european leisure studies at the crossroads - a history of leisure research in europe - hans mommaas

8/12/2019 European Leisure Studies at the Crossroads - A History of Leisure Research in Europe - Hans Mommaas

1/15

This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 28 July 2013, At: 02:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure Sciences: An InterdisciplinaryJournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

European leisure studies at the

crossroads? A history of leisure

research in EuropeHans Mommaas aaDepartment of Leisure Studies, Tilburg University, P.O. Box

90153, Tilburg, 5000 LE, the Netherlands E-mail:

Published online: 13 Jul 2009.

To cite this article:Hans Mommaas (1997) European leisure studies at the crossroads? A history

of leisure research in Europe, Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19:4, 241-254, DOI:10.1080/01490409709512253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490409709512253

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490409709512253http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01490409709512253http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20


2/15

European Leisure Studies at the Crossroads?A H istory of Leisure Research in EuropeHANS MOMMAASDepartment of Leisure StudiesTilburg UniversityTilburg, the Netherlands

In this contribution, a generalized picture is given of the history of leisure research inEurop e. It is based on a comp arative study of the history of leisure research in six Eur o-pean countries: Spain,Poland France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the U nited King-dom (Mom maas, Van der Poel, Bramham , Henry, 1996a). Across Europe, leisureresearch has been dom inated by sociological perspectives and concerns. Sociology hasvery much acted as a mediator of collective, public concerns, dealing with issues ofenlightenm ent/civilization and cultural participation/welfare. How ever, from the late1970s onward, the collective, educational project of free time has lost much of its for-mer significance. O n one side, there is now much more academ ic attention to issues oftime, consumption, play, and pleasure. H owever, at the same time, these issues havebecom e disconnected from former collective concerns of leisure and/or free time. Thisleads to two interrelated q uestions: Are leisur e studies still in need of a unifying projectof leisure? and Ifso,wh at should such a project look like?Keywords Europe, history, sociology of leisure

The field of leisure research in Europe today is faced with a somewhat paradoxical situa-tion. On one hand, there is a growing amount of research on issues of time and consump-tion, sports participation and media involvement, shopping and tourism, and culture andeveryday life. The research expresses an increasing level of sophistication and results in anever-expanding number of publications. On the other hand, however, there is a feeling ofloss,or even of crisis. Somewhere amid the turmoil of attention to people's pastime activ-ities,the notion of leisure seems to have become sidetracked or simply left behind. Ad ornedwith an independent significance, a "surplus meaning," transcending its constituent parts,leisure once legitimated the construction of an independent field of research. Tha t signifi-cance seem s to have lost some of its institutional, norm ative, and/or cognitive strength.Of importance is that, from the very beginning, leisure research in Europe was a topic-oriented field of research dominated by sociological perspectives but strongly leaningtoward public policy interests. One might put this even more strongly: All along its mod-ern history, collective projects have been decisive in delivering the economic and culturalresource base from which E uropean leisure research as an independent field of research andeducation became possible in the first place. Crucial to today's feelings of loss is the factthat something ha s changed with regard to the public significance of the notion of leisure.Leisure no longer seems to have that self-evident public authority and importance onceReceived 6 July 1997; accepted 2 October 1997.This essay is a shortened, adapted version of the conclusion of a cross-comparative researchproject on leisure research in Europe (see Mommaas, Van der Poel, Bramham, & Henry, 1996a).Address correspondence to Hans Mommaas, Department of Leisure Studies, Tilburg University,P.O.Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

241Leisure Sciences, 19:241-254, 1997Copyright 1997 Taylor & Francis0149-0400/97 $12.00+ .00

Dow

nloadedby[UniversityofG

lasgow]at02:0928July2013


3/15

242 H. Momm aasassociated with it. Not being a basic discipline itself but a primary building block deeplyengrained in the history of the social and /or behavioral scienc es, leisure research is in needof a revitalized "m ission" or legitimation, a public and/or cog nitive project able to (re)uniteit as a specific research and education a rea.

In this article, I want to put the current unea se in Europe w ith the study of leisure intofocus by presenting the history of European leisure research. What was the precise natureof the public projects that, until recently, legitimated leisure research as an independentfield of study? And what made those collective projects become less self-evident today?These questions are answered making use of the results of a cross-national comparativeresearch project that involved six groups of investigators in a study of the history of leisureresearch in their own countries (i.e., Spain, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, theNetherlands, and Poland; see Mommaas, Van der Poel, Bramham, & Henry, 1996a). Intheir respective conclusion s, all authors speak w ords of disintegration, fragmentation, anddiversification, although w ith different ev aluations. What is happening here? W hat homo -geneity or unity is becoming fragmented? And how should we evaluate this against thebackground of the history of leisure research? Is there a need, and are there groun ds, to revi-talize the leisure concept? Or should w e jus t accept this state of affairs as part and parcel ofthe flimsiness and lightness of the present "po stmo dern" existence?Early Modernity and the Formation of Free Time/LeisureIn tracing the historical background of the project of leisure research , I must begin with anote on concep ts. It is rather com mon in the global academic w orld to speak of "leis ure" asthe organizing principle behind the field of study referred to here; from a European per-spective, however, this is in fact rather problematic. In most language communities inEurope, instead of leisure, free time (yrijetijd Freizeit, temps libre, tiempo libre,fritidczas wolny)is the concept used in everyday co nversation. As such, "free tim e" covers boththe "strong," temporal dimensions of the phenomenon (free time as a period of time freedfrom specific ob ligations) and its "soft," cultural d imensions (free tim e as a quality of activ-ities, as freedom, play, pleasure, relaxation, intrinsic motivation, involvement). However,the situation is rather complex and differs not only per language community but also perintellectual scho ol. Some scho lars use the concept of free time to cov er both "objec tive" (ortime-related) and "subjective" (or meaning-related) connotations. Others use concepts ofleisure (loisir) or related classical notions (ocio, Musse) to demarcate qualitative fromquantitative issues. In addition, there are those (especially in the Anglo-Saxon languagecommunity ) who repudiate the notion of free time altogether, as a result of its presumedideological status (the "false" or "lib eral" connotation of freedom and free choice ).

