Race and the Pursuit of Happiness

Abstract

KEYWORDS: Race, African American, leisure, discrimination Race still matters in the United States of America. Yet, too many people would like to believe that race no longer separates this nation in any meaningful way. Hence, the real public shock during the recent O. J. Simpson trial when race was shown to be an extremely important factor in people's opinions of his guilt or innocence (Elias & Schatzman, 1996). Even more difficult for most Americans to face was the realization that these important racial differences were present across gender, education, and social class boundaries (Elias & Schatzman, 1996). Similarly, it appears to be shocking for many leisure researchers to even consider race in their understanding of leisure behavior. Yet, perhaps no where else does race matter as much as during leisure. While schools and work places have been integrated over the last three decades by force of law, no similar laws have been enacted to secure the racial integration of leisure spaces. Indeed, since leisure is something that is usually freely chosen by most participants, it would be difficult for governments to write laws which mandated leisure participation based on race. Consider the political difficulties of closing a beach, park, playground, or activity center if it did not meet established racial integration goals. In addition, since most lawmakers, and the general public, tend to discount the value of leisure, it is easy to suggest that economic concerns, most closely associated with education and work, should be the real test of racial integration. For example, if an African American was prevented from playing golf at a country club, the media would probably run the story as a loss of economic networking opportunities, and not a story about the lost joy of playing golf. From the standpoint of personal economics, most leisure activities do not merit much public attention. So the public and media might easily ask, is it really a big problem if African Americans don't go camping in the National Parks, or should we actually be concerned if Whites don't play basketball in the inner city? Unfortunately, this kind of apathy can usually be associated with two common public attitudes about leisure: a) who really cares what most people do during their leisure time, and b) most people like to feel comfortable or welcome during their leisure. The outcome of these common attitudes is readily apparent to any observer; some public and private leisure places (e.g., beaches, churches, clubs, playgrounds, bars, nightclubs, and parks) can easily be the most racially segregated places currently found in the United States. In addition, even when different racial groups share an urban park, for example, it is still likely to have some kinds of understood racial boundaries (West, 1989). Like the villagers who refused to that their emperor was wearing no clothes, many leisure researchers consciously refuse to what exists right before their eyes. West (1989, p. 12) refers to this situation as the cognitive tyranny of the dominant paradigms in leisure research on minorities, and states that the separation of the races in leisure places is staring many investigators in the face, and yet, due in part perhaps to the dominance of the `subcultural' paradigm . . this stark fact goes unnoticed (or at least without comment). When some leisure researchers do finally see race in leisure places, they are likely to discuss any racial differences they find using theories. Ethnicity as usually presented in the leisure literature, refers to subcultural values, language, and traditions. Unfortunately, ethnicity theories usually function to remove race, and more importantly racial discrimination, from the discussion. Instead, racial differences become social class, gender, language, or value differences, and race quietly disappears from sight. This situation seems convenient for many because it also removes the difficult topic of racial discrimination from the discussion. …