Part IV. Post-structural Theories of Leisure. Introduction. Brett Lashua

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Part IV. Post-structural Theories of Leisure. Introduction. Brett Lashua"

Cora Cunningham
5 years ago
Views:

1 Part IV Post-structural Theories of Leisure Brett Lashua Introduction The theorizations covered in Part Three Structural Theories of Leisure presented a number of critiques about leisure, calling particular attention to questions of structure and agency. The chapters that follow in this part of the handbook advance these conversations by further troubling the idea of leisure, while simultaneously embracing and celebrating the multiplicity of different leisure meanings, voices, and views. In doing so, the chapters map out, to some extent, the inheritance of the enlightenment and modernity (Heikkala 1993) in the field as well as future directions for leisure scholarship. In calling this section post-structural theories of leisure we believe that, beyond showcasing multiplicities of leisure practices and theories, the chapters draw particular attention to conceptualizations of power. As Foucault reminds us, post-structural theorizations move discussions B. Lashua Leeds Beckett University Headingley Campus, Cavendish Hall, Leeds, LS6 3QU, UK

2 684 B. Lashua beyond agency and structure to matters of agency and power: Power is not an institution, not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name one attributes to a complex strategical relationship in a particular society (Foucault 1981, p. 93). The chapters in Part Post-structural Theories of Leisure turn away from discussions of what leisure is or is not, and offer considerations of what power does, both in and through leisure, and what it allows social actors to do: We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms; it excludes, it represses, it censors, it abstracts, it masks, it conceals. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production. (Foucault 1977, p. 194) Echoing Foucault, leisure is productive, it produces social relations, and it brings people into relations with others. In this sense, the chapters in this section explore questions of power, difference, and also the act itself of knowledge production involved in theorizing leisure. The philosophies and critiques introduced in Part Two Rational Theories of Leisure and Part Three Structural Theories of Leisure of the handbook are pushed further in the chapters that follow: Part Four Post-structural Theories of Leisure provides, in some ways, critiques of critiques. Questions raised in earlier sections regarding rationalism, modernity, and structure are reimagined in Part Four through critical postmodern and post-structural lenses. Mira Malick s chapter opens the section with a playfully incisive treatise on postmodernism, first through the work of Jean-François Lyotard and then offering a critical alternative via the work of Bruno Latour and Actor-Network Theory. Postmodern conditions echo through the discussions of hyperreality and ultra-realism from Steve Redhead, focused on three key theorists Jean Baudrillard, Alain Badiou, and Slavoj Žižek in an attempt to understand leisure theory in a post-capitalist era following the 2008 financial crash. Building upon similar post critiques, Ken Roberts chapter approaches reflexivity modernity via the theorizations of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck in discussions of leisure in a risk society that valorizes self-discipline.

3 Part IV Post-structural Theories of Leisure 685 The work of Giddens also resonates through the chapter from Spencer Swain, which he carries into liquid modernity through the theorizations of Zygmunt Bauman. The chapter from Swain shares conceptual territory with Trent Newmeyer s account of the effects of neo-liberalism and governmentality in a case study of community gardens in Toronto, Canada. Through these chapters, the frame of modernity that was resonant in Part Three Structural Theories of Leisure is re-tuned to grapple with the complexities and dissonances of an increasingly deregulated, globalized, mediatized, consumerist, and fragmented world: all characteristic hallmarks of postmodern and post-structural thought. In this view, the project of modernity and rational recreation has been superseded by new agendas, policy alliances and corporate forces (Bramham and Wagg 2011, p. 5) that have centralized individuals choices and commodified leisure experiences. Simon Beames and Mike Brown bring these changes into a (global) focus in their chapter about leisure and consumption through Bryman s theory of Disneyization. Power and control, in and through leisure, have shifted, and these theorizations help us to read and make some sense of these social, cultural, political, and economic changes. The chapters in this section unpack and deconstruct the often unquestioned and unremarked forces that shape contemporary leisure. Several chapters address questions of liminal leisure identities caught inbetween different places and cultures. For those swept up in global flows of migration and post-nationality, Dan Burdsey brings the in-betweenness of liminality into conversation with theories diaspora, diaspora studies, and leisure. The issues that characterize diasporic identity politics are also theorized in view of the vanishing borders of leisure tourism and mobilities research in the chapter by Kevin Hannam and Basagaitz Guereno-Omil. These authors engage with the movements of refugees and question the politics of borders and re-bordering in order to develop an understanding of the politics of identity, nationalism, and social exclusion as they play out through leisure (im)mobilities. Three chapters grapple specifically with post-structuralism. Lisbeth Berbary s chapter provides a critique of the humanist philosophical foundations of leisure studies and its insistence on truth, reality, reason, and knowledge. She overviews a number of post theoretical positions that

4 686 B. Lashua challenge leisure scholars to move beyond the traditions in Part Two Rational Theories of Leisure and Part Three Structural Theories of Leisure to do things differently. Erin Sharpe s chapter also brings a central concept from Part Structural Theories of Leisure resistance into contact with post-structuralism via concepts of power and the work of Michel Foucault. Rejecting the binary categories of dominance and resistance, Sharpe seeks to understand how power is exercised in attempts to influence or control the actions of others. Rather than simple revolutions from below, Sharpe seeks to showcase moments of change that occur through leisure practices (such as parkour) that offer fissures or breaks in wider webs of existing power relations. The contribution from Mary Ann Devine and Ken Mobily brings post-structural identity politics into conversation with disability and embodiment. They offer that access to leisure is shaped by competing histories of disability and espouse alternative, contextual understandings (e.g., political, cultural, and historical) of discourses of the body, difference, and social justice. A number of chapters (de)centralize leisure and post-structural leisure along intertwining lines of identities and spaces. The chapter from Brian Kumm and Corey Johnson employs a Deleuzian framework to reconfigure spaces for becoming. Exploring power, they engage with the de-territorialization and re-territorialization of racialized, sexualized, gendered, and classed identities. Also in terms of identity politics, social space, and belonging, Troy Glover s chapter explores the contestation and negotiation of belonging through the theories of Henri Lefebvre. Troy reminds us of the entanglement of leisure, belonging, and power in the production and consumption of social space. The theorizations in this section compel us to remain restless; there is always more theorizing to do: again, Foucault reminds of the importance of this enterprise: The work of an intellectual is not to mould the political will of others; it is, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re- evaluate rules and institutions and starting from this re-problematization to participate in the formation of a political will. (Lotringer 1989: 34)

5 Part IV Post-structural Theories of Leisure 687 Throughout, the theories chapters in this section challenge us to think differently about leisure and power. This re-problematization alerts us to the possibility that changing the way we think about leisure might mean also changing the ways that people (re)enact leisure in their everyday lives. References Bramham, P., & Wagg, S. (2011). The new politics of leisure and pleasure. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans: Sheridan, A.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality. Vol. 1: An introduction (trans: Hurley, R.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Heikkala, J. (1993). Discipline and excel: Techniques of the self and body and the logic of competing. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, Lotringer, S. (Ed.). (1989). Foucault live: Interviews New York: Semiotext(e).

Part II. Rational Theories of Leisure. Karl Spracklen

Part II. Rational Theories of Leisure. Karl Spracklen Part II Rational Theories of Leisure Karl Spracklen Introduction By calling this section of the handbook the part concerning rational theories of leisure, we are not suggesting that everything in the other