Confronting the Stigma of Leisure

Kenneth Mobily, Emily Rudzinski

Abstract


The purpose of this paper is to explore the work/leisure binary as it relates to labeling, stereotyping and ultimately stigmatizing persons with disabilities. Although less deliberated in the literature, stigma depends on social context, a class or category of undesirable behaviors practiced by the actor, in the present case—leisure. The evolution of leisure as a stigmatized class of human activity is addressed, with special attention to the intersection of work and disability and how inability to work has come to stigmatize the leisure of persons with disabilities. Usual and customary stigma management strategies employed by abled citizens are reviewed. For the child, the currently employed and even the retired, seriousness or employment, or both justify and legitimize their use of leisure. No such alternatives are available to the unemployed majority of persons with disabilities. Finally, the implications of inclusive leisure are explored, how it confronts stigma and may be used as a basis for changing the general perception of leisure by a lay audience. Inclusive leisure is an expression of equal rights; it confronts the stigma of leisure in two ways. First, by comingling with the abled, the demarcation between normal and abnormal dissolves into diversity and appreciation of differences. Second, inclusive leisure challenges the validity of a work/leisure binary. Because it contains the cosmetic appearances of work-- earnestness, a career-like calling, and utility-- serious leisure is suggested as a method of transition from inclusion to the recognition that leisure is a valuable activity.


Keywords


inclusion, stigma, leisure, work, disability, stigma management

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Adams, S. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/20/most-americans-are-unhappy-at-work/

Arnold, S. (1980). The dilemma of meaning. In T. L. Goodale & P. A. Witt (Eds.), Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of change, pp. 5-18. State College, PA: Venture.

Ben-Moshe, L. (2013). ‘The institution yet to come’: Analyzing incarceration through a disability lens. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th edition), pp. 132-145. New York: Routledge.

Berger, R. J. (2013). Introducing disability studies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.

Brown, L. C. (2013). Stigma: An enigma demystified. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th edition), pp. 147-160. New York: Routledge.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm

Chun, S., Lee, Y, & Heo, J. (2008). The benefits of serious leisure following traumatic spinal cord injury. In P. A. Molden, S. Hebblethwaite, & R. Hopp (Eds.), Book of Abstracts: Twelfth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, pp. 68-72. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Association for Leisure Studies.

Devine, M. A., & Wilhite, B. (1999). Theory application in therapeutic recreation practice and research. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33(1), 29-45.

Ekerdt, D. J. (1986). The busy ethic: Moral continuity between work and retirement. The Gerontologist, 26(3), 239-244.

Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Emens, E. F. (2013). Disabling attitudes: U. S. disability law and the ADA Amendments Act. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th edition), pp. 42-57. New York: Routledge.

Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon Schuster.

Hunt, P. (1966). A critical condition. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/#q=paul+hunt+a+critical+condition.

Kavka, G. (1992). Disability and the Right to Work. Social Philosophy and Policy, 9(1), 262-290. doi:10.1017/S0265052500003678

Kraus, R. (1984). Recreation and leisure in modern society (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Linder, S. B. (1970). The harried leisure class. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Loja, E., Costa, M. A., Hughes, B. & Menezes, I. (2013). Disability, embodiment and ableism: Stories of resistance. Disability and Society, 28(2), 190-203.

Longmore, P. K. (2003). Why I burned my book. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

McDowell, M. E. (1910). The right to leisure. The playground. 4, 328-331.

Miller, S. J. (1965). The social dilemma of the aging leisure participant. In A. M. Rose & W. A. Peterson (Eds.), Older people and their social world: The subculture of aging, pp.79-92. Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Co.

Mitchell, D., & Snyder S. (2012).Minority model: From liberal to neoliberal futures of disability. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, pp. 42-50. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mobily, K. E. (2015). The intersection of disability, feminism, and RT/TR. Loisir, 39(1), 135-155.

Mobily, K. E., Walter, K. B., Finley, S. E. (2015). Deconstruction of TR/RT: Does TR/RT contribute to the negative construction of disability? World Leisure Journal, 57(1), 46-56.

Nielsen, K. E. (2012). A disability history of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press.

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disembodiment. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Prendergast, K. (2013). The unexceptional schizophrenic: A postmodern introduction. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (4th edition), pp. 236-245. New York: Routledge.

Reeve, D. (2012). Psycho-Emotional disablism: The missing link. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, pp. 78-92. New York, NY: Routledge.

Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: New York University Press.

Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology. Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9-28.

Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical disability studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, pp. 30-41. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stebbins, R. A. (1999). Serious leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the Twenty-first century, pp. 69-79. State College, PA: Venture.

Stebbins, R. A. (2008). Which leisure for therapeutic recreation: Serious, casual, or project-based. In P. A. Molden, S. Hebblethwaite, & R. Hopp (Eds.), Book of Abstracts: Twelfth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, pp. 436-438. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Association for Leisure Studies.

Stebbins, R. A. (2014). Careers in serious leisure: From dabbler to devotee in search of fulfillment. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Sylvester, C. (2015). With leisure and recreation for all: Preserving and promoting a worthy pledge. World Leisure Journal, 57(1), 76-81. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2014.1001169

Taylor, S. (2004). The right not to work: Power and disability. Monthly Review. 55(10), 30-31.

Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body. New York: Routledge.

Wendell, S. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of disability. Hypatia, 4(2), 104-124.

Yale, M. (1982). Leisure time—benefit or copy out? Journal of Leisureability, 9(1), 4-7.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v6i4.385

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




 

The Canadian Journal of Disability Studies is Published by the Canadian Disability Studies Association-Association Canadienne des Études sur l'Incapacité, and is hosted and supported by the University of Waterloo.

ISSN 1929-9192 Canadian Journal of Disability Studies (Online)