Inequalities and Similarities between Dutch Families: (Family) Leisure By the End of the 20th Century

In many studies on recreation and leisure as a social phenome­non, leisure is regarded as the opposite of work, or as compensation for work. Leisure is also seen as being comple­mentary to an individual's line of work. However, a number of scholars question whether this is the most fruitful way of gaining insight into recreation and leisure. Philipsen (1963), Roberts (1981), Kelly (1983) and Te Kloeze (1985a) believe a family or household approach to be more productive, which means that the theory should be directed at the social context of leisure on a micro and a macro level. The social context of people refers to the primary life domains of leisure and family life – which are embedded in the wider context of society, both institutionally and socio-spatially. The question is how far the above is valid for leisure behaviour being an important part of (family) life. The family leisure market is arguably more important now than it has ever been (Southall 2010).

An empirical study on family and leisure was conducted in the mid-nineteen nineties (Te Kloeze 1996).

Part of the data of that study haven’t been analysed before. Those data were focused on leisure behaviour; the activities undertaken during free time; the organisation of the leisure activities; task sharing between husband and wife. Traditional and modern-individualistic families were distinguished.

The content of the problem statement is as follows: how do (partners from) families behave in time and space with regard to activities undertaken during their free time, and are there inequalities related to their origin? (urban – rural; low versus high status; caring role; and gender)? We used data from diaries and from extensive interviews with husbands and wives.

In this paper the main findings of that analysis will be presented.