In a significant w ay, these com plications already express the com posite character of thehistory of the construct of free time/leisure, from the very beginning interconnecting tem-poral and qualitative issues. In its modern form, the phenomeno n m ust be traced back to the"long 19th century," lasting from the second half of the 18th century until the beginning ofthe 20th century. In general terms, three interrelated techno-economic, juridical-political,and sociocultural developm ents are of im portance. The first was the rise and spread of indus-trial capitalism, responsible for the expansion and institutionalization of an already oldertime-based organization of work. This led to a more strict temporal demarcation of thespheres of work and nonw ork, work and pleasure, and production and reproduction. The sec-ond developm ent w as the rise of the national civil state, with its nationally integrated pub -lic space in wh ich all citizens became e qual before the law . As a result, not only the sphereof work, but also the sphere of nonwork, w as liberated from prem odern feudal bo nds: "the

Downloadedby[UniversityofG


3


4/15

European Leisure Studies 243ma ster's right in the m aste r's time and the workm an's right in his own tim e" (Bailey, 1978,p.180). The final development was the rise of new urban middle-class factions involvingnew social professionals su ch as social statisticians, philanthropists, hygienists, sanitarians,educationalists, professors, teachers, lawy ers, doctors, public officers, an d insp ectors.

This urban middle class functioned as an impetus for the further "modernization" ofthe new public order. How ever divided by their specific political and denominational affil-iations, the new professions saw themselves as part of a generalized community of socio-cultural "engineers," with transnational and transatlantic connections, involved in the"enlightenment" (rationalization, civilization) of national society and its governance(Lacey & Furner, 1993). They occupied and reproduced a sociocultural space created onthe basis of (a) an expanding national state bureaucracy; (b) a gradual collectivization ofcaring systems; (c) a growing body of voluntary associations active in hygienic, philan-thropic, and/or cultural-educational work; and (d) an expanding domain of higher educa-tion and science (Manicas, 1987; Rothblatt & Wittrock, 1993).The first "discourses" on free time/leisure can be traced to the turmoils, panics, con-flicts, com mitm ents, and Utopias involved in the institutionalization of this new time-spatialarrangement of w ork and nonwork. They were part and parcel of the "disembedd ing" (cf.Giddens, 1990) by industrial capitalism of parts of the population from local-traditionalforms of integration, "re-embedding" them within more abstract urban and mass-produc-tion-based living conditions. These transformations went along with periods of class con-flict and class organization, and there we re concerns over national/local order and th e rise of"the social question ." To enhanc e labor control and labor productivity, emp loyers aimed ata strict and gender-specific time-spatial segregation betw een the spheres of production an d

reproduction, banning local folklore and local pleasures as mu ch as possible from the shopfloor. At the same tim e, educationalists, reformers, and hygienists encouraged a further gen-der-specific division of the reproductive sphere, propagating the division betw een the pri-vate household and public life. Everyday life became reorganized and categorized along atime-spatial grid dominated by the abstract rationalities of industrial capitalism and civilsociety. Also, free tim e or leisure came into existence as a separated dom ain of debate andintervention.

Early Leisure Research and the Project of National C ivilizationOf course , across Eu rope, this mod ernization p rocess had its time-spatially specific trajec-tories (cf. Therborn, 1995; see also Delantly, 1995; Tilly, 1990; Wilterdink & Zwaan,1991). During the 19th century, in the northwestern part of Europe, industrialization wascomparatively advanced by an earlier and more strongly institutionalized national stateapparatu s. This can be related to a more strongly developed , capital-intensive urban systeminvolving a differentiation between the political and the economic and a powerful eco-nom ic and cultural middle clas s. That m iddle class functioned as a catalyst for the furtherrationalization/nationalization of the econom y, politics, culture, and the scienc es.In general terms, this explains why the beginning of a social-cum-empirical sensibil-ity for the lives of industrial worke rs can be traced back to the middle of the 19th centuryand the northwestern fringe of Europe. From the 1830s onward, we find examples ofinquiries into the living conditions of the working class in France, Belgium, and the UnitedKingdom (see Samuel, 1996; Corijn & Van den Eeckhout, 1996; Bramham & Henry,1996). These " surveys " were organized by royal commissions, Parliamentary comm ittees,or individual reformers, often members of national/royal academies of science or nationalreform organizations. At stake was an almost "anthropological" curiosity in exploring and

Dow



3


5/15


6/15

European Leisure Studies 245debate and organization, from Poland and the Soviet Union in the East to the Netherlandsand Belgium in the West. International conferences w ere organized, such as the 1924 Inter-national Labor O rganization conference o n leisure. The num ber of free-time-oriented orga-nizations increased. Among them were the World Association for Adult Education (estab-lished in 1918), the Socialist Workers' Sport International (1920), and the InternationalOffice for Allotments and Workers' Gardens (1926) (Beckers & Mommaas, 1996).

