Gino Stefano Coletti Pareja

Beyond the Work-Leisure Dichotomy: Revaluing Leisure in the Information Age

Society

Seminar Thesis
in the context of the seminar Dark Side of Technology

at the Chair for Information Systems and Information Management

(Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt, Mnster)

Supervisor: Dr. Stefan Schellhammer

Presented by: Gino Stefano Coletti Pareja

Goebenstr. 36
48151, Mnster
+49 152 56917833
g_cole01@uni-muenster.de

Date of Submission: 2016-09-04

 II

Content

Figures............................................................................................................................. III
Tables .............................................................................................................................. IV
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
2 Leisure: a missing term in the work-life construct....................................................... 2
3 What is work and leisure? A change in meaning throughout time ........................... 4
3.1 Work...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Historical meanings ..................................................................................... 6
3.2 Leisure ................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Historical meanings ................................................................................... 10
3.3 The work-leisure relationship ............................................................................. 12
4 Technological acceleration, social change, and its impact on leisure ........................ 15
4.1 Faster tools, but less time to think....................................................................... 15
4.2 Leisure as consumerism ...................................................................................... 16
4.3 Technological transformation of leisure ............................................................. 17
5 Recovering the lost essence of leisure a revaluing of the word .............................. 18
6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 19
References ....................................................................................................................... 20
 III

Figures

Figure 2.1 - The overlapping-spheres model .................................................................... 3

Figure 3.1 - Leisure across time ........................................................................................ 4
 IV

Tables

Table 3.1 - Work satisfaction & dissatisfaction characteristics ........................................ 8

Table 3.2 - Essential Elements of Leisure ...................................................................... 12
 1

1 Introduction

The term work-life balance seems to be a relevant topic these days. Organizations and
individuals are constantly looking for ways or methods to handle and manage both this
balance. In an attempt to do so, the first step has been trying to separate these two elements
as independent spheres. The idea behind: to have the right management of both in order
to reach a so desired equilibrium. Therefore, making individuals become satisfied with
their being through the engagement in leisure activities or the appropriate use of their
free time. This would translate most of the times into being motivated and ready to
perform tasks at work, consequently becoming more productive.

However, with the advancement of technology and social acceleration, new practices or
habits are being incorporated into the lives of individuals; thus, making it more difficult
to separate these two spheres. Does it make sense to keep talking about a splitting of these
domains when the limits between them are becoming blurrier everyday?

In addition to it, this papers raises the question as to where does leisure feature and what
is its current role? When did we, as a society, start talking about the so-called work-life
balance while leaving the concept of leisure as a passive element in the background,
currently subdued and dependent to the concept of work. Nowadays we even coined a
new concept named work-life integration. This might be considered as a euphemism to
more work where leisure does not even seem to fit anymore.

Could it be that the meanings and considerations of work and leisure have been changing
throughout time, and that the different values present in them are switching or being
replaced by new ideals moderating the behaviours of individuals in society?

This work performs an analysis across time for the different conceptualisations of work,
leisure, and their historical dichotomous relationship. It will identify their characteristics
that enable the reader to make a contrast between the meanings and values which were
once considered to be relevant and that are now standing in the back, or that have (un)-
evolved into impoverished meanings.

All of it not without first dedicating a short section to state the motivation for doing such
an analysis as well as its relevance to the current debate on work-life balance in our
present times. After that, a section is dedicated to the role of technology within these
current conceptualisations and the effects and impact it has had in their definitions.
Finally, the work ends up with a reflection section as to where has the meaning of leisure
been derived to, and the importance for recovering its lost essence of contemplation and
reflection.
 2

2 Leisure: a missing term in the work-life construct

Before exploring the different conceptualizations and meanings for work and leisure, this
section dedicates a time to explain the current status of how work is being perceived in
western societies.

The increasing expectations and pressures for what an ideal worker is have pushed
individuals to place work as a central aspect of their lives. Some of these successful
practices can be observed through the always-on behaviours which are promoted such as
being available at nights or weekends and fast responsiveness to e-mails or requests from
clients. All of these, posing workers who behave in such a manner as the heroes and
potential candidates for promotion, where those who reject to act accordingly to them are
perceived as unsuccessful. (Reid 2015).

Having this increase in the intensiveness of work led to the start of a debate in the 1990s
regarding work-life balance, even to the extent of replacing the past work-family
discussions in order to incorporate those workers who are not parents and include those
activities which are non-work such as friendship, recreational and social activities (Lewis
2003; Kalliath et al. 2008; Wiese 2015).

However, the discussions have not stopped and now the concept of work-life balance
appears to be worn out. Despite the term is used quite frequently, a consensual meaning
across parties does not seem to exist (Kalliath et al, 2008). Not only does the term balance
represent an issue since it assumes a 50/50 distribution of work and life (Wiese, 2015),
which might not be achievable to all individuals or even seem suitable to them. With the
advancement of information and communication technologies, the limits between both
domains have now become blurry and not simple to distinguish from one another (Lewis
2003). Therefore, the discussion has now switched to another direction and now a recent
term is being coined: work-life integration. This term refers to the blending of both
spheres in order to have a satisfying, healthy, and productive life that includes work,
love, and play (Hogan et al. 2007). Some models even talk about overlapping spheres
that depict how considering both aspects lead to a win-win situation and the inherent need
of individuals to integrate them so as to obtain positive outcomes (Barnett, 1999).
 3

Figure 2.1 - The overlapping-spheres model

Does it make sense to talk about integration? It rather seems to be a way to justify that
work is and has to remain as a central aspect of life. Moreover, it places the
conceptualization as an equal to life and not as subset to it (McDonald 2016). It can be
argued that given this equivalence, society is no longer looking at leisure anymore, nor
considering it as part of the equation as it should be. As per what Lewis (2003) refers to,
individuals are now heading towards a society of full work where many forms of post-
industrial work, which dominate peoples lives, are becoming the new leisure (p. 344).

The previous statement provides a basis and starting point to stop looking at work and
life as separate elements, bringing once more the term leisure into the discussion as only
rarely, however, are the problems of work and leisure looked at together (Parker 1971,
p. 16). Moreover, take a more profound look into what the relationship of work and leisure
stands for and how it has been evolving through time.

In addition to it, this paper aims to provide understanding as to how work, in the past, was
not as central as it is now for individuals, but how in a certain point of history its meaning
had a revaluing or justification. On the other hand, leisure had a different and more
relevant role in society than existing to fill out spaces of what is left from work, meaning
more than just free-time. In line with it, the purpose is to explore how motivations in
society shifted where individuals are naturally looking forward into [having] a life
beyond the workplace, including leisure (Lewis 2003, p. 346).
 4

3 What is work and leisure? A change in meaning throughout

time

This section explores how the terms work and leisure have been changing their meanings
and conceptualizations across history. The main purpose is to identify which of their
characteristics and values have had more relevance at certain points of time and also to
understand how these have influenced into our current perception and conceptualization
of work and leisure, thus moderating the behaviours that are derived from them.

The following lines provide a perspective from different authors as to how work and
leisure can be defined. However, the intention is not to give a strict definition given the
inherent complexity these terms have. The purpose is to abstract the important
characteristics and detect a pattern present throughout the different eras. As some authors
already recognized, a first step for a clarification of both terms is to sort out the various
meanings] and to see how they relate to each other (Parker 1971, p. 18).

As an example, in Figure 2 the reader has a first glimpse on how some of the meanings
of leisure have been changing. Whereas in Ancient Greece the term referred to a reflective
state of mind or an activity of voluntary engagement and inquiry, leisure changed to
become a hedonistic activity exclusively for the aristocrats and a symbol of luxury in the
Middle Ages, to change again into an instrument for improving productivity at work;
deriving finally into activities that fill-up empty hours unoccupied by work which can be
bought (e.g. vacations or sport activities) and new ways for social interaction (Primeau,
1996; Beatty et al. 2003; Juniu, 2009).

Figure 3.1 - Leisure across time

2

The upcoming section on work, leisure, and their relationship has been built taking as a
major reference to the book of Stanley Parker: The Future of Work and Leisure (1971) as
it encompasses the main characteristics for both of the terms. These constructs have been
enriched by a further literature review from authors focused in leisure studies
respectively.
 5

3.1 Work.

In this section some definitions of the word work are taken into consideration in order to
sort out the terms that are considered to be relevant trying to make a clear distinction as
to what the word means. However, as mentioned before, the difficulty of doing so implies
having several definitions which might overlap themselves at certain aspects. This causes
to use words such as: production, effort, and employment as interchangeable words or
synonyms to work, but whose distinction might be worth to make (Parker 1971). As an
example three different definitions are given:

Oxford Dictionary defines work as The place where one is employed.

Cambridge Dictionary proposes it to be an activity, such as a job, that a person

uses physical or mental effort to do, usually for money.

While the United Nations Glossary states: Work is any activity which contributes
to the production of goods or services within the production boundary.

All of the above concur at the meaning that work comes as the way for individuals to get
by. As Parker (1971) makes the distinction, the first problem for having the word
production attached to it, comes behind the interpretation it encompasses as well as the
potential misuse of its variant productive as an adjective preceding work. By this, only
after a product (whether good or service) is obtained, could the activity be considered
as work. However, work should not be dependent on the ending result or the quality of it,
but on the effort to produce that object.

Another important note Parker does, regards to the social relationship the term
employment implies. Given that it refers to the interaction between an employer and an
employee, it accounts for the distinction the individual makes for working time and non-
working time. The last distinction Parker makes is on the terms work and labour which
indicate an activity being performed rather than a measurement of time. This expands on
the notion of work in a broader sense of biological and physiological meaning of
purposeful and sustained action (Parker 1971, p. 19), but also provides an
impoverishment of its meaning where work represented a more transcendental human
activity. An author that enriched this distinction and made a stronger statement is Arendt
in her book: The Human Condition. Here, she refers to labour as a reduced activity for
making a living and where individuals have deviated into a consumer society where the
ideals of homo faber, the fabricator of the world, which are permanence, stability, and
durability, have been sacrificed to abundance, the ideal of the animal laborans (Arendt
1958, p. 126).
 6

3.1.1 Historical meanings

After providing some background on work, this paper starts tracing the different
meanings influenced by the sociological context and to religion in some extent. Before
doing so, a limitation is identified for the earlier definitions.

It has been difficult to trace back the understanding of the word work for the common
man as the only records available come from those in the elite or philosophers who might
pose their own vision of reality. Still, these are the major references which as well concur
into abstracting work as the basic condition and continuation of human life (Parker
1971, p. 34.). Another important factor that is added is that work has been for most
individuals a way to build up self identity which is recognized by others in and is built
among the diverse social interrelationships (Parker 1971; Billet et al. 2005; Sluss et al.
2007).

