Nagornyuk Lilia
Dragomanov
National Pedagogical University,
Institute
of Sociology, Psychology and Social Communications, student
(Ukraine, Kyiv)
Pet’ko Lyudmila,
Scientific supervisor,
Ph.D., Associate Professor,
Dragomanov
National Pedagogical University (Ukraine,
Kyiv)
LEISURE OF YOUTH IN MODERN SOCIETY
Íàãîðíþê
Ëèëèÿ
Íàöèîíàëüíûé
ïåäàãîãè÷åñêèé óíèâåðñèòåò èìåíè Ì.Ï.Äðàãîìàíîâà, Èíñòèòóò ñîöèîëîãèè, ïñèõîëîãèè è ñîöèàëüíûõ
êîììóíèêàöèé
(Óêðàèíà,
ã.Êèåâ)
Ïåòüêî Ëþäìèëà, íàó÷íûé ðóêîâîäèòåëü,
ê.ïåä.í., äîöåíò ÍÏÓ èìåíè
Ì.Ï.Äðàãîìàíîâà (Óêðàèíà, ã.Êèåâ)
ÄÎDzËËß ÌÎËÎIJ Ó ÑÓ×ÀÑÍÎÌÓ ÑÓÑϲËÜÑÒ²
At the age of 18
young people get the right to vote, take their driving license and they can get
married. Children and youths also have the right to have influence in their
local councils. Some of these rights and obligations are regulated in laws and
conventions such as the Children’s convention [2].
Plummer argues
that knowledge from the sociology of emotion and psychoanalysis can help to
stretch citizenship theory beyond its traditional focus on formal rights. He
requires us to carefully consider more intimate kinds of resources and types of
relationships entailed in active citizenship [7].
During the latest
part of the 20th century, the question about young people’s
citizenship has been actualized in Europe. The reasons for this are partly
attributable to young people’s decreasing interest in political parties and
other associations of thought, the occurrence of anarchistic youth revolts, and
the spread of fascistic ideas among the young generation.
To understand
citizenship in relation to young people’s leisure is a central challenge. Young
people spend most of their leisure time in their near surroundings and,
therefore, leisure options provided by the local councils are important. As
leisure activity is not mandatory to the councils, each council’s political
ambition decides to what extent leisure activities will be seen as means of
fostering young people into citizens [5].
The image of
youths is at least two sided. On the one hand, young people are presented as
individuals who are creative and interested in, and willing to take
responsibility for, matters which concern them. The councils offer facilities,
such as youth houses, and economic support to help them to arrange and carry
out activities such as music events, festivals, dance or theatre. There is a
notion expressed that through participation in creative activities like dance
and music, young people’s democratic sense will develop. On the other hand,
young people are seen as individuals who
need places to hang around, meet with their friends and have free access to
activities such as listening to music, playing games and using the Internet for
chatting. These are the youths who do not enroll in voluntary leisure
associations [1, 2].
There have been
many attempts to define leisure. According to Torkildsen [9], Rojek [8], Horna
[4] hundreds of theories and descriptions of leisure have been produced during
the 20th century.
The English word
leisure appears to be derived from the Latin licere, ‘to be permitted’ or ‘to be free’, hence the French word loisir, meaning ‘free time’, and the
English word ‘licence’, meaning permission or freedom to act. Thus, the word
leisure is associated with a complexity of meanings in our language. Generally
it is defined in terms of ‘freedom from constraint’, ‘opportunity to choose’,
‘time left over after work’ or as ‘free time after obligatory social duties
have been met’ [9, 73]. The word leisure
can mean different things, such as leisure in common or leisure for young
people; leisure as free time or leisure as an activity.
Often the
definitions of leisure have a normative character. In social science,
especially in the United States, Canada and Great Britain, the word serious
leisure has been used since 1982. In Europe, the United States and Canada a
considerable amount of leisure research has been accomplished since the 1950’s
[5, 2].
The matter of
leisure has been a part of the concerns about the physical and moral qualities
of the growing urban population in the industrial era. Leisure has to do with
regulation and self control [8].
The interest in
modern leisure is an effect of the industrial society, when organized spare
time became available for people. When De Grazia published his large historical
exposé Of Time, Works and Leisure
in 1962, which became one of the classic texts, leisure was established as a
research field. De Grazia (1962) meant that anyone can have spare time but
everyone can not have leisure. He also stated that the access to leisure is a
democratic question [3].
Mossberger,
Tolberg and Stansbury have made a larger survey in the USA of 1 190 respondents
of the age of 20. Their primary source of data is a national telephone survey
conducted in 2001. In the survey questionnaire there were questions such as:
access to the Internet, about having or not having an e-mail address and about
attitudes towards learning new computer skills. They found that a digital gap
exists and is characterized by skill divide as well as by an access divide.
Digital divide, in this case, means differences in access to information
technology based on demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, income,
education, and gender [6].
Young people
spend most of their leisure time and activities in their near surroundings and,
therefore, the leisure options provided by the local councils are important.
Bibliography
1. Arnot M. Freedoms children: a
gender perspective on the education of the learner citizen / Journal of
international review of education, 2006. Volume 52, Number 1/mar, pp 68-87.
(2006).
3. De Grazia, S. Of time work and
leisure. – New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1962.
4. Horna J. The study of Leisure – An Introduction Don Mills: Oxford
University Press, 1994.
5. Lindström Lisbeth. Leisure
activities and youth citizenship. What local councils tell about youths’
leisure from the perspective of citizenship on their homepages? / Lisbeth
Lindström. – Luliå University of Technology, 2009. – 150 p. [Web
site]. – Access mode: http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/3071537/Lisbeth_Lindstrom_Doc2009.pdf
6. Mossberger K. Virtual Inequality.
Beyond the Digital Divide / K. Mossberger, C.Tolbert, M. Stansbury. –
Washington: Georgetown University press. 2003.
7. Plummer,K. Intimate citizenship:
Private Decisions and Public Dialogues.
Washington, DC: University of
Washington Press, 2003.
8. Rojek C. Decentring Leisure –
rethinking Leisure Theory. – Wiltshire: The Cromwell Press, Ltd., 1995.
9. Torkildsen G. Leisure and
Recreation Management. London/New York: Spoon Press, 2003.