As a consequence, this period witnessed an increase in free-time/leisure-orientedresearch. Central to the research was the question of the possible consequences of anincrease in free time and how those conse quences could be influenced po sitively. Was therea need for public intervention, for enlightening cultural and recreational activities able tocompete with local folklore (regarded as backward and primitive) and with the new com-mercial pleasures (considered as exploitative, passive, and "quantitative")?Research strategies mostly followed established inductive-evolutionist canons o fresearch, cataloguing workers' activities in as detailed a manner as possible (e.g., Sled-sens's research in Belgium, the various sociographic research projects in the Netherlands,Friedmann's research in France, and Seebohm Rowntree's inquiries in the United King-dom; see Corijn & Van den Eeckhout, 1996; Samuel, 1996; M omm aas, 1996; Bramham &Henry, 1996). However, in addition to conventional monographic and/or sociographicresearch projects, this period also w itnessed the first use of participation statistics and tim e-budget studies. Building on the application in social reform research of the family budgetmethod (i.e., the famous cross-national family budget study of Le Play; see Samuel, 1996)and on the introduction in the working environmen t of methods of time measu rement (partof Ta ylo r's scientific manag ement ap proach), the time budget method had becom e a usefulsocial research tool by the 1920s. This w as the case no t only in the United States (i.e., the1913 study done by G eorge Be vans, a student of Giddings) but also in the Soviet Union (the1920s work done by Stroumiline) and various countries in Euro pe (see Lanfant, 1972; Sza-lai, 1972).Resu lts of these studies, in terms o f leisure activities, continued to be interpreted froma superior, "exte rnal" or "legislative " persp ective. They are read as indications of the levelof work ers' cognitive edification, m oral civilization, and/or social integration. Overall, thestudies remain organized and evaluated from the viewpoint of the project of the integrationof industrial workers into a national/rational public space. PreWorld War II research onfree time thus formed part and parcel of a mo dernization project aimed at the production o ffree tim e. Central was the aim of securing a time freed from wo rk and of using that time forcivilization purposes (useful leisure, rational recreation, workers' emancipation).

Welfare M odernism and the Democratization of CultureIt was not until the post-World War II period that free time became a relatively indepen-dent and systematic object of study across Eu rope, with its own specialists, its own course s,and its own codifications a nd definitions, cross references, jou rna ls, and debates. Althou ghcontinuities do exist, it would be a mistake to see this as a logical corollary of prewa r devel-opm ents. It could jus t as w ell be argued that the institutionalization o f postWorld W ar IIleisure research must be explained in terms of the discontinuities that distinguished post-war Europ ean reality. The study of leisure "materialize d" in an institutional and intellectualclimate that differed considerably from prew ar conditions and orientations.First, Europe witnessed an unprecedented period of economic growth. Despite contin-uing disparity, and despite very different economic conditions, all national economies

Dow




7/15

246 H. Momm aaswhether communist, authoritarian capitalist, or liberal/social capitalistexperienced sig-nificant econo mic pro gress (for an analysis, see Therborn, 1995).Second, there was the spreading across Europe of mass consumption, beginning inSweden and Britain in the late 1950s and reaching Spain and Poland in the 1970s andGreece and Portugal in the 1980s (Therborn, 1995). Toge ther with the revolutionary expan-sion of higher education, the spreading of mass consumption gradually started to under-mine or relativize situated cultural classifications and hierarchies (Thom pson, 1990).

Third, as a part of the general reconstruction of national economies, Europe wentthrough a phase of rapid (re)industrialization and me chanization, along with a shift to ser-vice sector activities. Econom ic reconstruction led to periods of full em ployment but alsoinvoked debates about the quality of work and the danger of workers* alienation. Thesedebates were no longer couched in a discourse of class and capitalism but were related tonotions of "technological civilization" and/or "postindustrial society."Fourth, from the late 1950s onw ard, in the context of a situation of full employm ent,

European economies experienced a renewed reduction of working hours in the variousforms of longer weeken ds, fewer weekly wo rking hou rs, and/or increases in paid vacations.The reduction of working hours again began in the Northwest in the late 1950s and early1960s, reaching Spain and P oland in the 1970s (restricted, in the case of the latter, to a 48-hour working week and 2 free Saturdays each month; see Olszewsk a & Rob erts, 1989).Fifth, economic developments delivered the revenues necessary for the exceptionalexpansion of state s' social and cultural involvement. As part of this, between roughly 1960and 1980, most European countries witnessed a historically unique increase in policiesaimed at the stim ulation of various forms of leisure (e.g., sports, recreation, the voluntarysector, the media, the arts, tourism). As a consequence, there was an increasing demand forspecialized leisure-oriented personnel and knowledge (Bramham, Henry, Mommaas, &Van derPoel, 1993).

Among both social researchers and social planners, these institutional changes werecoterminous with fundamental changes in epistemic or ideational orientations. By the1960s, t^social sciences were generally accepted as an important instrument in the infor-mation and justification of social state interventions. However, the social sciences of the1960s were quite different in their orientation and position from those of the precedingperiod. All over Europe, from communist Poland to Christian-democratic Holland, Bel-gium, and France and fascist Spain, examples can be found of a sea change in the socialintellectual climate. At stake was a move away from classical, humanist, or collectivistEuropean social thought. Through the efforts of certain intellectuals, these prewa r "heroicnarratives " (Alexand er, 1995) were partly kept responsible for the disasters of two sub se-quent world wars . In the postw ar era, they becam e associated with "tradition-oriented pa r-ticularism ," "metaphysical speculation," and "cultural rigidity." Instead, orientation turnedtoward the United States, where the social scientific climate was dominated by the scien-tific realism and cultural pluralism instigated by Lazarsfeld's survey research paradigm,Merton's notions of social engineering and middle range theory, and Parsons's orientationtoward systematic theorization and modernization theory.22It is important to stress how this notion of the "Americanization" of "European" social thoughtis a shorthand description of a very complicated development. Suffice it to point out that (a) what wasimported from the United States largely consisted of formerly exported European social thought; (b)postwar American scientism also distinguished itself from the founding fathers of American socialthought; and (c) within postwar American social thinking, deep cleavages existed among the empiri-cism of the Lazarsfeld approach, the systematic theorizing of Parsons, and the more historical or qual-itative approach of scholars such as M ills and Riesman (Turner & Turner, 1990). Add to this the com-



