Algorithmic Automation of Leisure from a Sustainable …
33
that translate into the two ethical principles that underpin Western society: care for the
self and care for the other (Rojek 2010a, pp. 3–4, 2010b). Even the emotional labor
theme is linked to new technologies, which some researchers do not see because their
approaches are too narrow. Let us mention the vast literature on cognitive capitalism
(cf. Moulier-Boutang 2011; Peters and Bulut 2011), and related phenomena such
as sharing economy, gig economy or platform capitalism (cf. Baranowski 2019b,
pp. 16–17).
Focusing solely on leisure limits the view of broader implications in terms of the
new technologies and globalization already mentioned. Leisure is not only a current
experience of the surrounding reality, but also a process of its constant updating and
changing, current reformulation, reflection and negotiation, which makes it possible
to treat it both as a certain dimension of social reality and a certain type of individual experience. Leisure, which is entangled in the social and cultural context of
the transformations taking place, as well as in the subjective activities of reflective
individuals, constitutes a space through which individuals experience themselves and
others.
We understand leisure itself broadly. First of all, leisure time is subjectively experienced; individuals create their own concept of what we call rest as part of their
everyday life. Finding time for oneself is a continual process of building private
subspace, recognizing moments or adapting to changing situational frameworks.
Such behavior guarantees space for the relative freedom of choice, opportunities for
individual self-expression and self-determination. Secondly, leisure time can therefore be understood as a time of relative freedom from external forces, pressures, and
conditions in order to be able to act freely from internal motivation in a way that
is personally pleasing and intuitively worthy, the basis of motivation. The perspective understood in this way does not essentially refer to time and activity, but to the
state of mind and daily experience. Thirdly, leisure time is dynamic and negotiated,
which shows that on the one hand it remains placed within a specific framework
that regulates its functioning, while on the other hand individuals have the ability
to transform this framework, resulting in its constant openness and readiness for
revision, the ongoing construction of action by individuals interacting with each
other under different social, political or economic conditions. It can be said that the
semantic and experiential field of leisure time is in fact much broader, much more
multidimensional and internally more complex than it would appear from the usual
ways or contexts, at least in sociology, of theming the terms “leisure time,” “rest” or
“entertainment.”
This area seems to be even more complicated and subtle when we try to analyze
leisure impregnated with new technologies from the perspective of the normative
concept of sustainable development.
33
that translate into the two ethical principles that underpin Western society: care for the
self and care for the other (Rojek 2010a, pp. 3–4, 2010b). Even the emotional labor
theme is linked to new technologies, which some researchers do not see because their
approaches are too narrow. Let us mention the vast literature on cognitive capitalism
(cf. Moulier-Boutang 2011; Peters and Bulut 2011), and related phenomena such
as sharing economy, gig economy or platform capitalism (cf. Baranowski 2019b,
pp. 16–17).
Focusing solely on leisure limits the view of broader implications in terms of the
new technologies and globalization already mentioned. Leisure is not only a current
experience of the surrounding reality, but also a process of its constant updating and
changing, current reformulation, reflection and negotiation, which makes it possible
to treat it both as a certain dimension of social reality and a certain type of individual experience. Leisure, which is entangled in the social and cultural context of
the transformations taking place, as well as in the subjective activities of reflective
individuals, constitutes a space through which individuals experience themselves and
others.
We understand leisure itself broadly. First of all, leisure time is subjectively experienced; individuals create their own concept of what we call rest as part of their
everyday life. Finding time for oneself is a continual process of building private
subspace, recognizing moments or adapting to changing situational frameworks.
Such behavior guarantees space for the relative freedom of choice, opportunities for
individual self-expression and self-determination. Secondly, leisure time can therefore be understood as a time of relative freedom from external forces, pressures, and
conditions in order to be able to act freely from internal motivation in a way that
is personally pleasing and intuitively worthy, the basis of motivation. The perspective understood in this way does not essentially refer to time and activity, but to the
state of mind and daily experience. Thirdly, leisure time is dynamic and negotiated,
which shows that on the one hand it remains placed within a specific framework
that regulates its functioning, while on the other hand individuals have the ability
to transform this framework, resulting in its constant openness and readiness for
revision, the ongoing construction of action by individuals interacting with each
other under different social, political or economic conditions. It can be said that the
semantic and experiential field of leisure time is in fact much broader, much more
multidimensional and internally more complex than it would appear from the usual
ways or contexts, at least in sociology, of theming the terms “leisure time,” “rest” or
“entertainment.”
This area seems to be even more complicated and subtle when we try to analyze
leisure impregnated with new technologies from the perspective of the normative
concept of sustainable development.