The first tracings go back to ancient history and the Greek society. Here two different
positions have been identified as to how work was perceived among the poleis. The first
one is defined by Parker (1971) as how work represents a burden and troublesome labour
which was performed by slaves, craftsmen, and artisans who were not perceived as the
most virtuous individuals in society, but rather as people who could not dedicate a time
for practising the different virtues and arts in life. This is why also the upper sectors of
society, the elite, would avoid work to focus in other activities such as the practice of
leisure.

On the other hand, Balme (1984) has an interesting opposing view of what the meaning
work had back then. He begins questioning the common belief of the free citizen in
Ancient Greece enjoying a life of leisure where the slaves were doing all the work. This,
came as a consequence of Aristotles view on work and leisure defined in his
Nicomachean Ethics: happiness seems to depend on leisure, because we work to have
leisure, and wage war to live in peace (Aristotle, Crisp 2000, p. 193), where work stands
as a means for achieving leisure, and not an ends to itself. Stating that there is not much
of a solid background evidence, Balme uses Hesiods literature and the archetype of the
working peasant to contrast the position against work defined before: Both gods and
men are angry with a man who lives idle [] Through work men grow rich in flocks and
substance, and working they are much better loved by the immortals (Hesiod, Evelyn-
White 1914, p. 9).

Here he agrees that work comes as well as a virtue and a way for individuals of a society
to develop and progress, and that a state of idleness is what was condemned nor accepted
 7

by society or the gods. At this stage, all the different occupations, including the craftsmen
and artisans, where considered with esteem (Balme 1984).

Moving forward and in line to what the Greeks thought of work as a life necessity, the
Hebrews and early Christians had a similar position in terms of work being inherent to
the human. The main difference is that work is a product of original sin, and is the
punishment of mankind established in the Old Testament: Unto Adam God said: Cursed
is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life [] in the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground; for dust thou art and
unto dust thou shalt return. (Genesis 3: 17-20). Therefore, work was perceived to be a
negative and mandatory activity through which individuals would be expiated. Here the
position of work still remains on the background and as a means towards divine pardon,
where contemplation to God and prayer were activities to be considered above everything
else (Parker 1971; Primeau 1996; Beaty et al. 2003).

A big change towards the attitude for work is then adopted and developed with
Protestantism around the 16th century and whose values were reflected via Webers
Protestant Work Ethic (PWE). It was the foundation and starting point for work to start
gaining a more central and dominant position within the life of an individual (Giorgi et
al. 1990). As Parker (1971) defines it Protestantism was the force that established work
in the modern mind as the base and key of life (p. 35).

As a significant difference, this new paradigm rejects the overvaluation of contemplation

adopted by the Christians and puts a special focus into the proper and rational use of time
for the sake of being more productive. Moreover, it rejects attitudes that represent a
misuse of time such as idleness, gambling or even leisure (Furnham 1984; Giorgi et al.
1990). These new values and moral of individual discipline, responsibilities, aesthetics,
and duties [] saving by hard work and modest spending on the individual level.
(Honingdal 2013 p.32) dignified the concept and meaning of work and improved its
image drastically, establishing it as a crucial way for developing the oneself and family
and as a form of liberation or improving their condition. Therefore, work moved to
become one of the central aspects in the life of an individual. A side effect of this reflected
on leisure which now stood as a negative opposite to work. This represented the beginning
of developing a negative perception (Beatty et al. 2003) which will be further elaborated
on the Work-Leisure Relationship section.

To conclude this section on work, some lines are dedicated to relate the impact of the
historical meanings to how work can be perceived today. On one side, there is the posture
which defends that work has gained a more meaningful position in the life of a person,
representing to be a source for satisfaction, while the industrial organizations have played
 8

an important role to reinforce that position (Parker 1971; Kalleberg 1977). On the other
hand, it has also been stated that work represents a source for tension and dissatisfaction
due to the increasing demands and pressure individuals are facing as to what is expected
to be successful behaviours (Parker, 1971; Kalleberg, 1977; Kuchinke 2009; Reid 2015).
In addition to that, the role of the organization is also being questioned because it is
broadening the dissatisfaction gap among work and employees: long viewed as a stable
anchor, is often unable to fulfil its role as a provider of stable, engaging, and rewarding
work (Kuchinke 2009, p. 184).

Parker (1971) provides some characteristics of work that deliver satisfaction and
dissatisfaction which have an influence in the meaning or value of work (Table 1) present
in the current understanding. Important factors that are accounted in them are the social
interaction and sense of belonging which were not present in the past conceptions, at least
to the degree they are now. However, these characteristics and impact will be dependent
on the nature of the job and the functions being performed (Kalleberg 1977).

Work Satisfaction Work Dissatisfaction

(1) Creating something Doing repetitive work

(2) Using skill Making only a small part of

something

(3) Working wholeheartedly Doing useless tasks

(4) Using initiative and having Feeling a sense of insecurity

responsibility

(5) Mixing with people Being too closely supervised

Table 3.1 - Work satisfaction & dissatisfaction characteristics

3.2 Leisure

As it was done in the previous subsection of work, some definitions of leisure will be
provided in the beginning in order to abstract common elements of them and come to a
shared understanding of the term. However, in this case the challenge seems to be bigger
as coming to a definition of leisure is difficult enough because of the subjective essence
the term carries: the way in which someone defines leisure tends to be determined by his
view of what it ought to be. (Parker 1971, p. 20). Sometimes it is also even difficult
 9

because the different languages do not have an equivalent to the word leisure itself (Kelly
et al. 1994).

