32
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
constructivism to be included. One of the visible signs of change was the introduction
of the concept of “experience in leisure” into free time analysis.
North American social psychologists such as Neulinger (1974), Mannel and
Kleiber (1979), Iso-Ahola (1980), as well as researchers from Australia and New
Zealand in the context of the quality of leisure time (healthy lifestyles, mental
hygiene and stress issues) were essential contributions to leisure time research. Some
researchers raised the importance of understanding the personality variables that
determine the needs and levels of motivation for leisure activities with a particular
focus on internal motivation (Iso-Ahola 1980; Mannellet al. 2006). Others analyzed
the factors determining satisfaction with leisure time activities and measured the
strength with which individual groups of factors are responsible for such satisfaction (Stebbins 1992). Others discussed the perception of possibilities (Driver and
Bruns 1999) and limitations (Jackson and Scott 1999) in leisure time and ways of
experiencing leisure time, including the issues of well-being and flow, which Csikszentmihalyi (2005) introduced into consideration of the quality of leisure time.
Scientists created a number of new publications, laboratories, quasi-experimental
methods, modified diary studies, and methods that allowed for studying current
emotional states, such as the Experiencing Sampling Method (ESM), visual methods
or autobiographical interviews (Hektner et al. 2007). Detailed analyses of conditions
governing motivation and experience have shown that free time is a much more
diverse and infinitely diverse category. The concepts and research of the representatives of qualitative approaches have pointed towards higher, subjective, and continually more individualized forms of experiencing free time (e.g. flow, self-realization,
happiness).
Sociologists who take up the subject of leisure time see that their sub-discipline
requires theoretical renewal. Building a new theory on old foundations is no longer
sufficient, given that these foundations have always been the subject of criticism
(cf. Rojek 1995, 2005, 2010) and the ways of spending free time are constantly
but slowly changing (Roberts 1999). The criticized concept of leisure society is
increasingly being replaced by theses on civil labor (Rojek 2001, 2002) or emotional
labor (2010). Rojek suggests that the separation of work from subsistence needs in
Western societies has allowed people to develop suites of activities through which
they can express their identities. Rojek has termed this mix of activities—which can
include paid and non-paid work in addition to leisure—as “civil labor,” in recognition
of its self-determined (civil) utility (work) in forming and displaying identity (Rojek
2001, 2002). Deploying the construct of “civil labor” provides an explanation for
phenomena such as “down-shifting,” in which decisions are made to replace some
paid work with other, usually non-paid activities as a means of achieving a desired
“work-life balance”.
Moreover, in the book The Labour of Leisure, Rojek introduces the term “emotional labor” to the issues of leisure, where he examines the concepts of emotional
intelligence and emotional labor in order to propose that leisure practice is not time
off or free time, but a specific form of informal labor. Leisure is the paramount setting
for developing the people skills that translate into the prized cultural capital needed
for the labor market and social networks. In leisure, we acquire the “coaching” skills
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
constructivism to be included. One of the visible signs of change was the introduction
of the concept of “experience in leisure” into free time analysis.
North American social psychologists such as Neulinger (1974), Mannel and
Kleiber (1979), Iso-Ahola (1980), as well as researchers from Australia and New
Zealand in the context of the quality of leisure time (healthy lifestyles, mental
hygiene and stress issues) were essential contributions to leisure time research. Some
researchers raised the importance of understanding the personality variables that
determine the needs and levels of motivation for leisure activities with a particular
focus on internal motivation (Iso-Ahola 1980; Mannellet al. 2006). Others analyzed
the factors determining satisfaction with leisure time activities and measured the
strength with which individual groups of factors are responsible for such satisfaction (Stebbins 1992). Others discussed the perception of possibilities (Driver and
Bruns 1999) and limitations (Jackson and Scott 1999) in leisure time and ways of
experiencing leisure time, including the issues of well-being and flow, which Csikszentmihalyi (2005) introduced into consideration of the quality of leisure time.
Scientists created a number of new publications, laboratories, quasi-experimental
methods, modified diary studies, and methods that allowed for studying current
emotional states, such as the Experiencing Sampling Method (ESM), visual methods
or autobiographical interviews (Hektner et al. 2007). Detailed analyses of conditions
governing motivation and experience have shown that free time is a much more
diverse and infinitely diverse category. The concepts and research of the representatives of qualitative approaches have pointed towards higher, subjective, and continually more individualized forms of experiencing free time (e.g. flow, self-realization,
happiness).
Sociologists who take up the subject of leisure time see that their sub-discipline
requires theoretical renewal. Building a new theory on old foundations is no longer
sufficient, given that these foundations have always been the subject of criticism
(cf. Rojek 1995, 2005, 2010) and the ways of spending free time are constantly
but slowly changing (Roberts 1999). The criticized concept of leisure society is
increasingly being replaced by theses on civil labor (Rojek 2001, 2002) or emotional
labor (2010). Rojek suggests that the separation of work from subsistence needs in
Western societies has allowed people to develop suites of activities through which
they can express their identities. Rojek has termed this mix of activities—which can
include paid and non-paid work in addition to leisure—as “civil labor,” in recognition
of its self-determined (civil) utility (work) in forming and displaying identity (Rojek
2001, 2002). Deploying the construct of “civil labor” provides an explanation for
phenomena such as “down-shifting,” in which decisions are made to replace some
paid work with other, usually non-paid activities as a means of achieving a desired
“work-life balance”.
Moreover, in the book The Labour of Leisure, Rojek introduces the term “emotional labor” to the issues of leisure, where he examines the concepts of emotional
intelligence and emotional labor in order to propose that leisure practice is not time
off or free time, but a specific form of informal labor. Leisure is the paramount setting
for developing the people skills that translate into the prized cultural capital needed
for the labor market and social networks. In leisure, we acquire the “coaching” skills