Safety nets and security blankets: false dichotomies in leisure studies

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Rationalism, with its associated dichotomies and continua, dominates contemporary leisure studies. Five particular characteristics of dichotomies that have directed and constrained a great deal of research in leisure are discussed and illustrated. Polarization, classification, simplification, exclusivity and objectivity have had seven undesirable (and usually unintended) consequences for leisure studies: the framing of research and policy questions within a pre-established value context; a tendency to aggregate presumed parallel dichotomies; an assumption of homogeneity; an emphasis upon separation rather than integration; a confusion between method and substance; a denial of context; and the elimination of spontaneity and chance. It is suggested that while the field has gained much from the construction of dichotomies and continuums, it has also suffered greatly from their inappropriate use. It is contended that rationalism is presently leading leisure studies down the path of ever continuing subdivision into more and more detailed dichotomies that take explanation further and further away from understanding. A plea is made for greater efforts at reintegration.

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: