Miro Griffiths Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships February 2011

Miro Griffiths Opportunities to Leisure and Social Relationships February 2011

Introduction

According to the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics (2010a), lifestyle trends are defined by people’s interests, social interactions and personal characteristics. Their findings outlined in the latest publication suggest that advancements in technology have greatly improved access to information, thus providing access to a wider choice of leisure activities and entertainment facilities. If leisure is defined here as "free time" (National Centre for Social Research, 2010), then the two most popular activities for men and women in England are watching television and socialising with friends and family (Office for National Statistics, 2010a).

The construction and maintenance of social relationships retains a prominent position within British society; although the method of communication now varies substantially, largely in line with variations in age and gender. Irrespective of lifestyle choices and social preferences, the data suggests that the opportunity to participate, in leisure activities and the formation of social relationships is readily available to the majority (Office for National Statistics, 2010a). As such, it is reasonable to ask, what barriers and opportunities exist for disabled people when they attempt to access the leisure industry or establish social relationships? With the United Kingdom government continuing in its attempt to achieve disability equality (Prime Minister Strategy Unit, 2005), there is a recognition that disabled people should have full equal access to all forms of communal and social life. The importance of participation in this context has even been recognised at the United Nations. The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) marked a change in opportunities for disabled people, ensuring that disabled people were recognised as having rights, responsibilities and the capability to make life-affecting decisions. Article 30 of the convention (United Nations, 2006) clearly states disabled people shall have full access to all cultural activities and leisure services, be enabled to develop and utilise their creative potential and be recognised for their cultural identity on an equal basis with others.

By reviewing academic literature, this paper will assess the opportunities for disabled people to access leisure activities, including segregated facilities which accommodate only disabled people, as well as initiatives which aim to bridge the social gap between nondisabled and disabled people through leisure activity. The paper will also address social isolation and analyse disabled people's opportunities to establish and maintain "normal" relationships. Data from leisure services will be provided to illustrate the marginalisation of disabled people in this context. Finally, suggested improvements will be reviewed to ensure disabled people have opportunities to participate in leisure activities and establish social relationships on an equal basis with nondisabled people.

Defining the Key Concepts

The problematic task of defining “leisure interest” has plagued statisticians and academics alike; this has been caused by a shifting opinion in the type of activity understood to constitute a “leisure activity”, and its relative position within an individual’s general “lifestyle” (Gershuny, 1986). For many years, leisure statistics were considered a complimentary extension to work patterns and could only be reviewed in the context of employment in voluntary or paid work (Hawrylyshn, 1978). Now, statistical literature does not segregate leisure activity; rather it tends to reorganise activities not associated with work into a "lifestyle" chapter (Office for National Statistics, 2010a).

According to Gershuny and Fisher (1999), leisure can be defined in three distinct forms: first is the definition of leisure as time spent once "work" has finished and when all obligations have been met. This also includes aspects of domestic production and therefore focuses on the final act of “work” and the first act of “leisure” i.e. eating a meal, rather than the task of cooking. The second definition refers to leisure as a means through which social status is asserted. Bourdieu (1987) refers to leisure as the creation of an identity through the combination of financial resources and cultural knowledge. This perspective is in contrast to the trickle-down effect (Bramham and Wagg, 2009) whereby the leisure habits of those with a higher social status are mimicked by those less privileged. Hirsch (1977) considers this definition to demonstrate a bleak reality, as the fixation to emulate superior social classes will inevitably result in a failure for the individual to gain any social advancement. Finally, Young and Willmott (1973) perceived leisure as a concept defined by the individual.

Parker (1976) using Young and Willmott's definition describes leisure activities by functional significance. Such activities can be pigeonholed into three areas: those which aid in physical recuperation (visiting a beautician after working in an industrial setting), those which re-establish creative intuition (sitting in a public park and listening to the sounds after working in an office), or those which exist to construct an alternative persona (a nurse enjoying a weekend of participating in extreme sports). This supports the principal view that “leisure” can be interpreted as a product of extremely diverse activities; some individuals consider paid employment to be a form of leisure, while others will define it as spending time with family. Regardless of whether paid employment can be considered a recreational activity, “leisure” as defined here includes more predictable recreational activities (Jones, 1986), such as participation in sports, watching television or going to a concert.