3


8/15

Europea n Leisure Studies 247At stake here wa s not just a different way of doing research. At stake wa s a paradigmthat delivered a fresh technocratic ou tlook on the internal organization, social roles, and theprofessional self-image of the social sciences. In addition, the model m irrored and, in turn,stimulated and justified a liberal, technocratic m odernization rh etoric. That rhetoric becam e

popular not only in the 1960s Kennedy ad ministration (W oodiw iss, 1993) but also, by emu -lation, among European administrations.Despite vast differences, these changes produced three developments in terms of theissue of free time/leisure. First, there was a tendency toward an increasingly stimulating,instead of simply prohibiting, preoccupation o f the state with peo ple 's pastimes. G raduallythe state took over responsibilities from the voluntary sector, and thus leisure and culturebegan to be seen as collective goods. Second, the dominant ideational orientation movedaway from former " totalizin g" models of cultural thinking (i.e., based on notions of evolu-tionism and orga nicism). Instead, ideological and scientific think ing becam e dominated bymodels of cultural democracy3or standardized individualism. Third, because of the grad-

ual institutionalization of the labor time conflict, the issue of free time/leisure wa s general-ized from an issue primarily involving industrial laborers to an issue potentially involvingthe entire population.Leisure Research and the Spreading of CultureJust as in the prewar period, postwar leisure research developed within the gray zonebetween state intervention, voluntary work, and academic research. In part, this researchwas based on "strong individu als" taking up leisure as part of a great diversity of social andintellectual con cerns and interests (one might think here of the important influence of schol-ars such as Pieper, Friedman n, De G razia, Dumaz edier, Robe rts, and Parke r). Also , in part,there was the growing demand for policy and market research able to produce data ofimportance in the planning, justification, and evaluation of an increasing amoun t of publicand private leisure provisions. Together, these developments led to a rather characteristicmelange of approaches. On one extrem e, standing on the shoulders of the older tradition ofmass-cultural critique or enlightened pedagogics, we find abstract contemplations notbased on systematic empirical investigations. On the other extreme, supposedly inspired by"modern" American empirical research models, there was bleak empiricist "head-count-ing " devoid of any explicit theoretical reflection.

In an attempt to sum marize the large variety of themes and subjects addressed in post-war leisure research across Eu rope, one might d istinguish two central topics of attention. Afirst topic area concerned the work-leisure relationship. Central here w ere debates about thepossible alienation/liberalization of work and/or leisure, the search for conceptualizationsof the work-leisure relationship, thoughts about the po ssible fusion of work and leisure, andideas about future cha nges in the distribution of work and/or the econom ics of production.At stake was a search for factors that could enhance w ork ers' produ ctivity (especially in theEast; see Lanfant, 1972) or that could improve the qua lity of work and/or leisure in postin-dustrial (Riesman, Bell) or technological (Ellul) society.

plexities involved in the demarcation of "European" social thought (what about Britain? see Albrow,1993) and the problematic nature of the theme is sketched (see alsoScaff 1993).3It is important to stress that most of the time this "cultural democratization" was not aimed at apublic revaluation of folk, popular, and/or mass culture. Instead, it was aimed at opening up to thenational population the hegemonic middle-class cultural domain (the domain of voluntary work, thearts,recreation, and sports).

Dow




9/15

248 H. MommaasIn the beginning, this work-leisure couplet was central to the thematic self-under-standing of the postwar leisure research discipline.4Nevertheless, in the course of time, adifferent theme began to dom inate the empirical research agenda and to provide the youngdiscipline with institutional links to the expanding dom ains of planning and adm inistration.

At stake was that broad area of research and debate comm only sum marized under labels of"leisure participation." The focus was on the uneven engagement of various segments ofthe population in public leisure provisions (i.e., in the field of sports, the media, culture,recreation), on the investigation of the various leisure needs o f the population, and on therelation between leisure participation and the quality of life. The analysis involved either"simple" attendance figures or more sophisticated time budget data. The projects could betargeted at the national population writ large or at specific disadvantaged groups such asurban youth, women, or a city's population.From an academic point of view, this area of study first developed as an appendix tothe sociology of culture and social stratification and/or the econom ics of consum ption. But

there were also links to debates concerning the quality of life under cond itions of free timeand mass consumption and to the planning of educational and provision programs. Theseprograms w ere expected to compensate for the commercial pleasures of ma ss cultural con-sumption and to enhance social equality and people's choice. In addition, there was anexpanding private leisure sector eager to im plement the latest models o f statistical analysisin an attempt to becom e m ore professional and market oriented. In this context, the conceptof free tim e facilitated a more integrated study of a pop ulatio n's involvement in a varietyof public activities, thus also enabling an analysis o f possible substitution effects.In terms of research methodologies, this period became dominated by the model ofquantitative, correlational survey research based on a combination of e mpirical-analyticaland deductive-instrumental thinking. The dominant professional model was that of thesocial researcher-cum-engineer analyzing the social mechanism s responsible for the unevenparticipation in leisure or influencing the quality of work a nd/or leisure. Know ledge o f thesemec hanism s, based on the com parative discovery of correlational sequences, would ena blethe development of programs targeted at a cure for systematic "dysfunctiona lities."

