Leisure

The influence of work on leisure

Stanley Parker

Stanley Parker categorises activities as (1) work (paid employment); (2) work obligations — for example, traveling to work; (3) non-work obligations — for example, housework; (4) physiological needs — sleep, eating; (5) leisure.

He claims that the type of work people do and the degree of autonomy they have in it is related to their leisure activities. He claims that there are three main patterns of leisure activity: (1) In the extension pattern, work is central to life rather than the family and leisure is an extension of work. This pattern occurs with occupations where there is a high level of autonomy and intrinsic job satisfaction. (2) In the neutrality pattern leisure is family centred, such as a family outing. The work is undertaken for pay and conditions rather than intrinsic satisfaction. (3) In the opposition pattern leisure is very different from work, and leisure is the central focus of interest. This pattern occurs with jobs with very low levels of autonomy. Parker claims that the opposition pattern is shown by the studies of coal miners by Dennis, Heriques and Slaughter (in Coal is our Life) and fishermen by Jeremy Tunstall (The Fishermen). In both cases leisure activities involve drinking in pubs and working men's clubs and can be viewed as a relief from the pressures and dangers of work, which encourage an attitude of living for the moment.

Criticisms of Parker

Parker ignores family lifestyle and class as determinants of leisure. He also ignores national culture. It can be argued that American culture encourages the extension pattern. Managers generally work over sixty hours a week in America and subordinate the leisure activities to work. British managers work shorter hours and segregate work from leisure. Child and Macmillan claim that “British managers prefer to compartmentalize their lives so that the job is forgotten during their leisure time.”

Some sociologists believe that individual choice is important and that Parker's analysis is too deterministic. Clarke and Critcher also argue that Parker's work ignores the leisure activities of women.

Marxist perspectives

John Clarke and Chas Critcher are Marxist sociologists claiming that the bourgeoisie are able to shape the pattern of leisure and that leisure is also an arena for the conflict between classes. The industrial revolution in the first instance removed opportunities for leisure, whilst creating a demarcation between work and leisure. Leisure was relegated to the tavern. After the 1880s there was a reduction in the average working week and leisure became important again. However, the state regulates leisure, determining what can be seen, and how public spaces can be used. Disorderly leisure is discouraged, as are working-class leisure patterns. “In relation to both body and state of mind, the state has pushed policies aimed at drawing subordinate social groups into 'rational recreation' in order to curb the potential dangers of free time.”

Leisure has also become big business. As a source of profits this has motivated the bourgeoisie, in combination with the state, to attempt to establish hegemony over leisure, but this is not always successful.

A pluralist perspective

Ken Roberts emphasizes individual choice in shaping leisure activities. He objects to “conspiracy” theories which argue that the public's leisure interests are manipulated by commercial enterprises. In reply to Parker he points out that the young, the retired and full-time housewives do not have their leisure shaped by work. He thinks class does have an effect on leisure, but he does not agree that this is a dominant influence. He finds that education has a strong influence on leisure pursuits. He also finds styles of marriage influence leisure. So leisure is a matter of choice and characterized by diversity.

Leisure and the family life cycle

Rhona and Robert Rapoport claim that family life is a determinant of leisure activities. They claim that a family goes through four main stages: (1) adolescence (15 — 19), where the preoccupation is with personal identity; (2) young adulthood, where the preoccupation is with social identity; (3) establishment (25 —55) where the preoccupation is with establishing a satisfying lifestyle — children, homes and gardens become more important; (4) later years (55+) — the preoccupation is with social and personal integration.

But the Rapoports' study has been criticized itself for lacking systematic evidence and failing to be comprehensive.

Gender and leisure

Shelia Scraton comments that up to the 1980s the topic of female leisure was not even studied, and Parker's work is criticized for omitting any discussion of women. Traditional roles within a marriage affect the patterns of leisure. Women are more likely to sew and men do DIY tasks.

Liberal feminism adopts the view that inequalities between men and women can be slowly eroded through piecemeal reform. This will also take effect with regard to leisure with the introduction of childcare facilities, special transport and women-only sessions at leisure centers.

Eileen Green, Sandra Hebron and Diana Woodward studied 707 women in Sheffield by means of questionnaires, interviews and discussion groups. They found that women do not sharply distinguish between leisure and work; that men have more leisure time than women, because the domestic responsibilities of women were open-ended; women had less money than men; that men seek to control women's leisure activities.

Regarding the last point, they write: “Social control operates at a number of levels across what may be seen as a continuum ranging from non-coercive forms to actual physical violence. In addition such forms of control are closely related to ideologies of gender and gender-appropriate behaviour.” The threat of violence has made women reluctant to venture out. Men use jokes, ridicule and sexual innuendo to control women at leisure centers. Mothers feel guilty about leaving their children.

Women with higher class and more income have more leisure opportunities.

Women in ethnic minorities are even more controlled. For example, in Asian families, “Personal preferences and autonomy are rigorously subordinated to the interests of the household unit, which is hierarchically ordered under the authority of the eldest male.”

The Retreat from Work into Leisure

According to Harold Wilensky “there are indications that the withdrawal from work as a central life interest, long noted for the working class, is spreading to the vast majority of the population.” This will be caused by the increasing specialization of work, and the lack of opportunity for fulfillment through work.

C. Write Mills argues that there is a “big split” between work and leisure for the mass of the population. “Each day men sell little pieces of themselves in order to try to buy them back each night and weekend with the coin of “fun”.” The masses escape into a fantasy world in which “the amusement of hollow people rests on their own hollowness and does not fill it up.”

However, the British sociologist Tom Burns, drawing on Goffman's idea of styling, argues that the division between work and leisure provides people with the opportunity of styling their lifestyles — like choosing a style of furniture.

According to the French sociologist Joffer Drumazedier people, and especially the young, chose their jobs with regard to the kind of leisure they want, and that as a consequence firms are having to respond by providing matching recreational facilities.

Roberts argues that the expansion of leisure is not as marked as many claim, and that the most rapid decline in working hours occurred between 1850 and 1918 when the average working week fell from 70+ hours to 54. He argues that “there are limits to how widely the influence of leisure is spreading throughout the social structure. Work and politics are two areas of life where its impact is slight, and while this remains so, talk of a leisure society is ill-advised.”

Sheila Scraton comments on the impact of the development of a consumer culture, and shopping for designer labels has become a leisure pursuit of its own.