This paper will also analyse the opportunities for disabled people to establish social relationships. There has been significant academic debate surrounding the definition of the term; in its simplest, a social relationship represents an association between people based upon matching interests, social or sexual attraction or solidarity (Kelley, 1983). Such relationships involve a level of interdependence (Tracey, 2004) resulting in changes to the individual impacting both parties.

According to Levinger (1983), social relationships progress through a five stage model: the first stage, Acquaintance, initiates when the individuals meet; the outcome is determined by first impressions and the ability to sustain previous relationships. The second stage, “Build-Up” refers to the formation of trust and, in some circumstances, the establishment of a care component. At the third stage, Continuation, a mutual agreement is created through the achievement of long-term goals, i.e. long-term friendship or romantic relationship. Even though stage four may not occur, Deterioration of a relationship is always possible; this can be caused by resentment or boredom. Although individuals can often find a way to resolve a deteriorating relationship, if the issue is a loss of trust or betrayal the relationship is likely to end (Wright, 1984). The final stage is the inevitable Termination, which can occur through death or separation.

The focus here will be on how disabled people establish "normal" relationships, in relation to the creation of a platonic or romantic relationship under "natural circumstances". While the impact of personal assistants and carers will be addressed, as well the use of paid sex workers, the emphasis remains on disabled people's attempt to construct long-term relationships with people who do not belong to the above professions.

In order to effectively analyse disabled people's opportunities to access leisure activities and establish social relationships all data will be assessed in relation to the seven principles that indicate the severity of "social structure" discrimination against disabled people (Davis, 1990). The seven elements, coined "the seven needs of disabled people" include: information, counselling, housing, technical aids, personal assistance, transport and access. To eliminate inequality, the seven needs must be considered a priority before addressing secondary issues such as employment, education and leisure (Derbyshire County Council, 1986), as the inability to secure any of the seven elements can create further struggle for disabled people to successfully navigate later issues. According to Davis (1990), the seven needs can operate as a tool to identify those areas of societal structure that need attention to expedite full participation and equality for disabled people. Therefore, disabled people's access to leisure activities will be analysed using the framework of the "seven needs of disabled people”, and the inclusion of attitudinal issues which can create barriers, especially in terms of disabled people’s attempt to construct identities (Lenney and Sercombe, 2002).

Access to Leisure

Disabled people are excluded from full participation within most mainstream environments, especially education and work (Appleby, 1993); a situation which can lead to the perception that disabled people have more time to pursue leisure activities (Murray, 2002). This, of course, is untrue (Burchardt, 2000), the reality being disabled people experience a greater difficulty when accessing leisure facilities compared to their nondisabled counterparts (Aitchison, 2000).

One barrier appears to be either a lack of information, or the misinterpretation of available information relating to the participation of disabled people (Davis, 1990). The difficulty for leisure providers in understanding the concept of "inclusion" illustrates why there is a need for information. According to (Murray, 2002), nondisabled people assume that disability related "inclusion" is an issue to be explained solely by disabled people. Furthermore, many disabled people are not empowered to understand concepts such as, "participation and independence" (Petrie, Egharevba, Oliver, Poland, 2000). The lack of information surrounding these terms creates false interpretations, which then manifest as a general withdrawal of disabled individuals from leisure opportunities. The notion of independence often translates into "doing something on one's own", therefore implying that inclusion is achievable through independence (Fine and Gelndinning, 2005). Nevertheless, for many, accessible information including the awareness of its availability is not directed towards disabled people, meaning they have little or no inclusion (Nind and Seale, 2009).