The End of the Post W orld W ar II EraLooking back from the perspective of the 1990s, it is apparent how the relative optimismand self-assurance that dominated the postwar field of European leisure studies dependedon often unacknow ledged circum stances. In Western Europe, A m eric a's "eastern frontier"(Delantly, 1995), the Cold War stimulated an unprecedented integration. This culminatedin 1958 in the creation of the European Economic Community and, the introduction to asubsequent period of "peaceful coexistence." Economic expansion, although unevenlyspread, stimulated the idea o f the universal successfulness of Keynesian policies, with thestate finally having mastered the economy and class conflicts. Especially in northwesternEurope , the ongoing expan sion of the state apparatus, the increase in productivity and afflu-ence, and the ongoing reduction of wo rking hours indeed enabled the notion o f free time asa sphere of life situated outside the determinism of political-economic structures. Hence,the "problem of leisure" could be reduced to a cognitive issue soon to be dealt w ith by theexpanding efforts of research-based social-educational and provisional prog ram s.

4One might think here of important agenda-setting books such as those of Smigel (Work andLeisure;1963), De Grazia(O f T ime. W ork, and Leisure;1962), and Parker(The Future of Work andLeisure; 1972).



3


10/15

European Leisure Studies 249However, this self-assured climate would not last very long. From the late 1960sonward, a sequence of often unexpected and sometimes rather paradoxical events slowlybut steadily started to undermine established certainties. Three developments must bestressed: (a) the expressive revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s and its aftermath,

(b) the economic crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s and the related political-economicchanges, and (c) the "opening up" of the political map of Europe.During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a new generation of young intellectualslaunched a critique on four fronts. First there was the standardized dem ocracy o f suburbanmiddle-class consumer culture, with its presumed middle-class superficiality and culturalinstrumentality. Second, a critique was launched against technocratic models of socialplanning, with their emphasis on the "end of ideology" and the end of class. Third, ques-tions were raised about prevailing "pa ternalistic " definitions of culture grounding existingeducational and provisional programs. Fourth, a more critical or left-wing-inspiredapproach to the social sciences developed, criticizing the dominant configuration of"American" modernization theory and empirical-analytic research (cf. Alexander, 1995).In the late 1960s, cities across Europe (from the East to the West a nd from the South tothe No rth) experienced student riots, often triggered by very local circum stances. Th e riotswere led by a generation experiencing a major phase of social mobility, growing up in theaffluence and cultural openness of postwar m ass consump tion and pop culture . In the con-text oft isincrease in econom ic and cu ltural possibilities, former cultural hierarchies startedto look quite obsolete if not outright ridiculous. Leisure became a sphere of cultural sabo-tage and m ilitancy, a breeding place for counter-cultural activity and self-expression (cf.M artin, 1983). Even in traditionalist and totalitarian countries such as Spain, m ore left-wing-inspired versions of social theory develop ed in this period, drawing attention to the on goingimportance of class structures (Teza nos, 1990, pp. 152153). In com mu nist Polan d, the stu-dent riots sought a "revisionist" turn in orthodox M arxism and a further opening up of theacadem ic field for W estern intellectual though t (instead to be confronted with an outbreakof party-sponsored antisemitism) (Kw asniewicz, 1993, p. 175).However, at the same time that critical thinking started to "demystify" the dominantconformities of science, culture, and leisure, an economic crisis gradually changed theinstitutional conditions within which this renewed demystification of leisure and culturetook place . In the 1970s, the postwar political-economic system started to disintegrate. Thiswas first instigated by the problems of the U.S. economy, trying to cope with the deficitcaused by the costs of the Korea and V ietnam w ars (Woo diwiss, 1993). In the early 1970s,an unprecedented increase in oil prices forced by the oil-producing countries speeded up alatent world recession. Th e econom ic crisis that followed formed an important impetus fora major flexibilization of the prevalent Fordist politico-economic regime (cf. Murray,1989). M ediated by an increase in national deficits (the product of ec onom ic stagflation andan increase in social dema nd), this resulted in a shift from welfarism to enterprise culture.In the former, leisure wa s seen as a collective good, as a citize ns' right; in the latter, how-ever, leisure became evaluated as a consumer good (Bramham et al., 1993). In addition,economic restructuring went along with a restructuring of urban economies, with citiesbecoming involved in an intensified interurban competition for companies, visitors, andresidents. The latter resulted in an increase in local government attention to the role ofleisure and culture as vehicles of urban imagery strategies and economic regeneration(Bramham et al., 1989; Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993; Corijn & Mommaas, 1995).Together, these developments marginalized both the postwar models of public leisure par-ticipation and the 1970s models of emancipation and humanist socialism underlying thecritique of conventional leisure education models.

