly made. To begin with, the system presupposes that alienation and dehumanization are inevitably part and parcel of processes of production and
consumption in advanced mass production systems. Fordism endorses a rninimalist view of the skills and capacities of the workers. It reinforces a herarchical division in authority between management and workforce. It shows
no interest in devising ways in which this division rnight be bridged.
Secondly, it promoted acquisitive consumption as the pre-erninent goal of
leisure. Personal growth and farnily !ife were important for Ford. His social
workers were partly his attempt to ensure that farnilies remained intacto However, Fordism tended to fuse leisure with the accumulation of commodities.
Free time behaviour and choices of self improvement were rationalized as
typically involving commodified activity.
Thirdly, Fordism involved the assumption of progressive growth in real incomes and an expanding consumer culture to absorb surplus income. This required intensive corporate and state management of the relationship berween
demand and supply.
Since the early 1970s Fordism as a systern of economic management, industrial production and consumer regulation has been in trouble. Commentators
now widely agree that between 1970 and the present day, Westem economies
have moved from Fordist to post-Fordist systems of regulation (Lipietz, 1987;
Harvey, 1989; Lashand Urry, 1987, 1994). Post-Fordism involvesdeepchanges
at the levels of economic management, production and consumer culture.
Briefly,capital investrnent opportunities in the periphery of the capitalist world
economy became more attractive as the infrastructure of developing countries slowly improved. The periphery was able to undercut the wage, transport
and capital costs in the core. The result was that capital resources in mass
production were switched from the core to the periphery. In addition, Westem
consumer cuIture became more volatile. The information and knowledge glut
produced by the revolution in mass communications, bigger numbers of the
population going on to higher education, the growing importance of a service class based in the knowledge and cornrnunication industries combined to
reduce the predictability of consumer demand pattems. As McGugan (1996,
p. 89) puts it succinctly, "if the touchstone of Fordist culture was 'keeping up
with the Jones's', then the touchstone of posl-Fordist culture is 'being different from the Jones's'." It follows that high profit margins derive from flexible
forms of accumulation which recognize changes in consumer demand and,
wherever possible, anticipates them.
In these conditions it can no longer be assumed that the characteristics of
rest, relaxation, selfimprovement and cornrnodity acquisition remain intrinsic
to the category of leisure. Post-Fordism has severed the Fordist relationship
between work and leisure. Lifelong paid labour is no longer a guarantee Increasing numbers of people experience casualized labour, interrupted career

Rojek _ leisure Theory: Retrospec:t and Prospect

307

patterns and early retirement. Not only this, but the new technology of postFordism enables an increasing sector of the workforce to work at home. Personal computers, lap-tops, modems and filing cabinets have invaded domestic
space. Many people in the service and communications industries automatically think of a work-room or office-room when theyare buying a new house.
In short, domestic space is assuming many of the characteristics of workspace.
However, the new tools of trade, notably modems and computers, also provide the function of entertainrnent, education and amusement. They are mechanisms of leisure as well as work. In post-Fordist society then, the division
between work and leisure is unsustainable for large numbers of the adult
population. Of course, feminists recognized this long ago in respect of the
domestic space of housewives (Deem, 1986; Green et al., 1987). But they
usually interpreted it in terms of the ideology of women's leisure which in tum
was analyzed as a consequence of patriarchy. No one is denying that many
aspects of women's leisure is lirnited and degraded by male power. However,
as the work of Schor (1992) and Hochschild (1997) make clear, it would be
wrong to bracket the consequences of post-Fordism with the consequences
of patriarchy. For one thing post-Fordisrn refers to an economic and cultural
transformation which affects men as much as women. For another, the changes
which iris producing denigrate leisure as a cultural category offreedom, choice
and escape. Access to leisure or creating better forrns of leisure are no longer
the issue. As the design and experience of leisure becomes more work -like, the
idea of an area of self-determining time and space diminishes. The culture
as a whole faces the prospect of rational performative activity, that is activity
which exhibits self-discipline, efficiency, caIculability and predictability, becomingthe lifestyle norm. So that lime and space nominally allocated to work
and leisure becomes occupied with standardized lifestyle values and forms
of behaviour.
With the honourable exceptions of Schor (1992) and Hochschild (1997),
Leisurestudies has hardly started to think through what these changes entail
for the concept of leisure. They have arrived at an inconvenient time for those
who are intent on professionalizing the subject. For they suggest that leisure
as a category of experience is already problematic and will become more so as
the standard of rational performativity bites deeper into lifestyle choices and
forms. Leisure may not be vanishing in our society. But its traditional assoeiation with freedom, choice, self determination and escape has become harder
to justify. Leisure is mutating into something else.
Deviant Leisure
The people who write about leisure and who teach Leisure Studies seem to
be broadly committed to an evolutionary, progressive social democratic view
of leisure. Leisure is valued as an intrinsic social good. Stebbins (1992), in his

