ABSTRACT Recent British writers have criticised the established sociology of leisure for lacking firm theoretical roots, for adopting the everyday concept of leisure instead of questioning, then recognising an exposing its ideological qualities, and for using a definition of leisure with little relevance beyond the lives of adult, ethnic majority, male employees. Hence the alleged case for starting afresh from new foundations and reconstructing the field. This paper argues that no such reconstruction is necessary. Although leisure research has never possessed a single agenda, during the 1960s and 70s a consensus emerged around key propositions. It was agreed that modern leisure was a product of industrialism. A second point of agreement was that industrialisation led to a growth of leisure, which was expected to continue. Leisure scholars also agreed that uses of leisure varied according to personal tastes and individuals' positions in society. Different occupational, age and sex roles seemed to create different patterns of constraint and opportunity. Hence the plurality of leisure practices for leisure research to unravel. These are the key propositions that critics have sought to demolish prior to restarting from basics and reconstructing the sociology of leisure. This paper argues that the criticisms are fundamentally flawed, and that the consensus of the 1960s and 70s is a base to defend, then build-upon in researching current trends and advancing leisure theory. Leisure scholars have recently sharpened instruments such as diaries, time and space analysis, and activity profiling. The result is that we can now measure entire leisure styles, and explore their inter-relationships with the rest of life. Past achievements are the base from which leisure studies must grow new branches to analyse the implications of current trends in family patterns and in the life-course, together with changes in levels and types of employment. The sociology of leisure is uniquely equipped to unravel the meanings of such broader trends for everyday life in different sections of the community. This enterprise has immense policy-relevance, not only for leisure services, but also for a much wider range of economic, income, housing, welfare, educational and equal oportunity policies.