Leisure, Lifestyle, and the New Middle Class

Abstract

This article assesses differentiation in leisure patterns within the upper middle class based on job sector (i.e., civil servant, private sector employee, or self-employed). Combining three Dutch data sets covering the 1990–2000 period (n = 3415), significant job sector differences were found for 47 of the 98 leisure items studied. The results demonstrate that leisure participation is not structured by a single, externally legitimated hierarchy ranging from highbrow to lowbrow culture, but rather by more ambiguous patterns of leisure participation based on a narrative of personal enrichment and the self. Differences between the leisure patterns of people working in different sectors remained mostly stable during the 1990s.

Notes

¹Scale was: primary schooling (1); junior vocational training (2); junior general secondary education (3); senior vocational training (4); senior general secondary education (5); vocational colleges (6); university (7).

²Measured in Dutch guilders per month (1 guilder = 0.45 euro).

³Measured on an eight point scale, ranging from less that 5,000 to over 250,000 inhabitants.

∗F-value showed significant differences in means at p < .05.

∗∗∗F-value showed significant differences in means at p < .001.

^aModel 1: differences are controlled for age, gender, number of children aged 12 and under living in home, schooling level, size of municipality, being single, and year of measurement.

^bModel 2: model 1 + controls for economic and cultural occupational status.

^cModel 3: model 2 + controls for net family income per month.

^dModel 4: model 3 + controls for hours of paid work during the registration week (source = diary).

∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .05.

∗∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .01.

∗∗∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .001.

^aModel 1: differences are controlled for age, gender, number of children aged 12 and under living in home, schooling level, size of municipality, being single, and year of measurement.

^bModel 2: model 1 + controls for economic and cultural occupational status.

^cModel 3: model 2 + controls for net family income per month.

^dModel 4: model 3 + controls for hours of paid work during the registration week (source = diary).

∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .05.

∗∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .01.

∗∗∗Regression effect of job sector was significant at p < .001.

^a Effects [Exp (B)] are taken from logistic regression analysis because the dependent variable is dichotomous.

∗Interaction effect of job sector and year of measurement was significant at p < .05.

∗∗Interaction effect of job sector and year of measurement was significant at p < .01.

∗∗∗Interaction effect of job sector and year of measurement was significant at p < .001.