Work and Leisure

80 Judy Whiteaspects of women’s lives remains important, even if it is a form of analysisheld together by theorists of a post-modern persuasion.(Deem 1998: 11)Deem is clear that it is also important to see how we can accommodate thosecritiques of previous studies, which:we regard as justified – in particular ensuring that we only prioritisegender over other forms of research when our research data and analysisseem to support that – and to adapt future research so that this becomespossible. We also need to ensure that leisure is researched in a propermanner so that we do not (if we ever did) assume that leisure is a whollyseparable part of women’s lives. We must also remember that methodologiesneed to remain sensitive to what we are studying, especially whenor if we are looking at marginal or excluded groups.(Deem 1998: 11)Recent trends in social theory, she argues, have questioned concepts of socialclass and stratification as ‘concepts more closely allied to ideas about modernistsocieties rather than post-modern societies: social structures have beenreplaced by signs and symbols, including new technologies and informationstructures’ (Deem 1998: 12). But, however seriously we take differenceswithin social groups such as women, there remain some elements of morecommonly experienced social and cultural patterns (e.g. motherhood) whichare not necessarily oppressive and, although they do not of course apply toall women, they display patterns which go beyond affecting single individuals.Critiques of conceptions of leisure, gender and social exclusion tend to focuson two aspects of previous studies, arguing about the extent to which thereare common shared worlds of women and whether leisure is a source ofenjoyment or a form of resistance to traditional gender stereotyping. Thecriticisms tend to both oversimplify and use selective research results to suggestthat the differences between women need to be underscored and exploredmore, and that it is somehow wrong or inappropriate to suggest that womenmight actually be able to, and do, enjoy their ‘relative leisure freedoms’!Deem is concerned that these criticisms have affected the mind-sets ofresearchers and funding agencies, such that they perceive these areas of workto be, at best, of little policy importance and, at worst, irrelevant to theoreticaldevelopment, that it is ‘modernist nonsense.’ But the attitude illustratedby Deem here is fundamentally dangerous, as it appears to equate ‘worthwhile’research with that which can be funded; it suggests that a ghetto isinhabited by those who would rather be elsewhere and who do not feel thatwhat they are doing is worthwhile. Not being taken seriously by funders has adifferent impact from not being taken seriously by the academy and feministresearchers. Would the location of ‘women and leisure research’ outside