A critique of serious leisure as theory

ABSTRACT

The Serious Leisure Perspective (SLP) divides leisure activity into three forms: serious, casual and project-based, each with a number of distinguishing qualities, rewards, costs and benefits. It is presented by its creator, Robert Stebbins, as both a classification system and a theoretical framework. In its early history, it was seen as a micro-level, or at most meso-level, construct concerned with the behaviour of individuals and small groups. More recently claims have been made that its theoretical reach extends to the macro-level, encompassing broad societal issues. This paper evaluates these claims in three parts: first, examining existing macro-level critiques of the SLP in the research literature; second, assessing claims of macro-level relatedness in SLP publications; and third, considering the extent to which generic macro-level social and leisure theory has been, or could be, related to the SLP. Under-explored or neglected opportunities for macro-level theoretical analysis are identified but, when examined, they invariably expose the theoretical weakness of the SLP, particularly regarding any distinctive role for serious as opposed to casual leisure. This leads to the conclusion that the claim that the SLP offers a viable macro-level theoretical framework for the study of leisure is questionable.

KEYWORDS:

• Serious leisure
• casual leisure
• serious leisure perspective
• leisure theory
• macro-level theory

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the initial version of the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. Project-based leisure is not considered further in this paper, due to space constraints and to the fact that it is, essentially, just a time-constrained version of serious leisure.

2. In the Synthesis, Derom and Taks (2011) are mentioned, but not in relation to the SL-CL continuum. Shen and Yarnal (2010) are also ignored, although they received a passing mentioned in Stebbins (2012). In his response to Veal (2017a) Stebbins ignored the continuum argument (Stebbins, 2017b; see Veal, 2017b).

3. As chronicled at www.seriousleisure.net and by Stebbins (2020, p. 34).

4. Stebbins adopts Turner’s use of micro, meso and macro, but not his associated conceptual schema (Turner, 2010, p. 18).

5. A common feature of Stebbins’, and others’, writing on the SLP is to celebrate the increasing number of different leisure activities which have been studied as serious leisure, as if it is anticipated that some organised sporting, cultural or hobby groups might be found not to be serious leisure. But since the samples studied are typically recruited from organised groups, confirming that the activity concerned is ‘serious’ is a self-fulfiling prophecy. The same could be said of studies located in a succession of different countries.

6. Stebbins does not dissent from this analysis, indicating that, with some exceptions, casual leisure does not contribute to social capital (Stebbins, 2020, p. 160). However, while Putnam’s analysis is focussed on organised groups as indicative of social capital, it is clear that the mostly casual, sport spectators and arts/entertainment audiences contribute to social capital, not just the players and performers. The decline of communal casual leisure, not just serious leisure, also constitutes the decline in social capital.

7. The source is cited in the Synthesis (p. 37) as a source on ‘occupational devotion’ but not in relation to macro-level ideas.

8. Network analysis of leisure has been championed by Stokowski (1994), but has not generally been adopted by leisure scholars. Stebbins (2020, p. 5) acknowledges her work, but only in regard to micro-level analysis.