As the emergence of such social phenomena as Internet chat rooms illustrate, conceptualization of community as being tied to a fixed location or shared territory ...
COMMUNITY IN POSTMODERN CULTURE: THE PLACE OF LEISURE Erin Sharpe, Brock University Introduction Community has long occupied a central place in leisure research and practice. Broadly speaking, the goal of this work has been to understand and secure the place of leisure as a builder and maintainer of community. However, while the work on leisure and community has made important developments, I submit that it has not fully considered the broad social and cultural changes that have come to be known as postmodernity. Specifically, we need to ask: How is community transformed in postmodern culture? And what is the place of leisure? This paper explores these questions and concludes that although leisure becomes a central domain for the making of community, that leisure communities hold a number of incongruities that reflect the postmodern culture in which they are found. The hope is that the ideas presented in this paper will offer material for leisure and community theorists and practitioners to consider in their work. But first: How is community transformed in postmodern culture? Community in Postmodern Culture Contingency, fluidity, fragmentation, de-differentiation, hybridization – these are words often used to describe postmodern culture. One approach to understanding their meaning is to examine how such characteristics tangibly appear in contemporary cultural practices and social relations. For example, fluidity characterizes post-industrial economics where financial leaders are no longer the commodity-based Fordist factories but the decentralized and elusive dot-com companies that trade in information (Bauman, 2000). Hybridization is seen in art, architecture, and culture, where discrete styles or genres are woven or fused together to produce such phenomena as fusion cuisine, country hip-hop, and ‘faction’ literature (Geertz, 1983) Hybridization and de-differentiation can also be seen in contemporary struggles of identity, where categories that once stood as stable markers of identity (male/female; gay/straight) have begun to blur and lose their distinctiveness. With respect to communities, we have a similar fragmentation and dedifferentiation that has broadened and transformed contemporary meanings of community. Specifically, we can identify the following trends: A ‘De-Placing’ of Community As the emergence of such social phenomena as Internet chat rooms illustrate, conceptualization of community as being tied to a fixed location or shared territory (the archetype of the rural town) have expanded to include communities that exist in virtual or hyperreal space (Jones, 1998; Lashua, 2001). Bender (1978, p. 6) contended that community is best defined as “an experience rather than a place. As simply as possible, community is where community happens.” Further, as communities deplace, so too do they proliferate. Individuals now have the mobility and technology to maintain membership in numerous discrete communities in which they have unique identities and social relations (Gergen, 1991).
Communities of Interest and Emotion, not Interdependence or Instrumentality Traditionally, communities formed when individuals were bound together in instrumental and interdependent relationships – we depended on others to help us do things, and they depended on us. In postmodern culture, individuals instead come together based on shared interests or styles. Bellah and his colleagues (1985) have referred to these groupings as “lifestyle enclaves” or “communities of interest.” Similarly, Maffesoli (1996) documented the emergence of “emotional communities,” which he described as intense, temporary groupings based on feeling, not obligation. Futher, what has taken a central role in evaluating communities are the emotional qualities of affection and closeness, and their ability to produce a sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Shields (1992) characterized this new feeling-centred sociability as a shift from the “contract community” to the “contact community.” Leisure as a Domain for Community-Making In sum, what postmodernity has ushered in is a weakening of community commitment to the extent that community is now best described as a “light cloak” rather than an “iron cage” (Bauman, 2000). In fact, Bauman suggested that we have reached the point where “all communities are postulated; projects rather than realities, something that comes after, not before the individual choice (p. 169). For leisure, the most obvious implication of this movement toward community as a chosen pursuit is that leisure takes on a central role as a domain to make and experience community. Indeed, numerous studies have documented the emergence of community based in the leisure domain. These studies range from communities that form at within leisure spaces such as clubs and raves (e.g., Trammachi, 2000), to communities that emerge around sports and games (e.g., Kemp), to vacation-based communities that form around travel and adventure (e.g., Neuman, 1993). For example, Ayers-Counts and Counts (1992, p. 163) documented the community that emerged among RVers, noting that people adopted the RV lifestyle “because it provided them with a sense of community lacking in the suburbs they lived for decades.” Levy (1989) similarly used the term community to describe the social solidarity and ties of affection that existed among recreational