Thinking Through Post-structuralism in Leisure Studies: A Detour Around “Proper” Humanist Knowledges

  • Lisbeth A. Berbary
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Similar to any paradigm of thought, humanism has its limitations and should be met with suspicion (St. Pierre, Int J Qual Stud Educ 13(5):477–515, 2000). Scholars in our field have already taken up this call to question humanism by showing its limits and making space for more critical humanist theories (Parry et al., Leisure Sci 35(1):81–87, 2013). However, such critiques tend to remain with/in critical theory, feminism(s), and critical race theories, rather than stepping outside of humanism into post* theories such as post-structuralism, queer theory, and post-humanism. Recognizing the usefulness of engaging in a pluralism of theories to understand, critique, and deconstruct leisure phenomena, this chapter encourages scholars to consider stepping outside of humanism to show the strength of also employing post* theories in our theorizing and qualitative leisure research.

Keywords

Social theory Post* paradigms Deconstruction Ethics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aitchison, C. (2003). Gender and leisure: Social and cultural perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In B. Brewster (Trans.), Louis Althusser, Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Amed, S. (2006). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12(4), 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arai, S., Berbary, L., & Dupuis, S. (2015). Re-imagining therapeutic recreation: Transformative practices and innovative approaches. Leisure/Loisir, 39(2), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Gender and Science, 28(3), 801–831.Google Scholar
  6. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berbary, L. (2011). Post-structural writerly representation: Screenplay as creative analytic practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(2), 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berbary, L. (2012). Don’t be a whore, that’s not ladylike: Discursive discipline and sorority women’s gendered subjectivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(7), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berbary, L. (2015). Creative analytic practices: Onto-episto-theoretical attachments, uses, and constructions within humanist qualitative leisure research. International Leisure Review, 2(4), 27–55.Google Scholar
  10. Berbary, L., & Boles, J. (2014). Eight reflection points: Re-visiting scaffolding for improvisational humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bove, P. (1990). Discourse. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (1992). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of “postmodernism”. In J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. (1995). For a careful reading. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, & N. Fraser (Eds.), Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.). (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, A. (1986). Archaeology, genealogy, ethics. In D. C. Hoy (Ed.), Foucault: A critical reader (pp. 221–233). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Derrida, J. (1974/1967). Of grammatology (G.C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science: Liberation and its limits. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Flax, J. (1990). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1966).Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1984a). What is enlightenment? C. Porter, Trans. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1984b). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 76–100). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1984c). Space, knowledge, and power. P. Rabinow, Interviewer; C. Hubert, Trans. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) The Foucault reader (pp. 239–256). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (2000). Power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the college de France, 1975–1976 (D. Macey, Trans.). New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  30. Gramsci, A. (2000). Hegemony, relations of force, historical bloc. In D. Forgase (Ed.), The Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935. New York: Mariner.Google Scholar
  31. Halberstam, J. (2011). The queer art of failure. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization and the world system. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Halperin, D. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1947). Dialectic of enlightenment (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hutcheon, L. (1993). Beginning to theorize postmodernism. In J. Natoli & L. Hutcheon (Eds.), A postmodern reader. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  36. Huyssen, A. (1990). Mapping the postmodern. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Jameson, F. (1988). Postmodernism and consumer society. In E. A. Kaplan (Ed.), Postmodernism and its discontents: Theories, practices. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Kaplan, E. (1988). Introduction. In E. A. Kaplan (Ed.), Postmodernism and its discontents: Theories, practices. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  40. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lather, P. (1996). Troubling clarity: The politics of accessible language. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany/New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Post-positivist new paradigm inquiry. Class handout, ELAN 8560. Theoretical Frameworks for Doctoral Students in the Human Science.Google Scholar
  44. Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. (2013). Introduction: Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Marx, K. (1977). The Communist manifesto. In D. McLellan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. McGee, P. (1992). Telling the other: The question of value in modern and postcolonial writing. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mouffe, C. (1988). Radical democracy: Modern or postmodern? P. Holdengrasber, Trans. In Universal abandon: The politics of postmodernism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nordstrom, S. (2015). A data assemblage. International Review of Qualitative Research, 8(2), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parry, D., Johnson, C., & Stewart, W. (2013). Leisure research for social justice: A response to Henderson. Leisure Sciences, 35(1), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rajchman, J. (1985). Michel Foucault: The freedom of philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Rojek, C. (1995). Decentering leisure. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the “political economy” of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  55. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  56. Samdahl, D., & Kelly, J. (1999). Speaking only to ourselves? Citation analysis of Journal of leisure research and leisure studies. Journal of Leisure Research, 31, 171–180.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scraton, S., & Watson, B. (1998). Gendered cities: Women and public leisure space in the “postmodern city”. Leisure studies, 17(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seidman, S. (Ed.). (1994). The postmodern turn: New perspectives on social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Shaw, S. (2000). If our research is relevant, why is nobody listening? Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 147–151.Google Scholar
  61. Spivak, G. (1974). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida, Of grammatology, G.C. Spivak, Trans. (pp. ix–xc). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Spivak, G. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. St. Pierre, E. (2000). Post-structural feminism in education: An overview. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. St. Pierre, E. (2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative inquiry (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. St. Pierre, E. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 646–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wearing, B. (1998). Leisure and feminist theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisbeth A. Berbary
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations