Special issue on being outdoors part 3. Outdoor leisure: other and othering

This is part three of the special issue ‘Being Outdoors: Challenging and celebrating diverse outdoor leisure embodiments and experiences’. The focus of this part is on Other and Othering. In many ways ‘other’ is a horrible label, it is amorphous, devoid of meaning as a direct consequence of its all-embracing-ness. In this way, ‘other’ can be seen as a derogatory label, one that robs individuals of their meaning, identity and value. Following this, the process of ‘othering’ is a disempowering one that ignores the importance of understanding diversity. In other words, ‘other’ is not only a discriminatory label, but it can also be seen as a discriminatory process (Harmer and Lumsden 2019), one that has been referred to as discursive discrimination (Boréus 2006). Within this context, ‘other’ and ‘othering’ has been utilized in a negative sense to identify those labelled as being different from, lesser than, those in power, the societal gatekeepers and enforcers of sociocultural norms and values (Roberts and Schiavenato 2017; Jensen 2011). Within this special issue the process of ‘othering’ has been referred to as exclusionary (Canales 2000). In this way, to be ‘othered’ is to be identified as being different from the norm, from those in power who are socially acceptable (Rothmann and Simmonds 2015). This negativity imbued in the ‘other’ is associated with Nietzsche’s (1967, 157) view that

the herd instinct speaks. It wants to be master: hence its ‘thou shalt!’ – it will allow value to the individual only from the point of view of the whole, for the sake of the whole, it hates those who detach themselves – it turns the hatred of all individuals against them.

Hence, ‘other’ and the process of ‘othering’ becomes a label to be avoided and fought against. Identification of and calls to resist the negative connotations of ‘othering’ have come from those working on issues of gender and sexuality (Johnson and Samdahl 2005; Symons, O’Sullivan, and Polman 2017; Waitt and Clifton 2013), disabilities, (Aitchison 2000), and race and ethnicity (Spracklen, Long, and Hylton 2015), amongst others, within the field of leisure studies

However, from the negative label ‘other’ has come the positive label Other. In this sense, to be Other than the sociocultural norm can be construed as a positive, as can a willingness to embrace such labelling as a positive rather than bow down and conform to dominant paradigms. Here we see the process of those labelled by gatekeepers as ‘other’ taking back control and repurposing the label for their own purposes, making it Other in a process of self-Othering (Lamond, Solano, and Blotta 2021). Self-Othering has been identified as a form of activism that ‘constitutes a public sphere in contestation to that of the imaginary articulated by a dominant hegemony’ (Lamond, Solano, and Blotta 2021, 101). In this context, Tsai (2011, 86) has talked about ‘participation in social enclaves where the stigmatized individuals acquire support and empowerment among those who are similarly disadvantaged, and collectively transform the source of stigma into a badge of honor’. This is an example of empowerment, of how it comes not from those in power and control allowing ‘others’ access to these reins but by Others taking control themselves. Indeed, Carr (2017, 138) has stated that ‘Empowerment, like enlightenment, is from the self and for the self’. Yet the importance of facilitating such a process must also be recognized. Such facilitation need not disempower the Other. Rather, it can aid them in the process of self-empowerment. In this context, enlightenment may aid the self but it also has the potential to help the Other. In this way, empowerment can be a mutual, collective process while at the same time being one unique to the individual.

This part of the special issue is focused on papers that deal with the Other and Othering from this positive perspective, examining the role and position of outdoor leisure in breaking down negative constructions of the ‘other’ and pushing forward positive, empowering positions instead. They all speak of a need to question and break down the status quo, to fight against engrained hegemonic powers and the disempowerment and discrimination directed at the ‘other’. In doing so, the papers in this issue all tie into the idea at the heart of this special issue (see Baker, Stewart, and Carr 2022)

This part of the special issue starts with Yi Chien Jade Ho & David Chang, whose paper critiques the white, Anglo-Saxon dominance in the construction, presentation, and thinking about outdoor recreation. It speaks from the perspective of and through the experiences of two Taiwanese immigrants to Canada, namely the authors. Following on from this, Jo Straker’s paper explores the shamefully understudied issue of indigenous peoples’ outdoor recreation experiences and the meanings enshrined in and through them. The paper focuses on the Māori of Aotearoa (New Zealand). While the specifics of the paper are unique to Māori and Aotearoa, the wider points made in the paper have relevance to many other parts of the world where indigenous people and their cultures have long been devalued and subjugated within a colonial-derived setting. Straker’s work holds relevance not just for Māori in particular and indigenous people in general, but for everyone seeking alternative ways of seeing and engaging with the outdoors through leisure.

The next paper, by Jennifer Wigglesworth, reminds us of the close links between ‘other’ and Other, and gender (the focus of the first part of this special issue). She focuses on the sexist naming of climbing routes by privileged men as seen through the eyes of women climbers. The paper talks of the ‘othering’ process that this naming represents and reaffirms. At the same time, Wigglesworth also talks of the resistance to such names and naming practices by the women she studied, which can be seen as a process of Othering. Linking back to Straker’s paper, Wigglesworth also talks of the colonial dominance over the land imbued in the naming of climbing route by non-indigenous climbers. Following on from this, Barbara Humberstone looks at the issue of older people and their relationships with outdoor leisure. This work is situated within the context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, which is forcing us all to question so much we previously took for granted regarding the outdoors and leisure within it. This paper is another example of Othering, of resisting social constructs of age and age-appropriate outdoor leisure. In doing so, the paper challenges what society means by age. Furthermore, it questions social constructions of ageing, frailty, and appropriate leisure. Following on from this, Mary Breunig’s paper also focuses on the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the Black Lives Matter movement. This situates her paper which looks at ‘slow leisure’, a concept that is juxtaposed with the adrenalin-fuelled recreation in the outdoors that has tended to dominate academic discourse and social constructions of outdoor recreation.

The final paper in this part of the outdoor leisure special issue takes a different perspective on the notion of Other and Othering. Lisbeth Kronsted Lund and her colleagues provide a qualitative, humanist health perspective regarding wellbeing in and through outdoor leisure, sea-kayaking in this case. In so doing, it goes beyond the dominant medical and quantitative approaches to wellbeing, demonstrating that Other ways of knowing are of significant value (Mansfield, Daykin, and Kay 2020). Through this paper, the authors talk of the need to focus attention on the subjective wellbeing of outdoor leisure participants, again challenging medicalised analysis focused on objective wellbeing. The common theme throughout the papers is a focus on Others and Othering that offer important insights into contemporary leisure in the outdoors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).