308

Orlgins: Classlc and Contemporary

Theorles

important and usefuI book on "serious leisure", points to the positive social
consequences that participation in serious leisure has in enriching personal and
community !ife. Among the benefits that he refers to are increasing cultural
integration and providing the individual with a sense of place and personal
growth. In this work Stebbins recognizes the category of "casual leisure" in
society and basically treats it as a side issue. Instead he implies that society
is moving in the direction of spreading the values of serious Ieisure to ali and
sundry. In a recent work, he (1997) has modified his view and grants that
causal leisure is perhaps more significant than he had originally realized.
Iwant to suggest two things in relation to casualleisure. FirstIy,the category
of casual Ieisure is far more culturally widespread and significant than even
Stebbins (1997) acknowledges in his belated reassessment of the concept.
By casualleisure I mean the desultory, time-filling, killing-time activities that
people find themselves caught up in and perpetuating as a normal part ofdaily
existence. There is no particular sense of self improvement in this behaviour.
Rather it is characterized by the desire for distraction. By extension, several
branches of the leisure industry have developed distraction activities and commodities to cater for this desire. For example, many adventure and comedy
films are forgotten as soon as they are seen; the same is true of many forms of
popular music electronic games and so forth.
Secondly, even in his recent article Stebbins (1997) glosses over the question of deviant leisure. By deviant leisure I mean the collection of free time
practices organized around drug-taking, graffiti, trespass, stealing and aggressive acts. In general, Leisure Studies has tumed a blind eye to this type
of leisure activity. The result is that we have to refer to the work of criminologists to find published material. For example, Becker's (1963) classic study
of marijuana-users can be re-read today as a seminal contJibution to deviant
leisure. Becker's field work is concentrated in jazz c1ubs, private apartments
and "back regions" of everyday life. His marijuana-users not only concentra te
their activity in leisure time and leisure space, but they also value the use of
the drug as expressing recreational values which contrast with the leisure
and lifestyle values of "straighr' society. They are using their leisure to make
oppositional statements about "normal" culture. Katz's (1988) outstanding
study of the attractions of deviant behaviour is also an important source of
stimulation for students interested in the question of deviam leisure. Most
of us think of amoral conduct and values as reprehensible and unworthy Katz
(1988) brilliantly overtums these automatic responses by pointing out that
for many people deviance is attractive. The notion ofwinning against the law,
of violating speeding restrictions and robbing the taxman, is perhaps more
common than many of us would like to admito He draws on Nietzsche's philosophy to argue that caution and timidity role our lives. For Katz, the desire to
break out of our boundaries, to overthrow our ordinary scripted existence, is
not a characteristic of deviant actors but a cultural universal. As O'Malley and
Mugford (1991, p. 5) observe there are interesting parallels between Katz's
argument and Lyng's (1990) paper on "edgework". Lyng (1990, pp. 858-9)

