Content area
Full text
The idea of leisure as resistance focuses attention on the political nature of leisure, and specifically on the potential for leisure to enhance individual empowerment and to bring about positive social change. In this paper, the different theoretical perspectives that have led researchers to the idea of leisure as resistance, including structuralism, post-structuralism, and interactionism, are discussed. Using insights from these perspectives, three issues related to the conceptualization of resistance are examined: the collective versus individual nature of resistance; the question of outcomes of resistance; and the issue of intentionality. It is argued that resistance is, by definition, both individual and collective, and that research on resistance needs to focus on the specific types of oppression and constraint being resisted through leisure. However, while intentionality and outcome are also important aspects of resistance, they should not be seen as defining characteristics. Intentional acts to resist may be more or less successful, and successful resistance may occur without prior intent. Although the focus of this analysis is on women's leisure, the framework developed here can be applied to all forms of resistance, and hopefully can be used to enhance our understanding of leisure as political practice.
KEYWORDS: Individual resistance, collective resistance, outcomes, intentionality, women's leisure
Introduction
The idea of leisure as a form of resistance is based on the assumption that leisure practices are linked to power and power relations in society. That is, leisure is recognized as one area of social life, among others, in which individual or group power is not only acquired, maintained and reinforced, but also potentially reduced or lost. Leisure as resistance implies that leisure behaviors, settings and interactions can challenge the way in which power is exercised, making leisure a form of political practice.
This conceptualization of leisure as political practice is clearly controversial. It suggests that traditional definitions of leisure as a place of freedom, autonomy, individual choice, self expression and satisfaction, are inadequate. Such definitions, which are particularly dominant in North American leisure research (Coalter, 1999; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997), tend to focus on the benefits of leisure to individuals, and to ignore political processes and repercussions. The idea of leisure as resistance, then, necessitates a different approach to understanding leisure. It means critically evaluating the notion...