Sociology and Leisure: A Question of Root or Branch

Abstract

The paper explores some of the main strands in the development of the sociology of leisure. The nineteenth century founding fathers, with their synoptic theoretical approaches, found space for leisure, although not labelled as such, as an integral part of their work. Veblen introduced the concept of leisure into sociology, but was himself committed to values of efficiency from which standpoint he criticized the drone-like character of the leisure class. His views were more consonant with industrial sociology which emerged as a strong well-funded sub-discipline dedicated to humanize the labour process while also maximizing productivity. It was from among industrial sociologists seeking a fuller explanation of work-place behaviour by looking beyond the factory that a sociology of leisure was developed. It emerged as a satellite to the sociology of work. The sociology of leisure was dominated, in the post-Second World War period, on the one hand by post-industrialism, and on the other hand by data collection, often on a psychologistic and individualistic basis. The reaction has been to return to more synoptic approaches, often combining elements of marxism, culturalism, history and literary criticism. These approaches have also redressed the balance against the notion that leisure is always a symbol of freedom and progress by re-introducing notions of constraint and social control. In conclusion, it is pointed out that leisure, deriving from the latin `licere', properly incorporates both of these meanings, and therefore raises in another form a fundamental problem of sociology itself. The problem concerns the balance between the individual and the social and between freedom and constraint. In this sense, leisure should be treated as an important and integral part of sociology, and not peripheral.