|
|
|
| Leisure’s Nature of Freedom in Modern Society |
| Liu Huimei1,2, Chen Xian1 |
1.School of Philosophy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
2.Academy of Leisure Studies and Art Philosophy, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In our modern society, leisure and leisure choices are abundant. Some scholars, therefore, argue that there is an expansion of freedom in leisure. Individual desires give rise to a flourishing leisure industry and various leisure opportunities, and leisure means freedom. Others contend that one cannot escape the constraints of social structures. Factors such as class, economic status, and race firmly differentiate individual leisure choices and leisure remains a socially constructed symbol in the modern society. These two views represent the debate of the modern “leisure paradox” of whether leisure is free or constrained. It should be noted though: in the former case, the prevalence of consumerism has transformed the freedom of leisure into the freedom of consumption; in the latter case, the power of individual agency has been largely ignored. At the same time, with social psychology and positivism leading the way in leisure studies since the 1960s, a purely subjective sense of “perceived freedom” was increasingly accepted as the understanding of freedom in leisure. But this purely subjective sense of freedom tends to reduce leisure to an individualized private sphere and reduce the possibilities of the communal benefits that leisure could achieve at a larger and higher level. It is argued in this paper that in the modern society leisure remains inextricably linked to the production-based essentialism of labor. Therefore, the first dimension of freedom in leisure is that of escape (free from). The second dimension of freedom in leisure as a choice is the result of the entry of free time into consumption, free to leisure in one’s free time. The third dimension of freedom in leisure is the process towards being human, the extent to which one can accomplish this is based on the highest possibility of personal development offered by the development of the level of productivity in the modern society. It is at this level that the human being as a person can break through the limitations of the times. Freedom in leisure is achieved through the sharing of freedom as a whole, a process of becoming. Freedom in leisure points to the transcendence of external constraints, to the transcendence of the self rather than to arbitrariness, and the actualization of individual agency largely determines where it can be reached. In this sense, the exercise of freedom in leisure is linked to the formation of personality, beginning with an increased awareness of what constitutes leisure, i.e., leisure enlightenment. Differences in social systems, classes, literacy levels, habits, etc. can lead to individual differences in the acquisition of freedom in leisure, but these differences are not simply differentiated by level, and any journey toward personal liberation is a worthwhile one. The concept of “freedom” in leisure has been one of the main points of debate among leisure scholars, and there is no systematic discussion of it in China yet, so this review provides a reference for the future expansion of the topic in China. The emphasis on leisure enlightenment and individual agency contributes to the interpretation of generating power with leisure.
|
|
Received: 04 May 2022
|
|
|
|
1 庞学铨： 《转换休闲研究的思维范式》，《哲学分析》2019年第2期，第107-120页。
2 Pieper J.， Leisure： The Basis of Culture， New York： New American Library， 1963.
3 Kelly J.， Leisure， Englewood Cliffs： Prentice-Hall， 1982.
4 Torkildsen G.， Leisure and Recreation Management （4th ed.）， London： Spon Press， 2000.
5 美］杰弗瑞·戈比： 《你生命中的休闲》，康筝译，昆明：云南人民出版社，2000年。
6 Rojek C.， The Labour of Leisure， London： Sage， 2010.
7 马惠娣： 《自由与审美——休闲的两只翅膀》，北京：文化艺术出版社，2014年。
8 潘立勇： 《休闲与审美：自在生命的自由体验》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2005年第6期，第5-11页。
9 陈来成： 《休闲学》，广州：中山大学出版社，2009年。
10 美］约翰·凯利： 《走向自由：休闲社会学新论》，赵冉译，昆明：云南人民出版社，2000年。
11 张斌、张澍军： 《关于休闲中自由的现实性反思》，《南京政治学院学报》2011年第5期，第47-50页。
12 彭菲： 《从社会关系视角解读休闲核心要素——论休闲与认同之间的关系建构》，《浙江社会科学》2019年第4期，第87-94页。
13 Rojek C.， “Freedom， power and leisure，” Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure， Vol. 10， No. 2 （1987）， pp. 209-217.
