LEISURE AND THE MARGINALIZED: THE COMMUNITY SOCIAL AGENCY
PERSPECTIVE
Donald G. Reid, University of Guelph
B. Leigh Golden, University of Guelph
Introduction
The practice of public recreation provision and the academic study of leisure tend
to view leisure as an isolated phenomenon or as a component of the economic system, but
not necessarily as an integral participant in achieving some larger social goal (Shaw
2000). As a result, the practice of recreation and leisure has been transformed from a
budding alternative philosophy to the demands of the protestant work ethic and the
development of an alternate lifestyle, to a part of the capitalistic hegemony as alleged in
the concepts provided by Max Weber (Weber, 1958) and more recently through the work
of John McMurtry (1999). This transformation has been achieved by allowing the market
to become the major influencing factor in the practice and study. As a result, recreation
and leisure is no longer viewed as an alternative to, but a component of, the
pervasiveness of the market economy.
This orientation to the practice and academic study of leisure has taken the field
down a specific path of development. It is increasingly being constructed on the market
model, and some might add, on a simple retail model. Perhaps for the affluent middle
class, the majority of the North American population, this type of leisure construction and
provision satisfies their needs for consumption of leisure time but one needs to ask if this
orientation is the most appropriate for all sectors of a pluralistic society, or if it is
ignoring a potential contribution to human development that lies outside the market and
th
capitalist model. This paper argues for a re-conceptualization of the late 20 century
conceptualization of leisure as identified above, and the reconsideration of leisure as a
force for social development that focuses on alternative life-style construction, as an
instrument in the further integration of society, and as an approach that identifies with
accomplishment rather than accumulation or a pure escapist experience. This reconceptualization has the potential to drastically alter the fundamental orientation of the
public leisure service delivery system and to sharpen the focus of study on these issues in
the academy.
Purpose of the Research
This paper reports the findings of the second phase of a multi-phased study that
continues to examine the role of leisure in the integration of marginalized (the poor)
citizens into mainstream society. Phase one of the study examined this question from the
point of view of the marginalized themselves. This second phase focuses on the role of
the community social agency in this process. Specifically, this research examines the
practices of two community social agencies that were partners in the study from its
inception and subsequently acted as points of contact with the participants in the earlier
phase of the research. The aim of this phase of the research was to determine the
importance these agencies placed on leisure as an instrument in their day-to-day work
and for assisting the integration of their clients into mainstream society.
Method
The main method of data collection was the long interview undertaken with a
single representative from each of the agencies participating in the study. The substantive
issues addressed during the interview were: (1) the working definition(s) of leisure the
agency operationalizes in its work, (2) their perception of the role of leisure in integrating
the marginalized into mainstream society, (3) the place (rank) of leisure among the
various instruments available to the agency as it works with its clients (hierarchical
dimension), (4) the importance the agency places on leisure when assisting their clients to
achieve integration into mainstream society (power dimension), (5) the leisure and
recreation activities and events the agency creates and delivers to their marginalized
clients, (6) the method(s) used for service delivery (eg. direct service delivery,
community development model, funding subsidization, etc.), (7) the amount of resources
the agency budgets for the purposes noted above, (8) the barriers and constraints to using
leisure and recreation as an instrument for integrating the marginalized into mainstream
community life, and (9) their perception of the ability of their clients to engage in
community leisure activity. Also, the interview process asked the interviewee (10) to
identify actual examples of how the agencies in the study use leisure as a development
instrument in their work with their clients.
Results
Neither of the two social work agencies involved in this project have an official
definition of leisure as part of their mandate or mission statement. However, each viewed
leisure as a useful tool in their work with their clients particularly as an anti-stressor and a
venue for solving personal and social interaction problems. Employment is the prime
focus for social assistance (SA) recipients but many of them need social skill
development as part of the process in accomplishing that goal. Leisure activity is often
the primary venue for that social skill development. Leisure was employed to help their
clients balance the stresses of life. The agencies believed that leisure activity reduced the
isolation their clients often experience, and helped them to develop a sense of
community. Additionally, they saw it as an avenue for teaching life skills in a nonthreatening environment. Leisure was seen as second in importance only to crisis
management in what they routinely do with their clients. Many of the agencies’ activities
were not described as solely leisure but many had a leisure component to them. Leisure
was seen as an important avenue for developing partnerships with outside community
agencies and service providers in assisting clients in developing a valuable link with the
community.
