the book. ‘Post-structural’ theories of leisure are the focus of the final section, and in his introduction Brett Lashua notes the common thread running through these chapters – the challenge… Click to show full abstract
the book. ‘Post-structural’ theories of leisure are the focus of the final section, and in his introduction Brett Lashua notes the common thread running through these chapters – the challenge to think differently about leisure and power. Burdsey notes that diaspora is one area of research that has struggled to gain traction within leisure studies. He argues succinctly for diasporic theorizing in and of leisure, rather than simply using it as a descriptive term as has been the case previously. He provides some useful examples from his own work to illustrate how this may work in practice. The notion of power is also implicit in Hannam and Guereño-Omil’s chapter on geographic borders and leisure mobilities. Using examples from Europe as their focus, they examine the impacts of bordering and rebordering, which allow freedom to participate in leisure for some while at the same time constraining participation for others. The rationalization of leisure experiences is problematized by Beames and Brown, who use Ritzer’s McDonaldisation and Bryman’s Disneyisation frameworks as lenses to think more deeply about leisure practices that are taken-for-granted. They pose fundamental questions about the underlying tensions and the environmental and social damage that may be a consequence of Disneyisation – think part-time or casual employment, low pay rates – that contribute to the inadvertent perpetuation of social inequalities. In doing so, they call for leisure scholars to push the boundaries and think more critically about the nature of leisure provision. Overall, I hope this review has highlighted the depth and breadth of leisure theory presented in this volume. The book will appeal to leisure scholars from postgraduates to professors who are interested in new and different perspectives on leisure. The only criticism I have (aside from Scott’s chapter) is that the index is woefully inadequate for such a comprehensive work. I congratulate both the editors and the authors, who should all be proud of their contribution to the study of leisure – whatever form it may take.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.