boaters who were members of the same marina. Indeed, the literature makes it clear that ‘leisure communities’ are a central phenomenon of contemporary life. Meanings of Leisure Communities However, while this literature has effectively documented the emergence of leisure communities, it has also had the tendency of presenting leisure communities as a straightforward substitute to traditional community. However, leisure communities occupy a unique location within the social milieu. Although leisure communities are reminiscent in form and feeling to traditional communities, they are much more incongruous in their meaning than traditional community. In fact, what we tend to find in leisure communities is a unification of the contradictory elements of intimacy and anonymity, obligation and freedom, and attachment and ephemerality. These are discussed below. Intimacy and Anonymity: Much like traditional communities, leisure communities foster intimacy and closeness between members. However, because leisure communities tend to
occupy a sphere that is/can be fragmented from other domains of life, there is also room for anonymity between members, in the sense that everyday roles and status markers can be kept hidden and alternative identities can be performed. Obligation and Freedom: The traditional “ties that bind” us to communities – duty, obligation, commitment – do arise in the leisure sphere, as members come to depend on and be depended upon by others in their attempt to do leisure well. However, these obligations exist within a framework of freedom and choice, in the sense that the ties that bind can easily be broken, if one so chooses to detach from the leisure community. Attachment and Ephemerality: Much as is found in traditional community, attachments between members can be strong, as people experience “communitas” with others who share similar values, interests, and beliefs (Turner, 1982). However, although strong attachments are felt, they are often temporary and ephemeral. Leisure communities are a “time out of time” (Turner, 1982) that can be entered and left at the end of an evening, a night, a week, or a season. As Rojek (1995, p. 152) noted, the ephemerality of postmodern communities is for many, part of their attraction: “In the condition of postmodernity a life permanently lived in intense emotional solidarity would at best be self-deceiving and at worst totally suffocating.” Discussion and Application Postmodernity has transformed our experience of all aspects of social life. Specifically, the communities of postmodern culture are increasingly distanced from place, involve emotional rather than instrumental relationships, and are entered out of individual choice rather than community obligation. Under these conditions, leisure as a domain for community-making clearly takes a more central role. However, as we work to develop the role of leisure in building community, we must recognize that although the contemporary leisure community resembles the traditional community, it is a unique form of sociability with its own meanings. Further, as we work to secure the place of leisure as a builder of community, we must attend to these changes or else we work to promote a relationship that no longer describes the experience of many members of contemporary culture. In other words, success stems from generating understandings and practices of leisure in community that reflect the characteristics of postmodern culture: hybridization, de-differentiation, fluidity, and contingency. References Ayers-Counts, D. A., & Counts, D. R. (1992). "They're my family now": The creation of community among RVers. Anthropologica, 34, 153-182. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bender, T. (1978). Community and Social Change in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books. Jones, S.G. (1998). Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kemp, S. F. (1999). Sled dog racing: The celebration of co-operation in a competitive sport. Ethnology, 38(1), 81-96. Lashua, B. (2001). Telehypertechnocyberinterautomata: Online electronic music community, resistance and democracy. Abstracts from the Symposium on Leisure Research, October 3-6, 2001. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Levy, L. (1989). Community in a recreational setting. Leisure Sciences, 11, 303-322. Maffesoli, M. (1996). The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Neumann, M. (1993). Living on tortoise time: Alternative travel as the pursuit of lifestyle. Symbolic Interaction, 16(3), 201-235. Rojek, C. (1995). Decentring Leisure: Rethinking Leisure Theory. London: Sage. Shields, R. (1992). The individual, consumption cultures, and the fate of community. In R. Shields (Ed.), Lifestyle Shopping: The Subject of Consumption (pp. 99-113). London: Routledge. Tramacchi, D. (2000). Field tripping: Psychedelic communitas and ritual in the Australian Bush. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 15(2), 201-214. Turner, V. W. (1982). From Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications.
ABSTRACTS of Papers Presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17 – 20, 2005 Hosted by Department of Recreation and Tourism Management Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, B.C. Abstracts compiled and edited by Tom Delamere, Carleigh Randall, David Robinson CCLR-11 Programme Committee Tom Delamere Dan McDonald Carleigh Randall Rick Rollins and David Robinson
Copyright © 2005 Canadian Association for Leisure Studies ISBN 1-896886-01-9