There have been different attempts or approaches to work out definitions for leisure and
classify them into specific categories. Two approaches which intertwine among
themselves are presented as part of this work.

The first approach reviews the conceptualizations of leisure into mainly two different
groups. The first one which refers to leisure as a residual category which accounts for the
free time that is left after the activities of work, or employed time, have been
performed (Parker, 1971; Clark et al. 1990). This definition is the most common one
present in our times and can be understood simply as all what is left that is not work time.
Leisure in this case is assumed as a product from modern times and is mostly associated
with recovery and entertainment (Beaty et al. 2003).

The second category calls leisure as a state of being of reflection coming from a mental
attitude of contemplation and is aligned to artistic and spiritual values. This category
makes a distinction against leisure defined as mere free time, focusing more on the quality
of it and prescribing norms to it (Parker 1971). Two definitions are presented in the
following lines which are important to consider for the final section of this work which
calls for the reflection and revaluation of the concept of leisure.

De Grazia (1962) states on his book Of Time, Work, and Leisure that work is the
antonym of free time. But not of leisure. Leisure and free time live in two different
worlds [] Anybody can have free time. Not everybody can have leisure. Free
time is a realizable idea of democracy. Leisure is not fully realizable, and hence
an ideal not alone an idea. Free time refers to a special way of calculating a special
kind of time. Leisure refers to a state of being, a condition of man, which few
desire and fewer achieve (pp. 7-8).

On his book: Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Pieper (1963) makes the definition of
the term as the mental and spiritual attitude, it is not simply the result of external
factors, it is not the inevitable result of spare time () It is, in the first place, an
attitude of mind, a condition of the soul. (p. 46).

Based on a research of leisure typologies made by Neulinger, Beaty et al. (2003) provide
a second approach for classifying leisure into three different perspectives according to
their definitions. For making such a structure, they also consider the works of several
leisure-studies researchers such as Kelly J.R. & Godbey G., Kaplan M., as well as the
already mentioned Pieper J. and De Grazia S.
 10

The first class is a time-based approach which is aligned to the previous categorization of
leisure as residual time. However, this approach is focused on the measurement of time
as an exclusive view to quantify the time invested in non-work activities, regardless of
where the limit between work and non-work is considered. The benefit of defining leisure
in this way is the apparent objective manner to measure it. However, it misses the
assessment of quality of the experience itself which represents a major drawback of the
approach (Beaty, et al. 2003). For example, taking ones pet for a walk at 3:00am rather
than at 9:00am determines the situation to be experienced differently per individual;
therefore, valued in a different way as well.

The second class refers to leisure as an activity-based approach. This behavioural way of
measuring provides a more tangible definition of the term which now focuses in the
activities people engage in when they are not working. This form of understanding leisure
has caused individuals to associate the meaning to that of activities such as sports,
tourism, and recreation; leading society into the idea that leisure is a good which can be
consumed (Juniu 2009). Leisure is entertainment to be consumed, and can even be
displayed as a symbol of success (Beaty, et al. 2003, p.241).

The last classification according to this approach categorizes leisure based on the
intention of an individual to engage in an activity such as leisure. It is defined as activity
generated by an inner attitude of voluntary engagement and inquiry (Beaty et al. 2003,
p. 241). It is founded on the Greeks conceptualization of leisure as the contemplation
of the supreme values of the world: truth, goodness, beauty, and knowledge (Juniu 2000,
p. 69), and focuses on the most qualitative estate and meaning of the term. This grouping
converges with the second classification provided lines above for leisure as a state of
mind and contemplation as DeGrazia or Pieper define it.

3.2.1 Historical meanings

Having traced the ways of conceptualizing leisure, as done with work in the previous
section, it is also important to look back at the historical development of the concept in
order to deliver a deeper insight as to how these abstractions influenced the meanings of
the word today.

Leisure studies seem to have gained relevance and focus in approximately the last 50
years (Beaty et al. 2003). In addition to that, some reports show a trend of reduced
working hours through years going from 70-hour to 40-hour working week (Primeau
1996; Huberman 2002). This evidence might lead us to a possible interpretation of an
increasing leisure practice in society or even that leisure is a product of modernity,
however it is not (Juniu 2000). This has been a consequence of having equalized the
 11

concept of leisure to only free-time. Nonetheless, already some definitions have been
presented lines above which go beyond that simplicity and which have been inspired from
what might have been the origins of the term.

The first historical tracing goes back to Ancient Greece where leisure was characterized
as a contemplation activity taking Aristotles conceptualization which perceived leisure
to be an activity with an end in itself to become virtuous: happiness seems to depend on
leisure, because we work to have leisure, and wage war to live in peace (Aristotle, Crisp
2000, p. 193). But, unlike our current time where almost every individual can have access
to leisure, in Ancient Greece it was an activity which only the lite would afford to
practice (Juniu 2000). This dedicated time space for the practice of leisure was a way in
which people would engage in building up the society by discussing about politics, arts,
philosophy (Parker 1971). In this way, leisure had its specific function in the system
(Hemingway 1988), which is why some authors consider it to be the basis of culture for
society (Pieper 1963). As a last point, the original word coined by the Greek was schole
which represented the time an individual had for the contemplation activity. Moreover,
what is most important about the word is how it reflected the centrality and the value it
had for the society in that time. This can be observed in the term which was employed for
work would be the negation of leisure itself: a-scholia (Pieper 1963; Parker 1971; Juniu
2000; Juniu 2009), meaning that work stood on the background of leisure.