14 Goldman R. & Dickens D. R.， “Leisure and legitimation，” Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure， Vol. 7， No. 2 （1984）， pp. 297-323.
15 Roberts K.， The Leisure Industries， Basingstoke： Palgrave， 2004.
16 英］卡尔·斯普拉克伦： 《哈贝马斯与现代性终末处的休闲》，陈献译，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2022年。
17 Fromm E.， Marx’s Concept of Man， New York： Frederick Ungar， 1961.
18 Clarke J. & Critcher C.， The Devil Makes Work： Leisure in Capitalist Britain， Basingstoke： MacMillan， 1985.
19 Elias N. & Dunning E.， The Quest for Excitement， Oxford： Blackwell， 1986.
20 Adorno T.， Prisms， London： Neville Spearman， 1967.
21 Bramham P.， “Hard and disappearing work： making sense of the leisure project，” Leisure Studies， Vol. 25， No. 4 （2006）， pp. 379-390.
22 Juniu S.， “The transformation of leisure，” Leisure / Loisir， Vol. 33， No. 2 （2009）， pp. 463-478.
23 Veblen T.， The Theory of the Leisure Class， New York： Macmillan， 1912.
24 Rojek C.， Decentring Leisure： Rethinking Leisure Theory， London： Sage， 1995.
25 Goodale T. L.， “Perceived freedom as leisure’s antithesis，” Journal of Leisure Research， Vol. 22， No. 4 （1990）， pp. 296-302.
26 Webb E. & Karlis G.， “Theoretical developments in leisure studies： a look at perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation，” Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure， Vol. 40， No. 2 （2017）， pp. 268-283.
27 Neulinger J.， The Psychology of Leisure， Springfield： Charles C. Thomas， 1974.
28 Witt P. A. & Ellis G. D.， “Development of a short form to assess perceived freedom in leisure，” Journal of Leisure Research， Vol. 17， No. 3 （1985）， pp. 225-233.
29 Bouwer J. & van Leeuwen M.， Philosophy of Leisure： Foundations of the Good Life， London： Routledge， 2017.
30 Iso-Ahola S. E.， “Basic dimensions of definitions of leisure，” Journal of Leisure Research， Vol. 11， No. 11 （1979）， pp. 15-27.
31 Iso-Ahola S. E.， “Exercise and freedom，” World Leisure Journal， Vol. 51， No. 3 （2009）， pp. 134-149.
32 Harper W.， “Freedom in the experience of leisure，” Leisure Sciences： An Interdisciplinary Journal， Vol. 8， No. 2 （1986）， pp. 115-130.
33 Hemingway J. L.， “Emancipating leisure： the recovery of freedom in leisure，” Journal of Leisure Research， Vol. 28， No. 1 （1996）， pp. 27-43.
34 成素梅： 《智能革命与休闲观的重塑》，《社会科学战线》2019年第11期，第12-19页。
35 Zuzanek J.， “Leisure research in north America： a critical retrospective，” Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure， Vol. 14， No. 2 （1991）， pp. 587-596.
36 德］黑格尔： 《精神哲学》，杨祖陶译，北京：人民出版社，2006年。
37 吴育林： 《论马克思的自由休闲观》，《贵州社会科学》2011年第1期，第18-24页。
38 李哲罕： 《现代社会批判与审美批判——论休闲学的两条可能路径》，《西南民族大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2022年第2期，第66-70页。
39 Sylvester C. D.， “The ethics of play， leisure， and recreation in the twentieth century， 1900-1983，” Leisure Sciences： An Interdisciplinary Journal， Vol. 9， No. 3 （1987）， pp. 173-187.
40 刘慧梅、周雨： 《从休闲到休闲哲学——基于西方词源学考释的休闲哲学》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2023年第5期，第94-106页。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
