Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Robert Nisbet, in The Sociological Tradition (1966), used the concept of unit-ideas in analyzing the sociological thought of the past and present. Unit-ideas are focal social concerns that generated and continue to invite conflicting interpretations, giving sociological thought its continuity and coherence. As examples of unit-ideas in the 19th century sociology, Nisbet listed alienation, the role of the community, relationship between the sacred and the secular. Several criteria need to be met, according to Nisbet, to qualify as unit-ideas. These ideas must have generality, be relevant to the present and the past, and be discernable in the works of the towering minds of an age. As well, unit-ideas must be specific for the given area of study and combine insight with observation (p. 5). In this article, an attempt will be made to apply Nisbet’s notion of unit-ideas to the historical study of leisure and labor, the two concepts that, in Bennett Berger’s words, “have sociological meaning only vis-à-vis each other.” (p. 28)Analysis of issues dominating the study of leisure and labor shows that discussion involving these phenomena centered historically upon several key and controversial issues such as: (1) the role of leisure and labor in forming human identity; (2) leisure and labor as stimuli of social change; (3) leisure’s and play’s role as sources of social stability; (4) leisure’s impact on the deepening or toning down of social inequalities; (5) division of labor and its alienating effects on leisure (spillover or compensation?); (6) future trends in the allocation of leisure time (will we live in a ‘society of leisure’ or of the ‘harried leisure class”?), and (7) leisure’s and labor’s contribution to subjective well-being (swb). While most of these issues fall predominantly into the domain of sociological inquiry, the interest in the relationship between leisure and swb is shared by sociology and social psychology.The first three unit-ideas (leisure as a source of human identity, social stability and a stimulus of change), have been examined in the literature mostly from the historical and anthropological perspectives. The conflicting views about the alienating effects of labor, the stratification implications of leisure, the direction of leisure trends, and the well-being corelates of leisure have been subject of conceptual discourse as well as empirical examination.My motivation for examining work-leisure relationships from the unit-ideas perspective is two-fold. I intend to show that these relationships are multifaceted and change with historical circumstances. I will refrain from the role of an arbiter, while discussing controversies surrounding the unit-ideas of leisure,’ and will leave their overall assessment to the concluding part of the article, showing there how these ideas reflect the “l’esprit du temps” (Zeitgeist), as well as ideological positioning of individual authors within it. In the concluding part, I will also address my second concern - the ‘partisan” or ‘lobbying’ position with regard to leisure often taken by leisure researchers. Leisure, to me, is a formidable challenge, but not necessarily a universal cure. The dividing line of the pros and the cons does not run between leisure and labor but within them. This is what this article will try to demonstrate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,029 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».