Joffre Dumazedier and the definition of leisure

Abstract

One of the most widely cited definitions of leisure is that presented by Joffre Dumazedier, originally published in 1962 and based on three functions of leisure identified in his empirical research in France. Three issues are addressed in this paper. First, aspects of the English translation of the definition, published in the USA in 1967, are found to be inappropriate and misleading. Second, attention is drawn to the unexplained omission of experiential features of leisure, also identified in Dumazedier’s research. Third, it is observed that, in the 1970s, Dumazedier disavowed his original definition and replaced it with a more exclusive perspective identifying him with the ‘Leisure Aristotelians’. Possible reasons for the original omission of experiential dimensions and for Dumazedier’s decision to replace his definition with a very different one are discussed, together with consideration of the lack of attention given to these matters by leisure studies scholars.

L’une des définitions de loisir les plus citées est celle de Joffre Dumazedier, initialement publiée en 1962 et basée sur trois fonctions de loisir identifiées dans ses recherches empiriques en France. Trois questions sont abordées dans ce document. Tout d’abord, certains aspects de la traduction anglaise de la définition, publiée aux États-Unis en 1967, sont jugés inappropriés et trompeurs. Deuxièmement, l’attention est attirée sur l’omission inexpliquée des caractéristiques expérientielles des loisirs, également identifiée dans la recherche de Dumazedier. Troisièmement, il est observé que, dans les années 1970, Dumazedier a désavoué sa définition originale et l’a remplacée par une perspective plus exclusive l’identifiant avec les « Aristotéliciens de loisirs ». Les raisons possibles de l’omission originale des dimensions expérientielles et la décision de Dumazedier de remplacer sa définition par une autre très différente sont discutées, ainsi que le manque d’attention accordé à ces questions par les chercheurs en études de loisir.

Keywords:

• Definition of leisure
• Dumazedier
• functions of leisure

Mots clés:

• définition du loisir
• Dumazedier
• fonctions du loisir

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jiri Zuzanek for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper and to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the original submission.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The reference to the Dumazedier definition by McClean et al. (2005) is third-hand. They attribute it to the International Group for Leisure Social Sciences (see note 3), but the source they give is Cosgrove and Jackson (1972, p. 13). This source, however, while acknowledging the IGLSS, does not reference any specific publication. It can only be surmised that the original source was Dumazedier (1960).

2. It should be noted that a feature of the French language is that the possessive pronoun (sa, son) takes the gender of the object noun to which it is attached, rather than that of the possessor. The French version of the definition is therefore gender neutral as regards the person enjoying the leisure. However, in the 1967 English translation of Dumazedier’s book, and in his 1960 article, sa/son was translated throughout as the male ‘he’ or ‘his.’ In a modern translation a gender-neutral format would be more likely to be used, such as: ‘her/his’; ‘her or his’; alternating between male and female; or avoiding the issue by using a plural format. Although pre-1970s writings are typically granted some license, Dumazedier, and those who quote him, may unwittingly be perceived as being guilty of ‘linguistic male bias’ (see, for example, Griffin, Hobson, MacIntosh, & McCabe, 1982, p. 91).

3. The International Group for Leisure Social Sciences evolved into the International Sociological Association’s still existing Research Committee 13 (Dumazedier, 1967, p. 280), of which Dumazedier was the founding chair.

4. Translations other than the published English versions of Dumazedier’s books are attributable to fading memories of 1950s ‘O level’ French studied in the UK, efficiently supplemented by ‘Google Translate’. This limited competency with the French language restricted the ability of the author to engage with works not available in English translation.

5. This also resonates with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which Article 27 refers to the right ‘freely to participate in the cultural life of the community’ or ‘prendre part librement à la vie culturelle de la communauté’.

6. As with the 1962/1967 book, there is, however, a curious difference between the titles of the French and English editions. The French edition includes the sub-title Critique et contre-critique de la civilisation du loisir, but this is omitted in the English edition. While a brief discussion of the leisure civilization is included in both editions (Dumazedier, 1974a, pp. 148–150; 1974b, pp. 185–187), this hardly measures up to the promise of the sub-title.

7. It is possible that this division might be viewed differently in the original French since, as Mommaas (1997, p. 242) has pointed out, ‘free time’ (temps libre) is more commonly used conversationally in French than ‘leisure’ (loisir), so treating leisure as special type of activity might make more sense than it does in English.

8. In fact, of over 30 references listed, only five are actually cited in the text.

9. The ‘bitter criticism’ was referenced to Lanfant (1972), but it has not been possible to consult this publication.