Human rights, leisure and leisure studies
Published at: A. J. Veal (2015) Human rights, leisure and leisure studies, World Leisure
Journal, 57(4), 249-272, DOI: 10.1080/16078055.2015.1081271
Abstract
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, endorsed by the United Nations in 1948, includes
the right to leisure time, to cultural participation and to travel. While the idea of human rights
permeates many aspects of national and international life, it appears not to have permeated the
field of leisure studies to any great extent, unlike some cognate areas, such as sport and tourism
studies. The purpose of this paper is not to remedy this situation but to argue that this neglect is
unjustified and to suggest that leisure researchers might incorporate the idea of human rights
and leisure rights into their work. The paper is divided into six main parts. First it considers the
parallels between the neglect of human rights in sociology up until the 1990s and the
continuing neglect in the field of leisure studies. Second, it considers the basis of human rights
in general. Third, it examines the nature of the leisure rights declared in the Universal
Declaration. Fourth, the place of leisure in general critiques of economic, social and cultural
rights is assessed. Fifth, the relationship between human rights and a number of themes in
leisure studies is briefly explored, including: the work/leisure divide; the individual versus
society; freedom; gender; globalization; and policy. Finally some suggestions are made for a
research agenda on human rights and leisure.
Key words: human rights; leisure studies; leisure rights; citizenship rights
Introduction
A right is a morally and/or legally justified claim to have or to do something. Human rights are
those rights to which all human beings are deemed to be entitled on the basis of their humanity
alone (Donnelly, 2003, p.7). Rights may be claimed by individuals or groups – the rights
bearers – on their own behalf or by others on their behalf. Rights cannot be realised, however,
unless they are recognised by relevant others – the duty bearers or addressees – including
individuals, communities and institutions such as governments. These actors may, of course,
ignore, reject or resist rights claims and, even if they recognise them, may do little to secure
their practical realisation. The securing of rights therefore often becomes a focus of campaigns,
protest, struggle and negotiation. Rights claims and their recognition or rejection can therefore
1
be seen as philosophical, political and/or legal phenomena. Reflecting emancipatory
philosophies, political struggles and legal solutions, some nations, such as France and the
United States, have historically enshrined statements of human rights in their constitutions.
However, in 1948, following the Great Depression, the horrors of two world wars and their
aftermaths, the newly-formed United Nations recognised a need to ‘restate the basics of life,
freedom and community’ on an international basis (Witte & Green, 2012, p.5). The result was
the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The 30 articles of the UDHR, summarised in Table 1, can be divided into civil and
political rights and economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights. Two of the ESC rights deal with
leisure: Article 24, the right to leisure time, and Article 27, the right to cultural participation
and protection of copyright. One civil right, Article 13, covers the right to travel. Leisure also
interacts with the other listed rights, since the upholding or denial of human rights can take
place in leisure contexts and denial of some rights, for example to subsistence or education, can
compromise the exercise of leisure rights.
INSERT: Table 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights summary
While the notion of human rights permeates many aspects of national and international
life, it appears not to have permeated the field of leisure studies to any great extent. The
purpose of this paper is not to single-handedly remedy the situation but to argue that this
neglect is unjustified and to begin a dialogue by suggesting that leisure researchers might
become more ‘rights-aware’ and might consider the ‘meaningful integration of rights-based
ideas’ and ‘rights-based thinking’ (Connolly & Ward, 2008, p.9) into their work.
Over the 60 years since the promulgation of the UDHR, a substantial additional body of
declarations, treaties and practice, from the United Nations and other organisations, has been
developed. Examples of documents relevant to leisure are listed in Table 2, although it has not
been possible to discuss all of them in detail in this paper. Since the key document, the UDHR,
is not an enforceable treaty but a statement of principle endorsed by the UN General Assembly,
enforcement is pursued by means of two supporting covenants, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which were promulgated in 1966. The UDHR, ICCPR and
ICESCR are sometimes collectively referred to as the International Bill of Rights. The free
time rights in Article 24, insofar as they relate to labour conditions, are in part monitored by
the International Labour Organization, which was founded under the Treaty of Versailles,
2
following World War I, and became the first agency of the United Nations in 1945. When UN
member states ratify these treaties, they are required to make periodic reports on measures
taken to implement them within their countries, and subject themselves to evaluative review.
The sanctions for poor performance under this far from perfect system (Chapman, 1996) are,
however, of the ‘naming and shaming’ and advising kind only.
INSERT: Table 2.Other human rights declarations/treaties relevant to leisure
At a time when gross violations of human rights, including torture, illegal incarceration,
slavery, human trafficking, racial discrimination and all forms of violence against the person,
take place on a daily basis throughout the world (Human Rights Watch, nd), the
appropriateness of giving consideration to leisure may be questioned. But leisure is intimately
bound up with many human rights violations. In parts of the world censorship of the creative
arts curtails freedom of expression. Throughout the world children are abused for the perverted
leisure time pleasure of adults, often those with responsibility for their care. Others are denied
leisure due to being forced to work excessively long hours in unacceptable conditions as
indentured labour – in some cases to provide leisure clothing and equipment for affluent
consumers. Players at sporting events are subject to racial abuse by spectators and others are
discriminated against because of their gender or sexual orientation. In some parts of the world
cultural expression is denied by the prohibition of cinema, secular music and dance. This paper
is predicated on the principle that, if the assembled United Nations saw fit to recognise leisure
among the list of human rights in 1948, then a certain obligation falls on those responsible for
leisure education, research and service provision to at least examine the extent to which these
rights are relevant to the field and the extent to which other rights are upheld or violated
through leisure practices. This might make a modest contribution to the defence of the
principle of ‘universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated’ human rights (World
Conference on Human Rights, 1993, p.I.5).