Dow




11/15

250 H. Mom maasThird, in the 1970s and 1980s, the political m ap of Europe w as drastically redraw n. Inthe 1970s, there w as the final defeat of Iberian totalitarianism, the result of a grow ing inter-nal opposition and international isolation. Sa lazar's P ortugal had its "carnation revolution "in 1975. In that same year, following F ran co 's death, a constitutional monarchy w as estab-

lished in Spain under King Juan Carlos de Bourbon (G onzalez & Urkiola, 1993). Spain hadits first democratic e lections in 1978, followed by the formation of a democratic constitu-tion. Even m ore influential wa s the defeat of comm unism in the 1980s. Against the back-ground of a deepening of the economic crisis and an increase in Western monetary and m il-itary-technological pressures, the disintegration of communist totalitarianism began withGo rbach ev's p erestrotka in the Soviet Union , and the formation o f Solidarity in Poland inthe early 1980s and culminated in the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989. These develop -me nts implied the final demise of the Cold W ar period and the falling away o f a major alter-native for capitalism. In addition, they im plied the disintegration of a former political-eco-nomic and military cohesion in the We st, as well as in the East, resulting in an upsurge ofnationalism, fundamentalism, and regionalism. In Poland, the coming into pow er of Soli-darity in 1989 was followed by an econom ic and political restructuring aimed at a furtherintegration of Poland in the global market economy, based on the standards of the WorldBank (Jung, 1993). As a consequence, a fierce market-oriented conservatism replaced theformer postcommunist socialism, with state policy showing itself "openly hostile to manyelements of the welfare state and its practice of subsidising various social activities, such asleisure " (Jung, 1993, p . 205). In the West, together with the ongoing econom ic crisis, thedisintegration of communism additionally weakened left-wing political and theoreticalthinking, instead stimulating a further revival of market-oriented liberalism (cf. Alexander,1995).

The Reapp raisal of Leisure ResearchNot until the late 1970s and early 1980s did critical thinking finally enter the domain ofEuropean leisure research. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the study of leisure had notyet become very much involved with mainstream social theoretical thinking; thus, it alsoplayed o nly a minor role in the critical rethinking of general social theory. Wh en, in the late1970s and early 1980s, critical thinking entered the domain of leisure studies, its influencewas threefold. A first object of critique was the notion of culture used within leisureresearch. Argum ents were m ade for a more receptive analysis of the "pos itive" meaning ofpopular or subcultural practices, and the foundations of established leisure-education pro-grams were questioned. Second, there was criticism of the dominant objectivist researchapproach w ith its fixation on formal, statistical procedures, ignoring not only the m eaningpeople them selves attached to their leisure activities but also the institutional p reconditionsof leisure as such. Third, there was a questioning o f the unreflexive us e made o f the notionof "postindustrial" or "free time society," with its emphasis on democratic pluralism andfree choice, instead pointing at the ongoing imp ortance of concepts of class and pow er.The influence of neo-Marxism on the study of leisure has perhaps nowhere been asnoteworthy and productive as in the United Kingdo m. T his must first of all be related to therole of the Birmingham Centre for Contempo rary Cultural S tudies (CC CS), a postgraduateresearch center established around 1964 by the Marxist historian Richard Hoggart (seeTurner, 1990). The ongoing interest of the center in the "lived experiences" of working-class cultures (and in the ideological role of the media in structuring those experiences) wasobviously closely related to issues of leisure. In 1980, this resulted in a combined work shop



3


12/15

European Leisure Studies 251of the British Sociological A ssociation and the Leisure Studies Association that was an ini-tiative of a new generation of leisure researchers eager to import critical thinking in theleisure studies field. Representatives of "conventional" leisure studies and of critical cul-tural studies.exchanged arguments (see Tomlinson, 1981). In the years that followed, theinfluence of the CCCS would result in an alternative introduction to the topic of leisure(Clarke & C atch er, 1985), more interest in ethnographic and institutional research, and agrowing attention to issues of class, race, and ge nder (although the latter had to wait for afeminist c ritique on the neglect of wom en in cultural studies).

The increasing importance of cultural studies (itself oriented toward a mixture ofGramscian neo-Marxism, French poststructuralism, semiotics, and psychoanalysis) sig-naled a broader move away from postwar American social theory back to Europe and to"classic al" or "grand " social thought. This represented a shift in ideational orientation thatcan also be traced to the domain of leisure studies. Formerly do minated by "w eak" versionsof American-based scientism and functionalism, leisure research became influenced by theideas of Giddens, Bourdieu, and Elias.How ever, at the same time that critical thinking and a renewed interest in social theoryfinally became part o f the leisure studies field, questioning the hegemony of former posi-tivist and functionalist approaches, the economic and fiscal crisis again started to changethe leisure studies research agenda. M ost important has been the shift, noticeable all overEurope, to a more m arket-oriented approach to leisure, stimulating an interest in leisure asa consum er good (Bram ham et al., 1993). This has resulted in a shift away from collectiveissues of leisure participation and social inequality to mo re localized issues of public reach,of marketing and management, consumption and tourism.In addition, in the 1980s, postmodern social and cultural thinking, with its emphasis onthe local, on (theoretical and cultural) eclecticism and assemblage, and on choice andreflexivity, gradually found its way to the leisure studies field. Furthermore, postmodernthinking stimulated an interest in consumer culture, leading to issues of aesthetics, imagery,pleasure, desire, deconstruction, the body , identity, and style.Leisure research has related itself rather ambivalently to postmodern thinking. Ofcourse, from a variety of positions, cross connections are made and maintained (e.g., theworks of Featherstone, Lash and Urry, and Rojek). However, in general, these cross con-nections are made by people from outside the conventional domain of leisure research andremain on a rather general level of analysis.M ediating the "old " concerns (the work-leisure relationship and issues of leisure strat-ification) with new circumstances (the further proliferation of leisure and consumption pos-sibilities, the comm odification of leisure, global econom ic and cultural restructuring, theenduring crisis of the welfare state, the postmodern sensibility for the local and the every-day, the flexibilization of labor time), some additional fields of research have em erged. H ereone can think of research into the changing patterns and m eanings of free time in the con-text of an enduring flexibilization of labor relations. A lso, there is the question of how chang-ing relations of class, gender, ethnicity, and age can be traced to the domain of leisure par-ticipation in a postindustrial, postmodern society. Furthermore, the topic of the changingrole of leisure and culture in urban regeneration processes reflects a further concern forleisure studies (together with the possible conseq uences of this in terms of changing socio-cultural and spatial relations of inclusion and exclusion). Finally, there is the issue of thechanging structure of public and private leisure provision resulting from the transformationof the relations am ong the national state, local governm ent, and globalizing cultural indus-tries.



