Leisure in the Garden of Forking Paths

Abstract

Freedom – both to choose our actions, and from obligation – features prominently in western conceptualizations of leisure. As such, freedom is the subject of considerable scholarly dialogue in the leisure studies context. While these discussions provide considerable value, they presuppose an important basic requirement: that free will is possible. This assumption is far from established fact however, and in this essay I examine the implications of leisure’s reliance on the possibility of free will. Specifically I argue that this type of leisure can only exist if we adopt a libertarian view of free will, discuss what this entails, address the consequences of other interpretations of free will, and provide some implications for future work in leisure studies.

Keywords:

• Ethics
• freedom
• leisure
• morality

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Throughout this essay I use the term “leisure” to refer to what may be called by some “Western leisure.” As described by Roberts (2010) and Bhandari (2023), rather than suggesting a purely geographic distinction, the “Western leisure” perspective is one that emphasizes leisure’s association with free time, freedom of choice, and human agency: “The study of leisure has been led by English-speaking countries and as a result leisure scholarship is dominated by western perspectives that associate leisure primarily with free time or time not devoted to work or other obligations” (Bhandari, 2023, p. 1). This is juxtaposed against “non-Western” conceptualizations of leisure that do not require the same degree or type of freedom to experience (Bhandari, 2023).

2 Libertarianism in the context of free will is distinct from the political ideology of the same name.

3 For greater detail on the information presented in this section, please see Carr (2017) for an excellent discussion of the relationship between leisure and freedom, and the potential questions and concerns that arise from this relationship.

4 The garden of forking paths is a visual metaphor used to describe the possibility of alternative futures in a non-deterministic universe; standing in the garden, one is presented with multiple possible paths forward, representing the potential future states that one’s actions may bring about. See Kane (2011, p. 6) for a more thorough explanation of the garden of forking paths.

5 Conversely, those that do not see a conflict between determinism and free will (whether or not they believe that determinism is true or false) are known as compatibilists.

6 In this context moral responsibility refers to the “just deserts” notion that one who makes a decision “would deserve blame if she understood that it was morally wrong, and she would deserve credit or perhaps praise if she understood that it was morally exemplary” (Pereboom, 2011, p. 86).