A similar approach can be taken to understanding participation, as many mainstream environments perceive the term as a situation where disabled people contribute to an activity; the implication being that those who cannot contribute will not participate. Yet, it is not only terms of empowerment which need to be adopted by leisure facilities and disabled people. Understanding key initiatives of self-directed support, i.e. direct payments, will ensure that disabled people with the information to make empowered choices, will benefit from access to leisure activities (Abbott and McConkey, 2006). Whilst it is vital to promote choice, for many who are not in receipt of self-directed support, clear understanding is needed to ensure the accessible information is available to explain the role of such support, regardless of choice to use it. Furthermore, leisure facilities and similar environments must take responsibility for ensuring individuals, regardless of support package, experience equal access to all initiatives (Murray, 2002).

A useful indicator for disabled people's participation is the emotional response to previous or future participatory episodes. For many disabled people, fear of ridicule or rejection can override the desire to access leisure activities (Fullagar and Owler, 1998). According to (Booth and Booth, 1996), people with learning difficulties are conscious that their appearance to nondisabled peers; lead to a perception of inferiority. Thompson and Emira (2011) concluded that the attitudes of staff working in leisure facilities affected disabled people's motivation to attend, as the fear of bullying and categorisation as vulnerable lead to a "self-fulfilling prophecy" which saw social isolation as the preference.

Parents of disabled children have noted a lack of empathy from professionals towards the needs of disabled children accessing sports and leisure (Tregaskis, 2003). This creates a focus which places the restrictions to participate with the biological limitations of their impairment, rather than failings in society’s infrastructure. This also causes ignorance of disability issues amongst nondisabled people. The issue over empathetic understanding generates tension over whether disabled people should disclose their impairment and needs in order to be situated within the mainstream, or spend their leisure time in segregated schemes which specialise in accommodating disabled people (Carr, 2004).

Alongside those facilities discussed above housing needs to be analysed to address opportunities in leisure, when considering that the majority of leisure activities occur within the home environment (Office for National Statistics, 2010), and disabled people - especially people with learning difficulties - are most likely to pursue their leisure interests there (Devas, 2003). According to King, Petrenchik, Law and Hurley (2009), disabled children are usually excluded from domestic leisure groups, because of the varied impractical designs of homes. Subsequently, disabled people are excluded from the planning of future events, and left to participate in leisure activities of a solitary nature (Devas, 2003).

It can be argued that nondisabled people find pleasure in pursuing solidarity leisure activities within their home. However, disabled people excluded from social environments also face barriers when attempting isolated activities. (Murray, 2002) explains how some people with visual impairments are unable to experience the latest forms of entertainment, i.e. new and popular books, because publishers delay production of accessible formats; this creates further isolation, as discussions on current topics will have passed by the time the individual has the opportunity for inclusion.

For disabled people, the home can be a barrier. Connor (1997) noted how disabled children limited their social activities because parents and carers were apprehensive about allowing their child to engage in events without their supervision, while for people with learning difficulties, staying within the home created substantial frustration as parental monitoring ensured they could not pursue their own interests without external involvement (Murray and Penman, 2000).

Irrespective of the location of leisure activities, there is no question that assistive technology has improved quality-of-life for disabled people in a more holistic sense, with technology currently in the mainstream market providing opportunities to meet the requirements of various impairments (Dewsbury et al, 2002). Mobile phones, for example, are now equipped with technology to provide leisure activities to the user i.e. listen to music or watch a film, whilst simultaneously providing a direct line to personal assistants and alarms to become aware of time-related impairment needs. Such devices eliminate the need to have specialised equipment, which carry additional financial implications, and the potential for user stigmatisation or subsequent issues of inaccessibility (Harris, 2010). Nevertheless, the answer for disabled people’s oppressions does not centre on technology advancement; many people have become impaired by modern technology (Sheldon, 2004), therefore, mainstream technology is perceived as a cost-effective alternative to expensive, specialised equipment, but this disregards the need for social change. Unfortunately, mainstream leisure facilities are not adopting established technology which would improve inclusion rates for disabled participants. Trailblazers (2009), for example, found cinemas do not provide adequate facilities for wheelchair users.