The first deviation from the leisure values conceived by the Greeks came along with the
Romans definition of it as a time to recover and be able to go back to work, for that they
used the word otium. This early instrumentalisation of the concept turned it a means for
an end. In this case, leisure was turned into a support for work, or negotium, which already
inverted the role of work standing at the front of leisure (Juniu, 2009).

The previous conception was slightly refrained with early Christianitys values on prayer
and contemplation as a way to being closer to God (Parker 1971), given that work and
wealth were conceived to be a distraction from God (Primeau 1996). In this way leisure
was more valued than work, for in fact they used the term: otium sanctum (holy leisure)
to refer to the moment of prayerfulness and stillness to reach inner peace (Beaty et al
2003).

Then the major change of leisure and a devaluation of its meaning comes with the advent
of the Puritan Work Ethic, where work and leisure interchanged roles dramatically. In
this case work improved its image and became the means to improve an individuals
condition. This caused leisure to be considered as not being productive or being idle.
Therefore, a waste of time was perceived as a negative attitude, for which religion would
 12

consider it as a sin. These concepts set the basis as to what the values of leisure have for
our present interpretation of the term (Juniu, 2000; Beaty et al. 2003; Junui 2009).

With this background and the increases of working hours as a consequence of the
Industrialization Era, a movement towards decreasing exploitation of workers arose. Then
a decrease of hours was demanded, leaving now spare time or disposable time to fill with
activities that are not work (Juniu 2000). On the one hand the early instrumentalisation of
leisure gains more power here. The term is now understood as a means for becoming
more productive at work and being able to perform the tasks more efficiently. The other
effect is that it sets the basis for an even impoverished meaning which is consumerism
(Hemingway 1996). This latter effect or transformation of leisure will be covered in the
next section as part of the effects of technology.

To conclude this section, some of the basic elements defined by Max Kaplan (1960) in
his book Leisure in America: A Social Inquiry, are presented below. This way of defining
leisure includes more than just a comparison against the term of work and provides a
vision which incorporates subjective and objective elements (Parker 1971). Leisure is:

a) An antithesis to work as an economic function

b) A pleasant expectation and recollection

c) A minimum of involuntary social-role obligations

d) A psychological perception of freedom

e) A close relation to values of the culture

f) The inclusion of an entire range from

inconsequence and insignificance to weightiness
and importance

Table 3.2 - Essential Elements of Leisure

3.3 The work-leisure relationship

Before moving to the analysis of the technological impact on leisure and work it is worth
dedicating a section for understanding better how these two terms relate among
themselves.

Generally, work and leisure have been acknowledged as two opposing terms with
conflicting motivations and values, which has been illustrated in the previous definitions.
 13

This has led for society to place them into an assumed dichotomy where work cannot be
leisure and vice versa.

Moreover, this dichotomised view has been a product of the evolving change of meanings
and specifically to the raise of work as a central aspect in life throughout time. Because
of this misunderstanding of terms and fixed opposing duality, academia has put more
focus in understanding work, leaving leisure to the the background as a residual outcome
of the reduced working hours (Primeau 1996; Beaty et al. 2003). To that extent, some
authors even reinforce on such an undermined role of leisure subject to work. As an
example Nels Anderson (1961) frames it in his book Work and Leisure: Leisure is best
understood against the background of work. It was begotten of work and is rooted in
work (p. 1), perpetuating even more this dichotomy of terms.

Some of the effects that are derived from this dichotomy mainly impact the practice of
leisure. The first one refers to work placing itself as a central aspect of an individuals
life. This causes the practice of leisure to be perceived as a negative of work, therefore
strengthening a bad reputation towards its practice. Because of how work meanings
changed and revalued, it is currently perceived by individuals to be a way of improving
their human condition (e.g. through a change in economical and social status). This focus
on improvement and overvaluing of work has caused society to act as per Max Webers
words: one does not work to live; one lives to work. The outcome of this was to give
leisure the connotation of free-time, becoming an activity which can be sacrificed or
disposed to continue receiving the benefits of the working activity (Beatty et al. 2003;
Primeau, 1996).

Having work and leisure as opposite and mutually exclusive terms stands as a problem as
it continuously strengthens the negative perception of leisure as a waste of time. Again,
it hinders its practice, and makes it more difficult to recover its lost value and meaning of
mindfulness and reflection (Beatty et al. 2003).

Should the relationship work-leisure be considered a false dichotomy? No, when this
opposition holds true and that is when leisure is considered under the residual-time
category. However, among the several conceptualizations it is valid to say that due to
leisures subjective essence and meaning, it is far more complicated to determine an
either-or construction opposite to work.

Moreover, after acknowledging that leisure can be considered a state of mind, it poses
even a more difficult question as to whether an activity can be considered work and leisure
at the same time. This is why instead of considering them as mutually exclusive, an
integrative approach is taken, considering both terms as complementary concepts
 14

(Primeau 1996). For it, leisure and work are best understood in dynamic relation to each
other (Beaty et al. 2003, p. 239) as they share elements which interrelate among one
another.