3


13/15

252 H. Momm aasLeisure Research at the Crossroads?In one way or ano ther, all of these topical changes have added to a further p luralization ofthe field of leisure research, also resulting in the boundaries betw een leisure stud ies, on oneside,and consum er and cultural studies, on the other, becom ing m ore fluid. In the words ofGiddens (1990), we could speak of subsequent pha ses of "detraditionalization" or of a fur-ther radicalization of levels of "reflexivity." The time that leisure research could unprob-lematically be grounded in a collective interest in the participation of a nation 's pop ulationin public culture seems to be over. On one extreme, there is Poland, with its frantic turntoward m onetarist policies, resulting in a disappearance o f leisure studies departments anda fragmentation of the body of leisure researchers. This has been accompanied by anincrease in the volume of work on leisure markets (notably in relation to consumption andtourism) taking place in the offices of consultants and prom otion agen cies (Jung, 1996). InSpain, the field of leisure studies is plagued by an institutional and theoretical fragmenta-tion. Howe ver, as a result of the relative young age of the Spanish w elfare state, this has yetto be evaluated in terms of a case of development rather than a case of decline (San Sal-vador del Va lle, 1996 ). In France, the status of leisure as an autonom ous field of researchseems to be threatened. O f importance is the com peting upsurge of the topic of daily life inthe new "sociality" of postmodern society, a topic very much related to French postmod-ern sociology (Sam uel, 1996). In the United Kingd om , the leisure studies field seems to begrappling with the claims of postmodernism and with shifts in the experiences of leisure,lifestyle, and consumption under postindustrial, post-Fordist circumstances (Bramham &Henry, 1996). Belgian leisure studies is drawing back to the traditional academic disci-plines and to pure marketing and management (Corijn & Van den Eeckhout, 1996). And,in the Netherlands, leisure studies has to face a centrifugal pluralization of its researchdomain (Momm aas, 1996).

In a certain sense, this situation can be called rather ironic. At the same moment thatauthors working within the domain of leisure research notice a certain fragmentation or"evap oration" o f their research field, topics related to leisure (con sump tion, culture, plea-sure, desire, tourism, sp orts, time-space) seem to be enjoying a larger popularity and inter-est than ever before. The question, then, seems to be whether and how the field of leisurestudies can realign itself to these new areas of interest (redefine its relation to them ). Thehistory of leisure research suggests that this cannot be dealt with on a purely cognitive oranalytical level aiming at ever-nuanced no tions of leisure. Instead, the issue seems to be onethat involves the public significance of leisure. Is there still a collective project of leisurepossible or even desirable, giving leisure research a new public forum/legitimation, and, ifso ,what could such a project look like?

ReferencesAlbrow, M. (1993). The changing British role in European sociology. In B. Nedelmann & P.Sztompka (Eds.), Sociology in Europe: In search of identity (pp. 81-98). Berlin/New York:Walter de G ruyter.Alexander, J. (1995).Fin de sicle social theory.London: Verso.Bailey, P. (1978).Leisure and class in Victorian England. Rational recrea tion a nd the contest for

control, 1830-1885. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters: On modernity, post-modernity and intellectuals.Cam bridge, England: Polity Press.Beckers, T., & Mommaas, H. (1996). The international perspective in leisure research: Cross-national contacts and comparisons. In H. Mommaas, H. Van der Poel, P. Bramham, & I. P.



3


14/15

Europea n Leisure Studies 253Henry (Eds.),Leisure research in Europe: Methods and traditions(pp. 209 -24 5). Oxon, UnitedKingdom: CAB International.Bianchini, F., & P arkinson, M. (1993).C ultural policy and urban regeneration. The West-Europeanexperience.M anchester, England: Manchester University Press.Bramham , P., & H enry, I. (1996). Leisure research in the UK. In H. Mom ma as, H. Van der Poel, P.Bramham, & I. P. Henry (Eds.), Leisure research in Europe: Methods and traditions (pp.179-209 ). Oxon, United Kingdom : CAB International.

Bramham, P., Henry, I., Mommaas, H., & Van der Poel, H. (Eds.). (1989). Leisure and urbanprocesses. London: Routledge.

Bramham , P., Henry, I., Mo mm aas, H., & Van der Poel, H. (Eds.). (1993).Leisure policies in Europe.Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.Clarke, J. & Critcher, C. (1985). The devil makes work. Leisure in capitalist Britain. Hampshire,United Kingdom: McMillan.Corijn, E., & Mommaas, H. (1995). Urban cultural policy developments in Europe. Unpublishedmanuscript, Tilburg University/Brussels University.Corijn, E., & V an den E eckhout, P. (1996). Leisure research in B elgium: No engine of its own. In H.Mommaas, H. Van der Poel, P. Bramham, & I. P. Henry (Eds.),Leisure research in Europe:Methods and traditions(pp. 139-179). Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.

