Scholarlink

<p>In contemporary public and academic discourse, leisure is frequently treated as a self-evident, universally accessible sphere of freedom. This conceptual article challenges that assumption, arguing that under conditions of late capitalism and digital dedifferentiation leisure is better understood as a precarious and unevenly distributed quality of experience than as a guaranteed temporal gap. Rather than offering new empirical data, the paper advances a theoretical synthesis. It revisits the classic recognition in leisure studies that leisure can be conceived simultaneously as time, as activity and as a state of mind (Kaplan, 1960; Neulinger, 1981; Parker, 1976), and integrates this tradition with the boundary concepts that have long destabilised the simple work–leisure dichotomy, semi-leisure (Dumazedier, 1967) and the serious, casual and project-based forms of leisure (Stebbins, 1992, 2007). On this basis the article proposes a two-pillar framework in which leisure becomes realisable only at the intersection of a <i>subjective condition</i> (the capacity to recognise and inhabit time as one’s own) and a <i>structural condition</i> (the social possibility of not being required to produce or to care). These conditions are examined through cognitive psychology and four critical perspectives – Adorno’s culture industry, Crary’s 24/7 thesis, Baudrillard’s hyperreality and the feminist sociology of Hochschild – while the analysis is deliberately tempered by leisure scholarship that foregrounds agency, resistance and inclusion (Wearing, 1998; Shaw, 2001; de Certeau, 1984; Aitchison, 2003). The article concludes that authentic leisure does exist, but only as a fragile accomplishment: an act of conscious appropriation and the defence of mental and social sovereignty against the demands of permanent productivity.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Leisure: A Reality or a Social Myth?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月7日

查看全文
  • Kamil Janiš

摘要

In contemporary public and academic discourse, leisure is frequently treated as a self-evident, universally accessible sphere of freedom. This conceptual article challenges that assumption, arguing that under conditions of late capitalism and digital dedifferentiation leisure is better understood as a precarious and unevenly distributed quality of experience than as a guaranteed temporal gap. Rather than offering new empirical data, the paper advances a theoretical synthesis. It revisits the classic recognition in leisure studies that leisure can be conceived simultaneously as time, as activity and as a state of mind (Kaplan, 1960; Neulinger, 1981; Parker, 1976), and integrates this tradition with the boundary concepts that have long destabilised the simple work–leisure dichotomy, semi-leisure (Dumazedier, 1967) and the serious, casual and project-based forms of leisure (Stebbins, 1992, 2007). On this basis the article proposes a two-pillar framework in which leisure becomes realisable only at the intersection of a subjective condition (the capacity to recognise and inhabit time as one’s own) and a structural condition (the social possibility of not being required to produce or to care). These conditions are examined through cognitive psychology and four critical perspectives – Adorno’s culture industry, Crary’s 24/7 thesis, Baudrillard’s hyperreality and the feminist sociology of Hochschild – while the analysis is deliberately tempered by leisure scholarship that foregrounds agency, resistance and inclusion (Wearing, 1998; Shaw, 2001; de Certeau, 1984; Aitchison, 2003). The article concludes that authentic leisure does exist, but only as a fragile accomplishment: an act of conscious appropriation and the defence of mental and social sovereignty against the demands of permanent productivity.