Rojek e Lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

309

discusses edgework as activity which deliberately pIaces the individual in situations of risk. At the extremes edgework involves consciously placing oneself
at physicaIrisk (rock-climbing, hang-gliding, rollerbIading, sump-diving). More
commonly edgework invoIves negotiating sexual and work relations in which
the actor walks on the edge of things, with an awareness that one wrong move
will tip him or her over into the uncontrollable abyss. Lyng (1990) suggests
that it is at these times that we feeI most alive.
Byexamining examples of deviant leisure, students of leisure will not only
throw light on a shadowy area of leisure activity; they will also contribute to a
clearer understanding of how the rules which shape normal leisure practice
operate. Westill do not know bow processes of legitimate transgression operate in leisure practice. Viewed historically, why was it that in the 1920s and
1960s Western society moved towards more permissive standards of conduct?
And what combination of factors was invoIved in reintroducing standards
of restrictive behaviour? More generally what makes it acceptable to break the
rules of acceptable leisure behaviour between actors on some occasions and
in certain contexts? Deviant leisure is largely unexplored territory for students
of leisure. In the next few years r hope that this situation is overtumed.
The Leisure Ethic
For most of the industrial period we have been dominated by the work ethic.
Post-fordism has a tendency to negate this ethic by replacing labour with computer based technologies and reducing the demand for continuous, lifelong
employment. At the same time conservative governments have emphasized
a strong rhetoric of individualismo They argue that if post-fordism is creating
more free time and wealth, it is up to individuals to decide how to use leisure
and how to spend their money. However, an obvious feature of individualism
is that wedo not alI agree on the choices that we make. Some forms of leisure
behaviour, such as excessive drinking, drug-taking, rave-parties, speeding and
promiscuity, are offensive to others, while to the participants in these activities
they constitute nothing but the valid use of leisure resources. Students of leisure need to consider the ethical principies that post-Fordist culture should
endorse. Traditionally, liberalism is the strategy that Western democracies
have applied to handle the problems of individualismo However, liberalism is
unlikeIy to fit the circumstances of a deeply stratified post-Fordst economy
in which some strata have regular adequately-paid work and others typically
experience casual part-time labour, or no work at ali. The increase in freetime is likely to be experienced as oppressive and threatening by people who
have been socialized under the work ethic to regard paid labour as the central
life interest, Feelings of guilt and worthlessness are commonly attached to the
experience of unemployment. The ethical dimensions involved in swtchng
to a type of society in which leisure is the centrallife interest of the population
is an urgent task for theorists of leisure. Are there any common principies

Rojek e Lelsure Theory: Retrospec:t and Prospect

309

discusses edgework as activity which deliberately pIaces the individual in situations of risk. At the exrremes edgework involves consciously placing oneself
ar physical risk (rock-climbing, hang-gliding, roIlerblading, sump-diving). More
commonly edgework involves negotiating sexual and work relations in which
the actor waIks on the edge of things, with an awareness that one wrong move
wiU tip rum or her over into the unconrrollable abyss. Lyng (1990) suggests
that it is at these times that we feeI most ative.
By examining examples of deviant leisure, students of leisure wilI not only
throw light on a shadowy area of leisure acti vity; they wiIl also contribute to a
clearer understanding of how the ruIes which shape normalleisure practice
operate. We still do not know bow processes of legitimate transgression operate in leisure practice. Viewed historically, why was it that in the 1920s and
1960s Western society moved towards more permissive standards of conduct?
And what combination of factors was involved in reintroducing standards
of restrictive bel.aviour? More generally what makes it acceptable to break the
rules of acceptable leisure behaviour between actors on some occasions and
in certain contexts? Deviant leisure is largely unexplored territory for students
of leisure. In the next few years [ hope that this situation is overturned.
The Leisure Ethic
For most of the industrial period we have been dominated by the work ethic.
Post-fordisrn hasa tendency to negate this ethic by replacing labour with computer based technologies and reducing the demand for continuous, lifelong
employment. At the same time conserva tive govemments have emphasized
a strong rhetoric of individualismo They argue that if post-fordism is creating
more free time and wealth, it is up to individuals to decide how to use leisure
and how to spend their money. However, an obvious feature of individualism
is that we do not alI agree on the choices that we make. Some forms of leisure
behaviour, such as excessive drinking, drug-taking, rave-parties, speeding and
promiscuity, are offensive to others, while to the participants in these activities
they constitute nothing but the valid use of Ieisure resources. Students of leisure need to consider the ethical principIes that post-Fordist culture should
endorse. Traditionally, liberaJism is the strategy that Westem democracies
have applied to handle the problems of individualismo However, liberalism is
unlikely to fit the circumstances of a deeply stratified post-Fordist economy
in which some strata have regular adequately-paid work and others typically
experience casual part-time labour, or no work at alI. The increase in freetime is likely to be experienced as oppressive and threatening by people who
have been socialized under the work ethic to regard paid labour as the central
life interest. Feeli:1gsof guilt and worthlessness are commonly attached to the
experience of unemployment. The ethical dimensions involved in switching
to a type of society in which leisure is the centrallife interest of the population
is an urgent task for theorists of leisure. Are there any common principIes

