Privatization, home-centredness and leisure

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the changing relationships between home life, family life and leisure, and sets out to investigate how adequately these are captured by the familiar idea of 'privatization'. Despite its superficial attractiveness, the privatization thesis is found to be wanting in its central proposition of a growing overlap between people's home, family and leisure activities. There are theoretical grounds for suggesting that there must be limits to how far home, family and leisure can coincide, and evidence from a range of recent studies is drawn upon to support the argument that the growth of homecentredness is not necessarily at the expense of wider patterns of sociability. It is concluded that the privatization thesis is insufficiently sensitive to the diversity of people's situations and goals.

Personal relationships in late modernity

“…More recent research on patterns of informal care have also highlighted the continuing salience of primary kin ties in contemporary society (Qureshi & Walker, 1989;Finch & Mason, 1993;Allen & Perkins, 1995), echoing Litwak's thesis about the significance of the "modified extended family " (1960a; 1960b; 1985). Moreover, arguments about household and family life becoming more privatized have been criticized for being genderblind and for representing changes in men's commitment to family life as universal (Allan & Crow, 1991). Thus, feminist researchers not only demonstrated how marriage remained structurally unequal (Oakley, 1974;Bernard, 1976;Delphy & Leonard, 1992), but also showed how emergent shifts in women's employment and leisure opportunities have run counter to claims for increasing privatization (Wimbush & Talbot, 1988;Bell & Ribbens, 1994;Hakim, 1998).…”

“…Interestingly, it can be argued that the home may now also play a larger part in the maintenance of these more dispersed relationships. With improvements in housing standards, increased home amenities, and changing marital expectations, the home has, for many, become a prime site for sociability, though this does not represent privatization in the sense normally implied by ideas of community decline (Franklin, 1989;Allan & Crow, 1991;Allan, 1998;Wellman, 1999).…”

Media-based Social Solitude: An Exploratory Study of Students in a Coffeehouse

“…The coffeehouses of today provide the physical place for people to gather together, but the space within it may ultimately be used to create privatized niches to be alone. The concept of privatization was once associated with the leisure activities of those with higher social status who would conduct leisure activities more often at home than elsewhere (Allan & Crow, 1991). Although the concept is still relevant, privatization can extend beyond the walls of a home due to increased mobility and connection to media devices found prevalent in American society.…”

Advances in Quality of Life Theory and Research

“…Because social interaction can be an important element of the leisure-life experience (Sneegas, 1986;Welford, 1983), the more successful interaction implied by greater Emotional support should promote less boring use of leisure time. The home is a salient setting for leisure activity (Allan and Crow, 1991), and thus can influence persons' use of leisure time; for example, suburbanites are more likely to be involved with their home, neighborhood, and community (Fischer, 1976). The greater involvement with home and community that Fischer calls "localism" should enlarge participation in, and reduce boredom with, leisure activities.…”