Science, materialism, and the quest for an anthropology of leisure: A rejoinder

Abstract

This paper is a response to the commentaries on my article, “Leisure and Culture: Issues for an Anthropology of Leisure,”; that appeared in the previous issue of Leisure Sciences (Vol. 20, No. 2). The commentators addressed two topics, in the main. The first of these is my epistemological stance, cultural materialism, and its utility in the study of leisure. Though most of the commentators agreed that a materialist approach has value in the study of leisure, several suggested that other ways of looking at the phenomenon are useful and can extend the materialist perspective. Second, each of the commentators addressed one or more substantive issues. Most suggested that I failed to mention some important theorists, that I should have examined other data or cases, and that I should have cited additional books or articles. These criticisms are largely correct and my only defense is that a book‐length treatment of the topic of leisure and culture would be required to address these concerns.