310

Origlns: Classlc and Contemporary Theories

which should be applied in determining the use of leisure choices? It the individual is to be self-determining, are there no limits to be applied in leisure
behaviour? If some strata are going to work less in paid labour, how are they
to acquire the economic wherewithal of an acceptable level of financial and
cultural existence? What incentive is there to work in a society which recognizes leisure as the central life interest? How can leisure be used to produce
values of worth, dignity and involvement in the rapidly growing population
of the elderly?
We are far from having answers to these questions. But the clearonslaught
of post-Fordism in the last twenty years makes them urgent and pre-erninent
issues for Leisure Studies.
Inequality: The Leisure Rich and the Leisure Poor
One irony of leisure, which Veblen (1899) understood only too well, is that it
draws on a value pool which celebrates excesso His work on the leisure class
demonstrated how the leisure rich signify their wealth through a variety of
coded behaviours. Conspicuous consumption and devotion to non-utilitarian
activity was practised as a way of signifying ineligibility from the need to engage in pecuniary labour. Veblen believed that the customs of the leisure class
threatened society beca use they encouraged emulation by the lower orders.
He maintained that the trickle-down effect of conspicuous consumption would
undermine the habits of thrift and industry that society required in order to
ensure stability and growth.
Veblen's work raised essential questions about the stratification of leisure
and the mechanisms through which values ofleisure are exchangedand negotiated. However, he exaggerated the importance of the leisure class. Withln
twenty years of the publication of Veblen's thesis, the decisive power to orchestrate emulation had switched to the culture industries and the celebrity
elite. By the 1920s the masses wanted to emulate the new silent filmstars such
as Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and the "It" girl Clara
Bow, rather than the Van Der Bilts, the Pierpoint Morgans and the Harrimans.
The culture industries have exploited and developed this emulatory power
in the twentieth century. Of course the glamour of rich families has not disappeared. People still follow the antics of Prince Charles and other members
of the Royal Family with extraordinary avidity. But very few are interested in
emulating them. The cultural heroes of today are drawn from the ranks of
the celebrity elite: film stars, sports stars, pop stars, models, and so forth. These
are the figures that the advertising industry approaches to launch product
campaigns.
Veblen's readers were used to thlnking of inequality in material terms. One
of the significant things about his analysis is that he plainly announces the
importance of processes of organized representation in moulding conduct. As
the rise of the emulatory power of the celebrity elite suggests, the processes

Rojek -

Lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

311

of organized representation have multiplied and beco me more subtle since

Veblen's day. Writers like Baudrillard (1983) now insist that human behaviour is wholly constructed around processes of simulation and sign economies.
Baudrillard (1983) perhaps overstates things (Rojek and Turner, 1993). Yet his
work does crystallize the importance of processes of representation in constructing leisure behaviour. Baudrillard, and other writers, require us to think
through our conventional categories of scarcity and excesso In a culture which
revolves around simulation and sign economies, it makes little sense to think of
inequality simply in terrns of material wealth. Rather, this constitutes just one
type of inequaJity. Moreover, in terms of organizing the codes of behaviour and
values that we espouse in our leisure, it is not necessarily the most significam
type of inequality We might be relatively poor in terrns of materiaJ weaJth, but
we participate in a nuanced and immensely rich culture of representation. The
rapid expansion of the Web and technologies of virtual cornrnunication will
probably raise this culture to a new levei of complexity and significance, and
produce new forrns of behavioural adaptation. Leisure theorists need to work
with theorists working in cultural and communication studies to determine
how this culture affects leisure conduct. The models produced by cultural and
communication theorists provide dues for students of leisure. But their prime
defect is that they fail to address themselves to the subject of leisure.