With regard to the main approaches to leisure delivery the two agencies involved
in this project mainly used direct service provision or subsidized their client’s activity so
that they could engage in programs directly delivered by public recreation agencies or
commercial institutions. Both of these agencies also had the ability to refer their clients to
public recreation services who in turn would provide free access to their programs and
services. This approach was fraught with many difficulties that resulted in limited
involvement with this type of approach. Activity development usually occurred through
informal consultation between agency representative and client or simply through interest
in the activity by the agency personnel. For various reasons many of these programs
failed through lack of participation and this may be a result of a deficit of program
development skills in the agency. Difficulty with attendance and participation often left
the agency personnel jaded and with the belief that lack of participation is a result of
apathy on the part of their clients rather than as a process or planning issue. Lack of
funding, access and unavailability of leisure services, transportation, lack of trust, focus
on basic survival and immediacy, low self-esteem and inadequate self-concept, comfort
levels with program providing institutions, perpetual bullying by case (government)
worker, interpersonal relationships, strong personalities that affect group dynamics, lack
of affordable daycare, and health and addiction issues, are perceived by the agency
personnel as constraints to participation in both organized and informal leisure activities
by their clientele. As a result of these issues, the agency personnel interviewed for this
project saw leisure for their clients as a complex but necessary instrument in their day-today life construction. Complicating the issue of leisure further for agency workers, is the
purple recreation that is often engaged in by many of their clients. Issues of drug abuse
and deviant leisure, such as self-mutilation, was discussed as another aspect of leisure
that also needed attention by the agency.
Interestingly enough, while neither agency could provide a specific figure on how
much they spent on leisure activity, each suggested that it was a good share of the nonpersonnel portion of their operating budget. This was particularly the case with the urban
agency. Both agencies suggested that they were under funded in this area and their
capability to launch an appropriate level of leisure service for their clients was less than
optimal. Both agencies used operating budget monies and little, if any, outside funding
for leisure activities and programs came from special appeals or fund raising activities
carried out in addition to their budget allocations.
Discussion
Leisure for the marginalized, like other aspects of their lives, is a difficult
construct. Society, for the most part, still views leisure as something to be earned through
work and not as a basic entitlement or right, ergo, not for the domain of those without
work (Reid and Golden, in press). What is often overlooked is leisure’s potential
contribution in integrating the marginalized into mainstream society and in assisting with
basic life construction. What appears to be missing in capitalizing on the potential of
leisure for life construction of the marginalized is an adequate strategy or program on the
part of community social agencies. While both of the agencies involved in this study
attempted to utilize leisure in the day-to-day work with their clients neither of them saw it
as a formal part of their strategy with specific goals and objectives with summative
evaluations to determine its effectiveness as an integrative instrument.
Application to the field
None of the staff in either of the participating agencies, that we could determine,
had any specific training in the leisure field particularly in such areas as leisure program
planning, design or delivery. Public recreation institutions and professionals could
provide program planning workshops to many of these community social agencies. These
workshops would assist these agencies greatly in increasing their success rate in
attracting marginalized citizens to their programs. The accumulation of this skill in the
community social agency could begin to increase the positive outcomes of leisure activity
for both the marginalized and the agencies staff that work with them.
References
McMurtry, John, (1999). The Cancer Stage of Capitalism. London U.K.: Pluto Press.
Reid, D.G., and B. L. Golden, (in press). Non-work and leisure activity and the socially
marginalized: the issue of social integration. Canadian Review of Social Policy.
Shaw, Susan M., (2000). If our research is relevant, why is nobody listening? Journal of
Leisure Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 147-151.
Weber, Max, (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
ABSTRACTS
of Papers Presented at the
Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research
May 17 – 20, 2005
Hosted by
Department of Recreation and Tourism Management
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, B.C.
Abstracts compiled and edited by
Tom Delamere, Carleigh Randall, David Robinson
CCLR-11 Programme Committee
Tom Delamere
Dan McDonald
Carleigh Randall
Rick Rollins
and
David Robinson
Copyright © 2005 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies
ISBN 1-896886-01-9