Cross, G. (1993).Time and money. The making of consumer culture.London: Routledge.De G razia, S. (1962).Of time, work, and leisure.New Y ork: Anchor Books.Delantly, G. (1995).Inventing E urope. Idea , identity, reality. London: Macmillan.Giddens, A. (1990).T he consequences ofmodernity.Cam bridge, England: Polity Press.Gonzalez, J., & U rkiola, A. (1993). Leisure policy in Spain. In P. Bram ham, I. Henry, H. Mom maas,& H. Van der Poel (Eds.),Leisure policies in Europe (pp. 149-175). Oxon, United Kingdom:CAB International.Jung, B. (1993). Elements of leisure policy in post-war Poland. In P. Bram ham, I. Henry, H . Mom -maas, & H. Van der Poel (Eds.),Leisure policies in Europe(pp. 18 9-211). Oxon, United King-dom: CAB International.Jung, B. (1996). Leisure research in post-war Poland. In H. Mo mm aas, H. Van der Poel, P. Bramham ,& I. P. Henry (Eds.), Leisure research in Europe: Methods and traditions(pp. 39-63). Oxon,United Kingdom: CAB International.Kw asniewicz, W. (1993). Between universal and native: The case of P olish sociology. In B. Nedel-man & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Sociology in Europe: In search of identity (pp. 165-189).Berlin/New York: W alter de Gruyter.Lacey, M . J., & Fum er, M .O. (1993). Social investigation, social knowledg e, and the state: an intro-duction. In M. J. Lacey & M. O. Furner (Eds.),The state and social investigation in Britain andthe United States (pp. 3-60). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Woodrow Wilson CenterPress/Cambridge University Press.Lanfant, M. F. (1972).Sociologie van de vrije tijd (Sociology of free time). Utrecht/Antwerp: HetSpectrum.Man icas, P. (1987).A history an d philosophy of the social sciences. Oxford, England: Basil Black-well.Martin, B. (1983).A sociology of contemporary cultural change.Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Mom maas, H. (1996). The study of free time and pleasure in the Netherlands: The end of the legis-lator. In H. Momm aas, H. Van der Poel, P. Bramham , & I. P. Henry (Eds.),Leisure research inEurope: M ethods and traditions(pp. 63-107). Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.

Mommaas, H,, Van der Poel, H., Bramham, P., & Henry, I. P. (Eds.). (1996a). Leisure research inEurope: M ethods and traditions.Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.Mom maas, H ., Van d er Poel, H., Bramham , P., & Henry, I. P. (1996b). Leisure research in Europe:Trajectories of cultural modernity. In H. Momm aas, H. Van der Poel, P. Bramham , & I. P. Henry(Eds.),Leisure research in Europe: Methods and traditions(pp. 245-28 5). Oxon, United King-dom: CAB International.

Murray, B. (1989). Fordism and post-Fordism. In S. Hall & M. Jacques (Eds.), New times (pp.38-47).London: Lawrence & Wishart.



3


15/15

254 H. MommaasOlszewska, A ., & Roberts, K. (1989).Leisure and lifestyle: A comparative analysis.London: Sage.Parker, S. (1972).The uture of work and leisure.New York: Praeger.Rothblatt, S., & W ittrock, B . (1993).The European and American university since 1800.Cam bridge,England: Cambridge University Press.Samuel, N. (1996). The prehistory and history of leisure research in France. In H. M om maa s, H. Van

der Poel, P. Bramham , & I. P. Henry (Eds.),Leisure research in Europe: M ethods and traditions(pp.11-39). Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.San Salvador del Valle, R. (1996). Leisure research in Spain. In H. Mommaas, H. Van der Poel, P.Bramham, & I. P. Henry (Eds.), Leisure research in Europe: Methods and traditions (pp.107-139). Oxon, United Kingdom: CAB International.Scaff L. A. (1993). Europe and A merica in search of sociology: Reflections on a partnership. In B.Nedelmann & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Sociology in Europe: In search of identity (pp. 213-224).Berlin/New York: Walter de G ruyter.Smigel, E. O. (1963). Work and leisure: A contemporary social problem. New Haven, CT: Collegeand University Press.Szalai, A . (1972).The use of time.Mouton: The Hague-Paris.Tezano s, J. F. (1990). Inequality and class. In S. Giner & L. Mo reno (Eds.),Sociology in Spain(pp.151-15 6). Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Sociales Ava nzados.Therborn, G. (1995).European modernity andbeyond.London: Sage.Thom pson, J. B. (1990).Ideology and m odern culture.Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Tilly, C. (1990).C oercion, capital and European states AD 990-1990. Oxford, England: Basil Black-well.Tom linson, A. (1981).Leisure and social control.Eastbourne, England: Brighton P olytechnic.Turner, G. (1990).British cultural studies: An introduction.London: Unwin Hyman.Turner, S. P., & Turner, J. H. (1990 ).The impossible science. An institutional analysis of American

sociology.London: Sage.Wilterdink, N., & Zwaan, T. (1991). Nationalisme, natievorming en modemisering (Nationalism,nation building, and mo dernization). In T. Zwaan, N . Wilterdink, H . Kleijer, & C. Cruson (Eds.),

Het Europees labyrint (The European labrynth) (pp. 253-271). Amsterdam: Boom/Siswo.W inch, D. (1993). The science of the legislator: The enlightenment heritage. In M. J. Lacey & M. O .Furner (Eds.),The state and social investigation in Britain and the United States (pp. 63-88).Cambridge, England: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Cambridge University Press.Woodiwiss, A. (1993).Postmodernity USA. The crisis of social modernism in post-war America.London: Sage.

Dow



3

european leisure studies at the crossroads - a history of leisure research in europe - hans mommaas

Documents