Beaty et al. (2003) also try to find possible reasons for the work-leisure dichotomy to
persist overtime. They provide an explanation behind the way action-logics operate. The
concept refers to how individuals perceive an activity (action) based on a specific
situation or context, which tends to determine in a logic way their behavior (Rooke et al.
2005). The example provided lines above for taking the pet for walk at different times
during the day illustrates the case in which action-logics determine how an individual
characterizes the activity as leisurely in one scenario and work in the other. The problem
action-logics have for this case is their strong rational system which are difficult to change
or adapt. These concepts are developed through the acknowledgement of norms and
hierarchies where boundaries seem relatively clear, dichotomous, polar, and necessary:
win/lose, good/bad, right/wrong, work/leisure (Beaty et al. 2003, p. 245).

A positive effect of thinking in an integrative way beyond the dichotomy can be achieved
by becoming aware of these action-logics. In fact, Beaty et al. (2003) affirm that
individuals who recognize the different action-logics of people in the organizations they
operate, tend to be more creative and innovative. It occurs because individuals do not take
time to challenge the others action-logics, but engage in collaborative inquiry for which
they can drive transformation to the working environment, becoming more leisurely in
their free time and at work (p. 245). This change was translated as a positive impact in
the bottom-line and was observed by a study performed to 10 CEOs from different
industries, where only 5 of the ones who were measured under the collaborative-inquiry
action-logic (Strategist/Leader) drove organizational change compared to those who were
not (Rooke et al. 1998).

This concludes the section on understanding how work and leisure have been defined and
constructed through time, the dichotomous relationship they had, as well as the effects
for having such a construct. Moving forward the impact of technology for these terms is
discussed.
 15

4 Technological acceleration, social change, and its impact on

leisure

4.1 Faster tools, but less time to think

Technological advancement has enabled humans to improve their condition in different

fields: health, science, sports which seem to be quite open and obvious to society.
However, just as these impacts have been celebrated an analysis of the hidden effects also
needs to be performed in order to identify how is technology shaping or affecting
behaviours, practices and life in society. Moreover, when technology is making the limits
of work and free-time becoming blurrier, for which new work practices (e.g. tele-
working) have been developed (Winter et al. 1996; Curie et al. 2010; Hilbreth et al. 2013).
Therefore, thinking of a work-leisure dichotomy starts to lose relevance as well.

A common discussion has been that of the constant acceleration of things: culture, arts,
leisure, and work. However, this feeling of life going faster is not part of the Digital Era
or the Information Age. Helmut Rosa (2003) refers to it as a trait of modernity where the
speed-up has accompanied modern society since the middle of the eighteenth century
(p. 3).

Rosa (2003) also states that the problem of acceleration is the difficulty of defining it
from a sociological perspective; but identifies some phenomena of how it can be
explained within the process of modernization. Social and technological acceleration
being part of them. These two also constitute part of a paradox where technology is
allowing humans to perform tasks faster, yet there is a constant pressure of having less
time to think of things in more detail and reflection (Anderson 1961; Levy 2007).

Information and communication technologies have been seen as the main drivers
contributing to acceleration (Wajman 2008, Levy 2006; Levy 2007). The increased trend
of using e-mail, instant messaging, and mobile devices seem to illustrate this
phenomenon. This has raised the question as to whether society is losing the practice of
leisure, which represents the risk of turning into a workaholic society (Levy 2007).
Furthermore, this would derive into an alienation from ethical and spiritual values (Pieper
1963). Beaty et al. (2003) taking the work from Schor (1991) also frame this issue as
technology has privileged work over leisure and contributed to the phenomenon of
overwork (p. 246).

Another implication of technological acceleration can be seen as contributing to

transforming leisure into an instrument for improving work performance. As it was
mentioned, the modern world demands and expects more from workers and a special
 16

focus is placed on more and better effort instead of leisure. Therefore, behaviours derived
from technological acceleration such as 24/7 availability are promoted and celebrated
(Levy 2007). This has forced leisure to become the solution as to how to deal with these
pressures. Via free-time activities such as vacations or days off, a positive effect on
working performance (e.g. productivity) might be observed. This instrumentalisation of
leisure succeeds at degrading its most valuable meaning, that of reflection and a
contemplative state of mind (Pieper 1963).

Next, a sub-section is dedicated for one further repercussion of technology and leisure:
its transformation into consumerism and how this represents a significant degradation of
the meaning and value this paper aims to reflect upon.

4.2 Leisure as consumerism

This sub-section elaborates on what could be considered one of the worst transformation
of the concept of leisure could suffer: consumerism. Due to the technological
advancement and acceleration explained before, industries have found a way to drive
massive production and commoditization of good and services, and leisure has not been
an exception to it. As an effect of it, mass consumption is overstated and amplified
(Anderson 1971; Hemingway 1996; Juniu 2000; Juniu 2009). Moreover, with the use of
digital technologies, the consumption of goods has never been easier and their
contribution to this further acceleration seems to be evident (Levy 2007).

Because, of the centrality work owns and the categorization of leisure as a residual time
from working hours (free time`), individuals are perceiving leisure as something which
can and is to be bought. The deviation of leisure into consumerism has made it for
individuals to think of the term as not longer a time for growth, but time needed to be
occupied doing something. That is, the mass society is pushing up for filling up non-work
time with extra activities such as vacations, sports, etc; what can be currently known as
the leisure industry (Anderson 1961; Juniu, 2000). The main implication is that there is
a pressure to consume leisure rather than to experience it (Juniu 2009, p. 6).

