Work and Leisure

IntroductionJohn T. Haworth and A. J. VealIn the mid-1970s, the volume Work and Leisure (Haworth and Smith 1975)established a number of parameters which shaped the study of work andleisure then and which remain salient three decades later. The first was thecomplexity of the field of study, due in part to the multifaceted nature of theconcepts involved. Second, it was observed that the field of study necessarilyinvolved a considerable range of disciplines. Third, the field reflected theongoing ‘agency–structure’ debate in the social sciences: that is, the extent towhich individuals act on and influence their life situations rather than beingshaped primarily by wider social and economic forces and events. Fourth, asa result of its increasing social and economic significance, leisure had becomea public policy and planning issue and was caught up in debates on publicparticipation, the environment and the quality of life.The question of definitions of work and leisure raised by the editors of the1975 volume was not resolved – except to suggest that the definitions usedshould be broad rather than narrow, in order not to restrict the concepts usedin research (Haworth and Smith 1975: 1). The question of defining leisure atthe time had been influenced by a normative, ‘classical’ view of the phenomenonpromulgated by writers such as Josef Pieper (1999 [1952]: 26) andSebastian De Grazia (1962: 5), who saw leisure as a ‘condition of the soul’ ora ‘state of being’ which might or might not be achieved during ‘free time’.Today, the so-called ‘residual’ definition of leisure, that is time which is notoccupied by paid work, unpaid work or personal chores and obligations,is widely accepted for its proven utility in research (Roberts 1999: 5) and isinclusive and non-normative. However, Roberts (1999: 23) notes that theresidual definition of leisure proves difficult to apply to unemployed andretired people, as well as among women, regardless of their employmentstatus. He also recognises that technological, economic and social changes insociety impact on leisure, making it ‘necessary to ask repeatedly whether weneed to revise our notions about what leisure is’ (Roberts 1999: 5).It is important to emphasise that the residual approach does not defineleisure only, or even primarily, in relation to paid work. The normativedimension is omitted from the residual definition: leisure is not, of itself,