Conclusion
Leisure theorists are often the recipients of the canard that they are forever
predicting apocalyptic changes in leisure while society chunters along in time
anointed ways. There is somejustice in this criticism. The leisure and postindustrial society theorists of the 1950s and 60s probably exaggerated the
imminence of the leisure society and the collapse of the work ethic. But they did
not mistake the central trend of economic and cultural change in the twentieth
century which is to decrease the need for hurnan labour and, through this, to
increase the arnount of free time. Most of the econonnic and cultural crises that
we have faced in this century have derived not from a lack of absolute wealth,
but from an unsatisfactory system of allocating resources. Our econonnic problems have not been fundarnenrally about a lack of surplus value; rather they
have been abour an inefficient system of redistributive justice.
It is toa simplistic to pro pose that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
will be remembered as the centuries of work, and that the twenty first will be
classified as the century ofleisure. Little in cultural or economic life is this black
and while. But the numbers of people who spend large parts of their time in
conspicuous leisure activity have grown in the twentieth century. Barring natural catastrophe, it is difficult to imagine how the time allocated to conspicuous leisure will decline in the next century. Nor should we lament the transfer
of boring, repetitive and dangerous work to mechanized outlets. It wiIl only
be a problern if we cease to recognize that leisure activity is also disciplined

312

Origlns: Classlc and Contemporary Theories

and that the principies which shape it should be positively recognized and
promulgated. The regime ofleisure is still a mysterious thing. How ourculture
negotiates between discipline and transgression in the realm of free time activity is poorly understood. Yet there can be no doubt that the regime exists
and that it is susceptible to change. The best method for examining how the
regime operates is comparative and historical research. By comparing what
is practised and allowed in leisure conduct in our society today with different
societies in other times and spaces, we stand the chance of gaining insights
into the ways in which leisure relations are shaped. For example, why was it
that in the West in the 1890s, the roaring 20s and the 1960s the culture of
leisure became more permissive? And what combination of factors brought
about the retrenchment of prohibitive limits on free time behaviour? The
range of forces at work here is extremely subtle. Licence to transgress, and
prohibitions against certain forms of leisure do not emerge overnight. Rather
they generally develop quite slowly and involve a combination of factors.
Research into compara tive and historical data is likely to be the major route
to discovering the character of leisure relations today.
Notes
1. To my knowledge, none of the leading feminist authors in Leisure Studies - Deem, Green,
Shaw, Henderson, Bialcheski, Talbot and Scraton - have responded systematically to
poststructuralism or postmodernism. Scraton's (1993) response to postmodemism is
somewhat too tendentious to pass muster. For the rest, they have pursued a structuralist
reading of leisure whch places central reference upon the concept of patriarchy. Postmodernism and poststructuralism are essentially ignored. The only exception is Betsy
Wearing who is currently engaged in work on feminism, leisure and poststructuralism
(see Wearing and Wearing, 1988, 1996).
2. In asking "whose side are they on" Tomlinson (1989) exemplifies the "ali or nothng"
mentality of the gladiatorial paradigm. As with Clarke and Critcher (1985), his endorsement of neo-Marxism implies that there is little to be leamt from other approaches such
as functionalism, pluralism or the figurational approach associated with Norbert Elias.
These latter approaches are loosely associated with "conservatsm." The only alliance that
Tomlinson and Clarke and Critcher allow for is with feminismo However, this alliance is
sketched out in the most speculative terms, so it is hard to evaluate. To a large degree, the
confused attitude to feminism displayed by neo-Marxists in Leisure Studies reflects
the troubled relationship between the Althusserian/Gramscian
traditions of Marxism
and feminist research at the Birmingham School of Contemporary Cultural Studies. The
Birmingham School is clearly the well-spring for the approach to leisure adopted by
Clarke and Critcher and Tomlinson.