Organizations and corporations have also been contributing to strengthening this

impoverishment of the essence of leisure. Given leisure is an instrument that serves them
to drive bottom-line, they promote these behaviours by providing consumable leisure
activities as rewards for work (Beaty et al. 2003).
 17

4.3 Technological transformation of leisure

To conclude this section on the impacts of technology and leisure, the last lines are
dedicated to analysing the technological transformation of leisure.

Douglas Kellner (1998) stated in his paper Globalization and Postmodern Turn that new
technologies are changing the nature of work and creating new forms of leisure, including
the hyper reality of cyberspace () Capital is producing a new techno-culture (p. 39).
With this he refers to how technology has influenced new behaviours for individuals to
socialize, communicate, and engage in discussions building up a new culture. For it, a
new form of leisure is starting to emerge through virtual interactions and activities which
carry similar values to those in the early conceptions of the term. It is a way to engage in
society through participation and inquiry state for the basis of culture, characteristics of a
society of free men (Pieper, 1963). An aspect which has enabled the formation of this
new leisure through new forms of interaction has been the anonymity virtual spaces
ensure. Therefore, individuals perceive no barrier to continue engaging in virtual
communities engaging in open reflection and discussion (Juniu 2009).

This new conceptualization of leisure tends to show on the surface the values once
conceived by the ancient Greeks as a virtue, yet it is still early to assess how the further
acceleration of society and technology will shape the new meaning and paradigm of the
term.
 18

5 Recovering the lost essence of leisure a revaluing of the word

This last section provides a reflection on what it means to recover the true values of leisure
after all the transformations and degradation the concept had throughout time. Originally
conceptualized as a human virtue and the basis for values in society, it now stands as in
instrument subjugated to work and which is a consumable product in the worst end of its
conceptualizations.

As the basis for revaluing leisure, the explanation provided by Pieper (1963) works best
to make the intended point: the truly human values are saved and preserved because
leisure is the means whereby the sphere of the specifically human can, over and again,
be left behind. (p. 51).

Revaluing the word appears to be relevant in the context where the world of work has
been dominating the lives of individuals. Not only is the overvaluing of work important
to acknowledge, but also how this linked to social acceleration is making humans
constantly feel under pressure, tired, and exhausted. Also, the push of technology to
provide us with an overload of information, not making things easier.

An article published in a Brazilian newspaper narrates how society needs a space of

silence and emptiness to drive creation. It has been the lack of contemplation and the
increasingly obsession of producing large quantities of information, regardless of its
quality, what is pushing society to remain in a vicious circle of unhealthy work-effort
which does not bring any transcendental satisfaction nor makes the individual become
more human (Brum 2016).

Cultivating leisure is more of a tough work than what it seems. It first requires for a new
way of thinking and moving away from the existing work-leisure dichotomy, where both
work and leisure cannot coexist. It demands for the intention and inquiry on how to adapt
working and free-time to integrate both leisure and work. Out of the correct practice of
leisure a person can have a higher aesthetic appreciation from the activities they
perform. Thus, becoming abler to shape and perform them more appropriately (Beaty et
al. 2003).

To finish this reflection, the practice of leisure is an activity which needs to be promoted,
not only in the working environment of a company, but also in the academic world as an
acknowledgement of the future of contemplative scholarship (Levy 2007). Moreover,
exploring the benefits of leisure after achieving a mindfulness state contribute to the
essence of humans building up culture. Developing arts, philosophy, politics, and science
that makes the existence of a being valuable and transcendental.
 19

6 Conclusion

In a world where work has been placed as a central aspect of life with increasing
expectations and pressures, and where the discussions in literature go around work-life
balance or work-life integration, this work questions the relevance of a missing term in
this construct: leisure.

In a next step, the different meanings of work and leisure and how they have been
changing throughout the different periods in time are identified. The purpose, understand
how these transformations have modelled our current perceptions and understanding of
the terms. Whereas work stood in the background to leisure and was perceived as a
burden, leisure was a virtue and the door to the development of the human existence.
Along time and after the influence of religion and technological revolutions, the roles
were inverted and work gained a positive position while leisure was subdued to the
concept of work and was equalized to the free-time away from the working activities.

Further on, the implications of the socio-technological acceleration are discussed as to

how these contributed to what could be considered as degradations of the meaning, such
as leisure being perceived as consumerism or an empty space which needs to be filled-up
by commoditized goods or services.

Finally, the work concludes with a call for reflection as to what it means to recover the
most valuable meaning of leisure of contemplation and reflection, as well as what is
considered to be the effect of appropriately cultivating leisure.
 20

