 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Dear Editor: Dr. John R. Allen (January/February, 1980 issue) suggests people of modern society would be better off in the long run with a personal growth enjoyment of leisure rather than a consumptive enjoyment of leisure. Dr. Allen is obviously an idealist, not a realist. In theory and practice, people consume because they enjoy the effects brought about by consumption. We have the freedom to choose consumptive enjoyment of leisure or personal growth enjoyment of leisure. Dr. Allen's suggestions would erode personal freedom of leisure choice options. Whose personal value system should narrow choice? Should not the public's options be broadened, rather than narrowed, by expanding choice of enjoyable personal growth opportunities and consumptive opportunities? Ours is a democratic society in which individuals can determine what choices are available for consumptive or personal growth enjoyment. This power of individuals to determine their own destiny is vested in them by vote or purchasing power depending on the affected delivery system. If some individuals determine that others are not making choices in the best long run interest of society, then actions can be taken to attempt attitude change without coercion. Dr. Allen alludes to the "individual's ability to effectively use their leisure" as if: (1) people lacked this ability; and (2) the word "effectively" implied the lack of a needed new value system which he embraces. Dr. Allen does not let the reader know much, if anything, about the needed new value system underlying a personal growth enjoyment of leisure. Our economy is inextricably tied to the consumptive enjoyment of leisure. Any haste in casting aside this reality, could easily lead to thwarting progress toward personal growth enjoyment of leisure. This progress has been building over the years as the public has seen fit to embrace its innovations. Mention of the growth of "Arts in Parks" programs, progressive library service programs, and aspects of wilderness tripping serve to remind us of the significant progress our society is making. I tire of the rhetoric given to "the new age of leisure" and the assertions that nothing is being done to rise to the occasion. Something is being done, has been done, and will be done. We are all part of the evolution of our society. Some of us have more impact than others. Let us be realistically responsive to this evolution and the expression given to the enjoyment of leisure by the public.
Roger D. Ford
Dear Editor: As a new member of the Illinois Parks and Recreation Association, and a new resident of the State of Illinois, I felt compelled to write after reading Dr. Len Cleary's captivating editorial in the November/December issue, and Kevin Kendrigan's reply in the January/February issue. It is apparent that both gentlemen have put much thought into the issue, however the conclusions that they reach are most disturbing. The issue they are debating is one that will be debated within our profession for years to come and has been discussed for years in the past. General recreation, park people, special recreation, clinicians, educators, military personnel, commissioners and trustees, we all have a different view of what we do and why we do it. But what we do provide has one common element—leisure, or leisure services. Both authors note the current trend towards deinstitutionalization which is placing thousands of handicapped persons back into their own communities. However, Cleary suggests that there are persons within the profession who are not satisfied with focusing upon leisure behavior outcomes, and I hear little support for that statement. Kendrigan's suggestion that we drop all reference to the fact that our participants may need treatment is too simplistic. Unfortunately, all of our participants will not be main-streamed, will not obtain gainful employment, and will not remain in our own programs without a structured approach with recreation serving as a part of the continuum of services for the handicapped. I won't hesitate to demand equal rights for the handicapped (as has NRPA in the November '79 issue), and that most assuredly includes recreation. I think it is hypocritical to deny that our participants need treatment, but that does not mean that we should provide treatment. That is someone else's job. I have been arguing these points long before I moved to Illinois, and I agree that it is time for action. . .the right action. The handicapped individuals in the country, regardless of whether they are in an institution or the community, are demanding responsive solutions from our profession. Many of these people have too much free time, forced leisure that they don't want and don't know how to use. Recreation and leisure educators, clinicians, and community based service providers must work together to shape an effective role for our profession. A good place to start would be to define treatment and non-treatment. But don't splinter an evolving philosophy and profession at the expense of those yet to be served. We can become equal to the task at hand, but only if we work together.
John N. McGovern, MTRS Illinois Parks and Recreation 29 May/June, 1980 |
|
|
