28
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
In a more sophisticated form, i.e. algorithmic automation, these boundary areas
are sifted through subtle—which in this context means invisible or unaware—technologies (Fernández-Macías 2018; Paško Bili´ c 2018). Automated decision-making
based on large amounts of data, systematically collected by supercomputers, is used
in many areas of social functioning, including the “organization” of work and leisure.
AMD (Automated Decision Making) systems, combining advanced technical infrastructure with social procedures, are used to make a number of decisions (traditionally
under human control) by computer algorithms. Officially “supporting” the human
decision-making process, they can in fact “replace” it, following a program, and
learning (by machine) logic (the so-called artificial intelligence).
Algorithmic automation in the context of leisure time, in addition to functions
supporting human decisions, can serve to predict the needs and behavior of entire
human populations. Taking into account the above-mentioned “standard” communication technologies, the algorithmic automation contributes to diagnosing and
modeling the structure of work and forms of spending leisure. It is potentially a
key determinant influencing in a “technologically internalized” way the perception
of social welfare in general (objective, material) as well as subjective (psychological)
terms.
Among the significant and signaled changes, one should point out: firstly, the
process of making working time more flexible; secondly, the (not apparent) process
of shortening working time in favor of leisure time; and thirdly, the acceleration of
the pace of life (and the paradoxes resulting from these three processes).
The development of work flexibility supported by new information and communication technologies favors 24-h availability, 24 h a day, seven days a week. Leisure
time in such a situation is blurred, the boundaries between leisure and working time
are becoming more fluid, and the internal organization of both fields is less obvious,
as it is subject to a continuous process of recording changes and suggesting solutions
(including the intentional organization of leisure).
Shortening working time is an important strategy of sustainable economic policy
on a declarative level, but in fact it may mean “surveillance capitalism,” the term
from Shoshan Zuboff (2019).
The 1960s witnessed the flourishing of the concept of leisure time in a society
or civilization—a left-wing utopia according to which the amount of working time
should decrease in favor of leisure time accessible to all (cf. Dumazedier 1967; Kelly
1978; Gershuny 1992). Schor wrote that “in the 1960s, optimists expected that by the
twenty-first century, citizens of the advanced industrialized nations would be living
lives of leisure, perhaps suffering from a ‘crisis of leisure’, brought on by boredom
and a failure to know how to spend time” (Schor 2006, p. 203). This included the
British sociologist Gershuny, who supported his thesis about the imminent advent of
the “leisure age” with projections of working time, which was shrinking under the
influence of economic and technological change. Schor (2006, p. 203) went on to
state that, instead of boredom, a significant shortage of time and high levels of stress
in everyday life was commonplace. The supporters of the idea and vision of leisure
society under the influence of the transformations taking place gradually rejected or
modified their previous positions. In the case of K. Roberts, a British researcher on
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
In a more sophisticated form, i.e. algorithmic automation, these boundary areas
are sifted through subtle—which in this context means invisible or unaware—technologies (Fernández-Macías 2018; Paško Bili´ c 2018). Automated decision-making
based on large amounts of data, systematically collected by supercomputers, is used
in many areas of social functioning, including the “organization” of work and leisure.
AMD (Automated Decision Making) systems, combining advanced technical infrastructure with social procedures, are used to make a number of decisions (traditionally
under human control) by computer algorithms. Officially “supporting” the human
decision-making process, they can in fact “replace” it, following a program, and
learning (by machine) logic (the so-called artificial intelligence).
Algorithmic automation in the context of leisure time, in addition to functions
supporting human decisions, can serve to predict the needs and behavior of entire
human populations. Taking into account the above-mentioned “standard” communication technologies, the algorithmic automation contributes to diagnosing and
modeling the structure of work and forms of spending leisure. It is potentially a
key determinant influencing in a “technologically internalized” way the perception
of social welfare in general (objective, material) as well as subjective (psychological)
terms.
Among the significant and signaled changes, one should point out: firstly, the
process of making working time more flexible; secondly, the (not apparent) process
of shortening working time in favor of leisure time; and thirdly, the acceleration of
the pace of life (and the paradoxes resulting from these three processes).
The development of work flexibility supported by new information and communication technologies favors 24-h availability, 24 h a day, seven days a week. Leisure
time in such a situation is blurred, the boundaries between leisure and working time
are becoming more fluid, and the internal organization of both fields is less obvious,
as it is subject to a continuous process of recording changes and suggesting solutions
(including the intentional organization of leisure).
Shortening working time is an important strategy of sustainable economic policy
on a declarative level, but in fact it may mean “surveillance capitalism,” the term
from Shoshan Zuboff (2019).
The 1960s witnessed the flourishing of the concept of leisure time in a society
or civilization—a left-wing utopia according to which the amount of working time
should decrease in favor of leisure time accessible to all (cf. Dumazedier 1967; Kelly
1978; Gershuny 1992). Schor wrote that “in the 1960s, optimists expected that by the
twenty-first century, citizens of the advanced industrialized nations would be living
lives of leisure, perhaps suffering from a ‘crisis of leisure’, brought on by boredom
and a failure to know how to spend time” (Schor 2006, p. 203). This included the
British sociologist Gershuny, who supported his thesis about the imminent advent of
the “leisure age” with projections of working time, which was shrinking under the
influence of economic and technological change. Schor (2006, p. 203) went on to
state that, instead of boredom, a significant shortage of time and high levels of stress
in everyday life was commonplace. The supporters of the idea and vision of leisure
society under the influence of the transformations taking place gradually rejected or
modified their previous positions. In the case of K. Roberts, a British researcher on