LSA 1

Sport and Leisure in Contemporary Society

In September 1975, two of the present editors organised a multidisciplinary symposium on work and leisure at the University of Salford. The edited proceedings, presently in press, emphasised the links between work and leisure and indicated the importance of studying both.1 A number of participants considered that the time was propitious for the formation of a group bringing together academics and practitioners in the leisure field. The first Directory of Leisure Scholars and Researchers illustrated the increasing interest in the area. These initiatives are now being consolidated and extended: this symposium is one outcome.

The symposium focuses on sport and leisure with an emphasis on the urban context, and recognises the importance of both theory and practice in the field of leisure provision. With the reorganisation of local government, many authorities have established departments of recreation or leisure services. Sporty as traditionally conceived, is a main consideration. But it is by no means the onlyy or even primary one. Many aspects of leisure are being catered for by these departments, including general enter­ tainments and some activities which hitherto have been the preserve of other departments. For example, some departments of recreation are pro­moting further education activities such as classes in arts and crafts, and other activities such as play groups. Still other ventures overlap with the work of the social services department: community and welfare work for old people is being tackled by some departments of recreation.

Increasingly the concepts associated with sport are merging with those associated with leisure. Some of the more recent sports centres include fairly extensive social areas, and developments in this direction could well increase, especially with the Sports Council sponsoring family recreation in 1975. And, of course, the Sports Council has long been an advocate of the dual use of facilities, especially by recreation and education.’ While economic considerations are obviously important, some people still feel a better quality of life may be at least partially realised by dual and multiuse centres, despite the difficulties of co­ operation between education and recreation which are being experienced in many authorities.

Perhaps the transformation of the Minister for Sport into the Minister for Sport and Recreation is also indicative of the developing relationship between sport and leisure. Also, since much of leisure is spent on artistic activity consisting of a wide range of interests, more attention is being paid to the artistic dimensions of leisure. This overlap of traditional areas of interest may increase if the Arts Council implements the proposals of its working party on community arts for a community arts panel with officers based regionally and at headquarters.

In view of these developments, a continuation of the multidisciplinary approach in this symposium, involving a range of academics and pract­ itioners, seems to be appropriate. The contributors include sociologists, psychologists, geographers, educationalists, recreation managers and administrators. Not all of the contributors are in agreement, and there are some stimulating papers which are critical of many prevailing ideas and attitudes. This is to be expected and is valuable in a rapidly developing area, and hopefully the papers will provoke discussion. We particularly welcome the paper on public recreation by Geoffrey Godbey from Pensylvania, since this represents an international input to our deliberations.

The papers in Part I of this collection, on Theoretical Approaches to Sport and Leisure, concentrate on tackling some broad issues in the social science approach to leisure studies. Kenneth Roberts sets out to develop the theme, proposed in his book, that there has been a growth of leisure in modern society; in doing so he seeks to place contemporary trends in historical contex and makes critical suggestions about conceptualising and analysing leisure. Eric Dunning offers a developmental critique of the sociology of sport, in which he pays particular attention to the amateur- professional dichotomy and to Taylor’s recent theory of the ‘bourgeois-ification’ of soccer.

In their consideration of leisure and the family life cycle, the Rapoports and Strelitz outline their theory that work, leisure and family life constitute a ‘triple helix’ of interacting sfrands: the key concepts in their analysis are preoccupations, interests and activities. David Marsland links his advocacy of a theoretically-based sociology of youth (within the sociology of leisure) to a critical examination of empirical surveys of leisure and of policy and planning developments in the leisure industry.

In Part II the focus changes to a more detailed concern with Particular Problems in Sport and Leisure. Geoffrey Godbey explores the sources of what he calls ‘anti-leisure (compulsive activity) and examines its impli­ cations for public recreation policy, primarily in the United States but also in other post-industrial societies. John Hargreaves follows with an analysis of mass sport as a social phenomenon, having particular regard to its increasing importance as a mechanism of socialisation into conformity with dominant rules and values, in communist and capitalist societies.

The paper by Parry and Johnson is partly on a similar theme to that of Hargreaves (the importance of studying leisure within the constraints arising from the social structure) and goes on to consider the implications of a structural approach for alternative social policies. Malcolm Wilders points to the neglect of the sociology of the pub – in particular, its sig­ nificance as a form of leisure and as a channel for other leisure activities – and he suggests various ways of remedying this neglect.

Although planning issues are touched on elsewhere, Part III on Planning, Sport and Leisure concentrates on these. John Haworth takes as his central theme the possibility of the individual, rather than the ‘providers’, creating his own leisure, and he discusses the implications of this for developments in education, planning, recreation and research. William Bacon uses his own research in Corby New Town to demonstrate that the professional middle-class planning and ‘caretaking’ process is based on radically different values and social experiences from those of the working-class people it is supposed to serve and is unresponsive to their culture.

Collins and Rees disagree that ‘imposing middle-class values’ is a big issue; they are more concerned with practical problems such as reaching the urban underprivileged and improving accessibility to sports facilities. The controversial question of multi-use provision is tackled by Edmondson and Baldwin; they emphasise the difficulties, both practical and philosophical, but they believe that it is the way ahead for both schools and community life. Finally, Nikki Ventris discusses some problems in the use of survey results for recreational planning and he stresses the need to interpret aggregate statistics of recreation demand in a wider context.

Finally, we would like to thank all of the contributors, for making time to produce their papers in advance, the participants for coming to the symposium, and the staff of the Polytechnic of Central London’s Short Course Unit for all their help.

by Stanley Parker, Nikki Ventris, John Howarth and Michael Smith