One Measure for Defining a Leisure Activity

IntroductionAlthough many authors have used several dimensions in their conceptualizations of leisure, they have characteristically refrained from a discussion of empirical measures for these dimensions. four dimensions most frequently used - and outlined in brief by Dumazedier (1968, p. 251) - bear repeating. First is the dimension of leisure as from obligation: leisure does imply from those institutional obligations that are prescribed by the basic form of social organization. second dimension is disinterestedness:The disinterested character of leisure is from primary obligation. is not motivated basically by gain. . Thirdly, leisure can be viewed as diversion: leisure appears to be distinguished by a search for a state of satisfaction - a state that is sought as an end in itself. final dimension is leisure and personality: All the manifest functions of leisure answer individual needs as distinguished from the primary obligations imposed by society. In summing up these four characteristics, Dumazedier stresses that leisure makes it possible for the individual to leave behind the routines and stereotypes forced on him by basic social institutions.DiscretionThis paper will present an empirical measure of the first of the four dimensions outlined above - from obligation. This facet was chosen because in present day industrial societies a common request, especially among the young, is for discretion over the time and place at which activities can be carried out - stated colloquially as to do your own thing. In industrial society, the worker seeks not only more free (discretionary) time through reduction of the work week, but also discretionary income. Dumazedier, in his summary referred to above, and many writers in the sociology of leisure comment on the pervasive nature of the discretionary dimension.In discussing the use of time as a partial definition of leisure, Moore (1963, 35) states that leisure may be positively, rather than residually, defined as DISCRETIONARY TIME. freedom in the choice of those activities that one will engage in and be bounded by. nearest Moore comes to stating an empirical measure for this dimension is his statement Where many genuine options for the use of time exist differences in actual participation may be taken as a crude indicator of preference. Moore acknowledges the crudeness of this of measure. Yet the majority of research into leisure uses participation as the main empirical indicator; participation is defined either as participation or non-participation in an activity, or as differences in the duration of time spent on an activity. Kaplan (1960, p. 22) suggests two approaches: the first is a classification of dimensions, based on what people say leisure means to them. In this case Kaplan suggests that one of the dimensions might be Leisure as a minimum of obligation to others, to routine, even to oneself. second is the construct of an ideal type where one of the dimensions would be ... a minimum of involuntary social-role obligation. . Later in the same discussion he makes use of this dimension in discussing the role of government in the field of leisure: The chief element in the of leisure is the choice of getting into and getting out of it. In a recent work devoted to explicating the concept of leisure, Parker (1969, p. 33) uses two important dimensions: time and the degree of of choice. He states, If the crucial time variable is whether a given space of time is work or not, the main activity variable seems to be the extent to which the activity is constrained or freely chosen.In role theory terms, the dimension of discretion over the choice of doing an activity is variation in social obligations to others. importance of such discretion is that a great amount of variability is permitted by the normative system; it can be stated in terms of starting and finishing an activity. …