References

Anderson, N. 1961. Work and Leisure, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
Arendt, H. 1959. The Human Condition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Balme, M. 1984. Attitudes to Work and Leisure in Ancient Greece, Greece & Rome
(31:2), pp. 140152.
Barnett, R. C. 1999. A New Work-Life Model for the Twenty-First Century, The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (562:1), pp. 143
158.
Beatty, J. E. and Torbert, W. R. 2003. The False Duality of Work and Leisure,
Journal of Management Inquiry (12:3), pp. 239252.
Billett, S. 2007. Exercising Self Through Working Life: Learning, Work and Identity,
in Identities at Work, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 183210.
Brum, E. 2016. Exaustos-e-corrend-e-dopados, in
http://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2016/07/04/politica/1467642464_246482.html. [Cited:
September 4th, 2016]
Cambridge Dictionary. 2016. Work.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/work. [Cited: August 14th, 2016.]
Clark, S. M., Harvey, A. S. and Shaw, S. M. 1990. Time Use and Leisure: Subjective
and Objective Aspects, Social Indicators Research (23), pp. 337352.
Currie, J. and Eveline, J. 2011. E-technology and work/life Balance for Academics
with Young Children, Higher Education (62:4), pp. 533550.
Furnham, A. 1984. The Protestant Work Ethic:A Review of the Psychological
Literature, European Journal of Psychology (14), pp. 87104.
Giorgi, L. and Marsh, C. 1990. The Protestant Work Ethic as a Cultural Phenomenon,
European Journal of Social Psychology (20:6), pp. 499517.
de Grazia, S. 1962. Of Time, Work & Leisure, Connecticut: Twentieth Century Fund,
Inc.
Hemingway, J. L. 1996. Emancipating Leisure: The Recovery of Freedom in Leisure,
Journal of Leisure Research (28:1), pp. 2743.
Hemingway, J. L. 1988. Leisure and Civility: Reflections on a Greek Ideal, Leisure
Sciences (10), pp. 179191.
Hesiod and Evelyn-White, H. G. 1914. Works and Days, Raleigh: Hayes Barton Press.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C. and Andrey, J. 2013. Remixing Work,
Family and Leisure: Teleworkers Experiences of Everyday Life, New Technology,
Work and Employment (28:2), pp. 130144.
Hogan, M. J. and Hogan, V. 2007. Work-Life Integration, The Irish Psychologist
(22:10), pp. 246254.
Huberman, M. 2002. Working Hours of the World Unite? New International Evidence
of Worktime, 18701913, The Journal of Economic History (64:4), pp. 511.
Juniu, S. 2000. Downshifting: Regaining the Essence of Leisure, Journal of Leisure
Research (32:1), pp. 6973.
Juniu, S. 2009. The Transformation of Leisure, Leisure/Loisir (33:2), pp. 463478.
Kalleberg, A. L. 1977. Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job Satisfaction,
American Sociological Review (42:1), pp. 124143.
Kalliath, T. and Brough, P. 2008. Work-Life Balance: A review of the meaning of the
balance construct, Journal of Management & Organization (14:3), pp. 323327.
Kaplan, M. 1960. Leisure in America: A Social Inquity, New York City: John Wiley &
Sons.
Kelly, J. R. and Kelly, J. R. 1994. Multiple Dimensions in the Domains of Family,
 21

Work, and Leisure Journal of Leisure Research (26:3), pp. 250274.

Kuchinke, K. P. 2009. Changing Meanings of Work in Germany, Korea, and the
United States in Historical Perspectives, Advances in Developing Human Resources
(11:2), pp. 168188.
Levy, D. M. (2006). More, faster, better: governance in an age of overload, busyness,
and speed. First Monday.
Levy, D. M. 2007. No Time to Think: Reflections on Information Technology and
Contemplative Scholarship, Ethics and Information Technology (9:4), pp. 237249.
Lewis, S. 2003. The Integration of Paid Work and the Rest of Life. Is Post-industrial
Work the New Leisure?, Leisure Studies (22:4), pp. 343345.
McDonald, T. 2016. Dispelling the Myth of Work-Life, in
www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-mcdonald/dispelling-the-myth-of-wo_b_9311220.html
[Cited: August 10th, 2016]
Oxford Dictionaries. 2016. Work.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/work. [Cited: August 14th, 2016.]
Parker, S. 1971. The Future of Work and Leisure, London: MacGibbon & Kee Ltd.
Pieper, J. 1963. Leisure: The Basis of Culture and the Philosophical Act, San Francisco:
Ignatius Press.
Primeau, L. A. 1996. Work and Leisure: Transcending the Dichotomy, American
Journal of Occupational Therapy (50:7), pp. 569577.
Reid, E. 2015. Why Some Men Pretend to Work 80 Hour Weeks, Harvard Business
Review, p. Digital--Article.
Rooke, D. and Torbert, W. R. 1998. Organizational Transformation as a Function of
CEOs Developmental Stage, Organizational Development Journal (16:1), pp. 1128.
Rooke, D. and Torbert, W. R. 2005. Seven Transformations of Leadership, in
Harvard Business Review.
Rosa, H. 2003. Social Acceleration: Ethical and Political Consequences of a
Desynchronized High-Speed Society, Constellations (10:1), pp. 333.
Sluss, D. and Sluss, D. M. 2007. Relational Identity and Identification: Defining
Ourselves through Work Relationships, The Academy of Management Reviw (32:1),
pp. 932.
United Nations Data. 2016. Work. http://data.un.org/Glossary.aspx?q=work. [Cited:
August 14th, 2016.]
Wajcman, J. 2008. Life in the Fast Lane? Towards a Sociology of Technology and
Time, British Journal of Sociology (59:1), pp. 5977.
Wiese, B. S. 2015. Wirtschaftspsychologie, K. Moser (ed.), Berlin: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Winter, S. J. and Taylor, L. S. 1996. The Role of IT in the Transformation of Work: A
Comparison of Post-industrial, Industrial, and Proto-industrial Organization,
Information Systems Research (7:1), pp. 58.
 22

Declaration of Authorship

I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this Seminar Thesis titled
Beyond the Work-Leisure Dichotomy: Revaluing Leisure in the Information Age
Society is my own work. I confirm that each significant contribution to and quotation in
this thesis that originates from the work or works of others is indicated by proper use of
citation and references.

Mnster, 04 September 2016

Gino Stefano Coletti Pareja