(Re)Theorizing Leisure, Experience and Race (Report‪)‬

While scholars have pursued knowledge about "leisure experiences, there has been no clear consensus about what constitutes "experience" or for that matter, what constitutes an individual's identity. One way scholars have attempted to examine experience has been through a social-psychological lens that locates the individual and her/his interpretation of leisure experiences at the center of discussions about leisure, leisure experience and identity (c.f., Iso-Ahola, 1980; Neulinger, 1974). However, what this perspective lacks is an accompanying discussion about the ideologies and discourses that structure those experiences. The social-psychological framework has led scholars to seek out subjective, cognitive and affective components of leisure and the meaning of leisure experience for individuals. Despite our reliance on the term "experience" in leisure studies, more than 20 years (Gunter, 1987) have passed since theorists have explicitly examined experience as an elusive construct. Indeed, there seems to be an assumption that leisure is, first and foremost, a construct that is rooted in experience. Kelly & Freysinger (2000) capture this perspective when they suggest that "Whatever else it is, leisure is experience ..." (p. 79). Much of the inquiry around "experience" in Leisure Studies apart from the conceptual work of feminist scholars (e.g., Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw & Freysinger, 1996), has focused on meanings of leisure experience at individual, non-ideological levels. Attempts to capture and represent the leisure experiences of individuals based on various identity politics (race, gender, sexual orientation) has focused on examining and presenting differences among and between people based on these social categories of identity. Most scholarship has not, however, included theorizing around the ways in which institutional structures and oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, and heterosexism) operate in leisure settings.