2019Unpublished venueRequires access

The politics of leisure: social control and social development (1980)

Chas Critcher

Open publisher page 6 citations

Abstract

In social work the debate continues as to whether social workers are primarily agents of social control or agents of caring. Much sociological work attempts to fuse the two by producing a set of variables in a matrix and situating the individual or group at some point where several variables –say, sex, age, and social class–intersect. But this is to reduce the influence of social stratification to the interplay of free-floating variables, a coincidence of otherwise independent social statuses. Even more ambiguous is social work’s intervention in the leisure-time activities of young people, whether they are defined as deprived or depraved. The general tenor of the argument is relatively straightforward: to establish that leisure is a political arena, where struggles over access to free time, adequate resources, and cultural meanings, are continuously taking place, even where leisure appears to be a most private and individual undertaking.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In social work the debate continues as to whether social workers are primarily agents of social control or agents of caring. Much sociological work attempts to fuse the two by producing a set of variables in a matrix and situating the individual or group at some point where several variables –say, sex, age, and social class–intersect. But this is to reduce the influence of social stratification to the interplay of free-floating variables, a coincidence of otherwise independent social statuses. Even more ambiguous is social work’s intervention in the leisure-time activities of young people, whether they are defined as deprived or depraved. The general tenor of the argument is relatively straightforward: to establish that leisure is a political arena, where struggles over access to free time, adequate resources, and cultural meanings, are continuously taking place, even where leisure appears to be a most private and individual undertaking.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In social work the debate continues as to whether social workers are primarily agents of social control or agents of caring. Much sociological work attempts to fuse the two by producing a set of variables in a matrix and situating the individual or group at some point where several variables –say, sex, age, and social class–intersect. But this is to reduce the influence of social stratification to the interplay of free-floating variables, a coincidence of otherwise independent social statuses. Even more ambiguous is social work’s intervention in the leisure-time activities of young people, whether they are defined as deprived or depraved. The general tenor of the argument is relatively straightforward: to establish that leisure is a political arena, where struggles over access to free time, adequate resources, and cultural meanings, are continuously taking place, even where leisure appears to be a most private and individual undertaking.

Key concepts: Politics, Social control, Control (management), Sociology, Political science, Social science, Economics, Management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The politics of leisure: social control and social development (1980) — Research Paper | ScholarLens