The paper is divided into six main parts: 1. consideration of the parallels between the
neglect of human rights in sociology up until the 1990s and the continuing neglect in the field
of leisure studies; 2. examination of the basis of human rights in general; 3. examination of the
nature of declared leisure rights; 4. discussion of the place of leisure in the general critique of
ESC rights; 5. exploration of the relationship between human rights and a number of themes in
leisure studies; and 6. a suggested research agenda for leisure and human rights.
3
Sociology, leisure studies and the neglect of human rights
Some 22 years ago, Bryan Turner (1993: 489) observed that human rights had been ‘largely
ignored by contemporary sociology’, due particularly to the influence of the writings of
Durkheim, Weber and Marx which had resulted in resistance to any ‘universalistic human
ontology’ (see also Hynes, Lamb, Short & Waites, 2010; Sjoberg, Gill & Williams, 2001;
Somers & Roberts, 2008). He noted that, even though human rights debates and legislation
were ‘major features of the socio-political processes and institutions of modern societies’,
sociology possessed ‘no contemporary theory of rights’ (p.490). Given the strong influence of
sociology on leisure studies, it is perhaps not surprising to find that these remarks can also be
applied to leisure studies today. Turner (1993, p.496) further observed that a sociology of
citizenship had ‘functioned as a substitute for a sociology of rights’. Based on the work of
Marshall (1950/1992), citizenship rights are viewed as being associated with the provisions of
the welfare state and are limited to a particular jurisdiction, originally the classical city state,
but now more commonly the single nation state. They are therefore geographically and
historically contingent rather than universal. Turner (1993, pp.498-9) observed: ‘The point
about human rights is that they are extra-governmental and have been traditionally used to
counteract the repressive capacity of states. By contrast, citizenship has been more frequently
associated with state-building and state-legitimacy’. Human rights therefore provided a
particularly appropriate framework for considering social issues in the context of globalization.
John Urry (2000) has used the term: a ‘sociology beyond societies’. Turner (1993, p.508)
proceeded to develop theoretical propositions based on the concepts of ‘human frailty, social
precariousness and collective sympathy’. Other sociologists have concurred with him regarding
the need for a sociology of human rights and offered their own proposals (e.g. Sjoberg, Gill &
Williams, 2001; Somers & Roberts, 2008).
The parallels between Turner’s account of sociology and developments in leisure studies
are marked. Regarding the neglect of rights in the field of study, the paucity of references in
the leisure studies literature is clear. Some significant analyses of leisure rights exist, but
generally outside the confines of mainstream leisure studies (e.g. Richards & Carbonetti, 2013;
Risse, 2009).
In Britain, the only leisure scholar to devote more than a passing reference to rights has
been Rojek (2005a, pp.197-9) in his brief critique of the World Leisure Organization’s Charter
for Leisure (WLO, 1979/2000) and his exploration of the illicit accessing of copyright material
via the internet (Rojek, 2005b). The topic has, however, arisen in leisure research relating to
particular social groups, including those mentioned in United Nations rights documents. In the
4
case of women, for example, specific mentions have been made, albeit only in passing, by
Deem (1982, p.44), who observed that ‘women do not always see leisure as something to
which they legitimately have a right’, and by Green, Hebron & Woodward (1990, p.ix), who
concluded that: ‘A woman’s right to freedom in leisure is circumscribed by her employment
status and income level, her family situation and …her lack of status as a woman in a
patriarchal society’. In general, however, recent discussion of differential access to leisure
resources has used the terminology of inclusion/exclusion (e.g. Collins, 2003), which reflects a
focus on national or local citizenship rather than universal human rights. The idea of there
being general rights to leisure for all and the possibility that such rights might be honoured or
denied to varying extents has not arisen.
Leisure scholars in the United States have been similarly neglectful, despite living in a
nation founded on the basis of one of the most famous of all declarations of human rights, the
American Declaration of Independence. In this case, the neglect may be less a reflection of
sociological orthodoxy than with the fact that North American leisure studies was influenced
more by psychology than by sociology and may have been affected by the tone set by the
United States government’s ‘dogged rejection of human rights in the domestic context’
(Somers & Roberts, 2008, p.400)
1
. An American leisure scholar who has given some attention
to human rights is Karla Henderson. One contribution examines women’s sense of entitlement
to leisure (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1991) but without using the term human rights. In an
exposition of the idea of just leisure (Henderson, 2014) she refers to the WLO Charter for
Leisure but expresses ambivalent views on human rights, as discussed below under gender.
Others mentions include: Schor’s (1991, p.141) call for recognition of ‘a right to free time’; a
more substantial discussion by Sylvester (1992) focussed on therapeutic recreation; and
Mason’s (1999) brief examination of human rights as one of a number of ‘contemporary moral
theories’ considered inadequate for addressing feminist issues. Only Sylvester (1992) refers to
the UN declarations. Paralleling the British focus on inclusion/exclusion, in recent years a
number of North American researchers have promoted the idea of allying leisure research to
the pursuit of social justice, but have not used the terminology of human rights (Parry, Johnson
& Stewart, 2013; Stewart, 2014).
Outside the Anglosphere, but in English translation, Dumazedier (1971, p.203) made a
single observation on the historical emergence of the right to leisure in the twentieth century
2
.
1
This United States ‘exceptionalism’ is reflected in its being one of the handful of countries which have not
ratified either the ICESCR or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
2
The leisure policy/professional sector is even more neglectful of human rights, an exception being the position
statement of the (US) National Therapeutic Recreation Society (see Edginton et al., 2006, p.127). Rare examples
5