References
Ang, l. (1996). Living Room Wars. London, Roudedge.
Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simularians. New York, Semiotext.
Bauman, Z. (1986). Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge,
Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodem Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. New York, Free Press.

Polity.

Rojek e Lelsure Theory: Retrospect and Prospect

31 3

BeU, D. (1974). The Coming of Post-lndustrial Society. London, Heinemann.

Bialcheski, D. and Henderson, K. (1996). "Leisure in the common world of women". Leisure
Swdies, 5(3): 299-308.
Clarke, J. and Critcher, C. (1985). The Devil Makes Work. London, Macmillan.
Deern, R. (1986). Ali Work and No Play? Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
De Grazia, S. (1962). Of Time, Work and Leisure. New York, Doubleday.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labour in Society. New York, Free Press.
Friedrnan, G. (1961). The Anatomy of Work. London, Heinernann.
Green, E., Hebron, S. and Woodward, D. (1987). Women's Leisure in Sheffield. Dept Applied
Social Studies, Sheffield Polytechnic.
Gross, E and Probyn, E. (1995) (ed.). Sexy Bodies. London, Routledge.
Harris, D. (1992). From Class Struggle to the Politics of Pleasure. London, Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford, BlackweU.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The Time Bind. New York, Metropolitan Books.
Katz, J. 1I988). The Seduccions oi Crime. New York. Basic Books.
Kerr, c.. Dunlop, J. Harbison, EH. and Myers, C.A. (1973). lndustrialism and Industrial
Man. Harrnondsworth, Penguin.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987). The End of Organized Capitalismo Cambridge: Polity.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994). Econotnies of Signs and Space. London, Sage.
Lipietz, A. (1987). Mirages and Mirades - The Crises of Global Fordism. London, Verso.
Lyotard, J. (1986). The Postmodern Condition. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Lyng, S. (1990). "Edgework: a social pyshcological analysis of voluntary risk taking".
Ame:ican Joumal DfSociology, 95: 887-921.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. London, Abacus.
McGuigan, J. (1992). Cultural Popu/ism. London, Routledge.
McGuigan, J. (1996). Culcure and the Public Sphere. London, Routledge.
O'MalIeyand Mugford, S. (1991). Crime Excitement and Modemity (mimeo). Paper delivered
to the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, Nov 20-23.
Parker, S. (1983). Leisure and Work. London, AlIen & Unwin.
Riesman, D. (964). Abundance for Whac? London, Chatto and Windus.
Roberts, K. (1978). Contemporary Society and the Growth of Leisure. London, Longman.
Rojek, C. (1985). Capitalism and Leisure Theory, London, Tavistock.
Rojek, C. (1995). Deceruring Leisure. London, Sage.
Rojek, C. and Tumer, B.S. (1993) (ed.). Forget Baudrillard? London, Routledge.
Schor, J. (1992). The Overworxed American. New York, Basic Books.
Scraton, S. (1993). "Feminism, 'Post-ferninism' and Leisure" (mimeo). Leisure Studies
Assodarton.

Scraton, S. and Talbot, M. (1989). "A Response to Leisure, Lifestyle and Status: A Pluralist
Framework for Analysis". Leisure Studies, 8(2): 155-158.
Stebbins, R. (992). Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure. Montreal and Kingston,
McGiUUniversity Press.
Stebbins, R. (1997). "Casualleisure: a conceptual statement". Leisure Studies, 16(1): 17-26.
Thornton, S. (1995). Club Cu/ture. Cambridge, Polity.
Tomlinson, A. (1989) "Whose Side Are They On? Leisure Studies and Cultural Studies in
Britain. Leisure Studies 8(2), 97-106.
Veal, A.J. (1989). "Leisure, lifestyle and status: a pluralist framework for analysis?". Leisure
Studies, (2): 141-54.
Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. London, Allen and Unwin.
Wearing, B. and Wearing, S. (1988). '7\11 in a day's leisure: gender and the concept of leisure".LeisureStudies, 7, ll1-123.
Wearing, B. and Wearing, S. (1996). "Refocusing the tourist experience: the 'f1aneur' and
the 'dioraster'". Leisure Studies, 15, 229-244.