Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …
31
different principles than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The very organization of proposals
to watch or read (read: algorithmic automation) takes into account the big data port
about us and about our previous choices, which not only support but also replace our
decisions.
4 From Leisure Society Theses to Civil Leisure
and Emotional Labor in the Context of Sustainable
Development
Research approaches to leisure characteristic of the 1960s and 1980s were quantitative in nature, which resulted from the dominant positivism and functionalism
theories; according to these approaches, free time that performed important functions towards or for the benefit of the system contributed to its consolidation and
to the legitimacy of social practices in accordance with the system of dominant
economic, political or cultural values. Studies on leisure during this period indicated
progress and development, focused on restoring and maintaining social order and
improving the social and cultural condition. Leisure time was primarily an objective,
quantifiable and classified value, which manifested itself in the dominance of strictly
quantitative, budgetary research, which was the basis for determining the fundamental trends in leisure (Veal 2006, pp. 3–22). The quantitative approach was based
primarily on the understanding of leisure time and working time as being born out of
the nature and logic of an industrial society, and thus perceived through opposition.
The work/leisure dichotomy marked and ordered the direction of early reflections
on this issue, and some researchers such as Critcher et al. (2001) point out that the
history of leisure time began with this distinction.
A fundamental sociological reflection on developing leisure established and
defined it in opposition to working time, thus creating a rather rigid, divisive and
dichotomous picture of the reality of working and leisure time (Wilensky 1960;
Parker 1971; Dumazedier 1974; Roberts 1999, pp. 54–57). Work was identified with
compulsion, boredom and monotony, an instrumental attitude that was essentially
intended to bring profit. Leisure, on the other hand, was understood as time outside
work, where individuals could experience the freedom to choose behaviors and activities that allowed them to express themselves and their own lifestyle (as part of a
broader social welfare phenomenon).
Since the early 1980s, leisure researchers have begun to point to the usefulness
of a phenomenological and naturalistic approach to leisure research, particularly in
relation to the research neglected in the previous period around individual meanings
and experiences in various situational contexts of leisure (e.g. Scott and Godbey 1990;
Henderson 1991; Pedlar 1995; Weissinger et al. 1997). The American researcher
Hemingway (1995, 1996) advocated a more hermeneutical interpretation of depth
in the study of entertainment, and Kelly and Kelly (1994) called for critical social
31
different principles than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The very organization of proposals
to watch or read (read: algorithmic automation) takes into account the big data port
about us and about our previous choices, which not only support but also replace our
decisions.
4 From Leisure Society Theses to Civil Leisure
and Emotional Labor in the Context of Sustainable
Development
Research approaches to leisure characteristic of the 1960s and 1980s were quantitative in nature, which resulted from the dominant positivism and functionalism
theories; according to these approaches, free time that performed important functions towards or for the benefit of the system contributed to its consolidation and
to the legitimacy of social practices in accordance with the system of dominant
economic, political or cultural values. Studies on leisure during this period indicated
progress and development, focused on restoring and maintaining social order and
improving the social and cultural condition. Leisure time was primarily an objective,
quantifiable and classified value, which manifested itself in the dominance of strictly
quantitative, budgetary research, which was the basis for determining the fundamental trends in leisure (Veal 2006, pp. 3–22). The quantitative approach was based
primarily on the understanding of leisure time and working time as being born out of
the nature and logic of an industrial society, and thus perceived through opposition.
The work/leisure dichotomy marked and ordered the direction of early reflections
on this issue, and some researchers such as Critcher et al. (2001) point out that the
history of leisure time began with this distinction.
A fundamental sociological reflection on developing leisure established and
defined it in opposition to working time, thus creating a rather rigid, divisive and
dichotomous picture of the reality of working and leisure time (Wilensky 1960;
Parker 1971; Dumazedier 1974; Roberts 1999, pp. 54–57). Work was identified with
compulsion, boredom and monotony, an instrumental attitude that was essentially
intended to bring profit. Leisure, on the other hand, was understood as time outside
work, where individuals could experience the freedom to choose behaviors and activities that allowed them to express themselves and their own lifestyle (as part of a
broader social welfare phenomenon).
Since the early 1980s, leisure researchers have begun to point to the usefulness
of a phenomenological and naturalistic approach to leisure research, particularly in
relation to the research neglected in the previous period around individual meanings
and experiences in various situational contexts of leisure (e.g. Scott and Godbey 1990;
Henderson 1991; Pedlar 1995; Weissinger et al. 1997). The American researcher
Hemingway (1995, 1996) advocated a more hermeneutical interpretation of depth
in the study of entertainment, and Kelly and Kelly (1994) called for critical social