Reflections on Leisure

JACQUES ELLUL
In the Western world, the United States and Europe, the
question of leisure presents itself ... sometimes joyfully,
hopefully, and sometimes anxiously. It is said that we are
progressing toward a society in which man will no longer
be constrained by work. How will he make use of th is lei
sure? Is a "civilization of leisure" conceivable? A great
deal has been written on this subject;* it should be re
membered that the problem was first brought up, as far as
J know, by Thorstein Veblen in 1899, in his famous Theory
of the Leisure Class. Veblen regarded leisure as non-pro
ductive consumption of time, based on a feeling of the in
validity of productive work and on the notion of leisure as
an obvious proof of possessing the means for a lite of ease.
But he thought of it as a class phenomenon, and leisure
appeared to him as something limited to the upper class,
which in fact it was. However, if there has been an in
crease in the number of studies on leisure, it is because
the situation has undergone a major transformation. In
deed, leisure in itself, or a civilization of ieisure, is too
often thought of as something radically new; which cer
tainly reveaJs great ignorance of hfstorical fact.
Some examples: in the Roman Republic, before the firs1
century B.C., during a period when the Homans did work,
we tend to forget that during certain months they hard Iy
worked at all: i.e., in February they had 21 days off, and
the greater part of October and December were not work
ing days. Later, when Rome had conquered the Mediterra
* Since 1960, in France alone, t have found 34 books on the subiect. Re
cent contributions: Charbonneau: Dimanche et Lundi, \ 966, and Ades du
Seminaire international de 10 Havane (Decembre '966): remps libre e1
recreation (more or less Marxist in tendency).
,jl
51
nean world, we know that the people of Rome, and later
those of all the big cities in the Roman world, lived in com
plete idleness on hando uts guaranteed by the state or its
leaders. This was the famous era of panem ef circenses.
Thus a major part of the population enjoyed an existence
of leisure. And in the Middle Ages, we should remember
that the guilds had established a very liberal work calen
dar. Of course, when they did work it was for 16 or:7
hours a day. But is it generally known, for instance, that
in the 14th century one of the Bordeaux guilds had 200
days off a year? And in Islamic and Bantu societies, the
work period is always very short; there again we could
talk about idle cultures. But in these societies leisure was
almost always directly associated with the festival, in the
stro ng sense 01 the term, as recent ethnological studies
have discovered it (a period of intense participation, with
a sanctified type of communal reconstruction).
Should it then be concluded that our present situation,
in which man is progressing toward a time when he will
work only a few hours a day, or a few days a month, is
nothing more than the extension or recurrence of a situa
tion which man has experienced periodically in the course
of history? Certainly not; but we can better understand the
novelty of this era by contrasting it with historical exam
ples. First of all it must be emphasized that many people's
impression of entering into a radically new situation is
linked to a forgetfulness of comparable historical situa
tions and to a consideration of the 19th century alone. It
is ';rue that since the Industrial Revolution, Western man
has {ost the leisure he enjoyed in pre-industrial societies;
from the 18th century on, man has worked harder and
longer than in any preceding society. The possibility of
leisure, of free time, which previously existed everywhere,
disappeared with industrialization; and it is generally with
reference to this particular situation that people react with
surprise at the possibility of leisure now. But'if we com
pare leisure as it was understood and experienced nearly
everywhe re before the 18th century with the kind of lei
sure we anticipate, we find three major differences.
The Phenomenon ot Leisure
In the Jirst place, today it will be a question of leisure
for everyone and not just for a select group of individuals.
In Rome, the slaves (who nonetheless did have their own
holidays and celebrations) worked-as did the serfs in the
Middle Ages-whereas the citizens or artisans rested. Now
we are faced with a global possibility of leisure, more or
less equally divided, but concerning all men, and so the
idea of leisure as "priVilege" has to be put aside.
The second difference concerns abundance: leisure
used t(,o be free time, but time which was oftef) used to
make up for lesser productivity-that is to say, to compen
sate for fewer possibili1ies of consumption. Man had to
make a more or less conscious decision to consume less,
on the whole, in order to have some free time (and to be
able to take part in the festivals which everybody consid
ered an indispensable part of community life). The process
today is just the opposite: it is because the 1echnological
means allow mass production and make possible an abun
dance which is theoretically limitless, that it becomes ab
solutely necessary to reduce the work period. Man must
Jacques Ellul is a professor of economics at the University of
Bordeaux. He is the author of La technologie: I'enjeu de I'avenir.
not want to continue working, because he is progressively
being replaced by the productive possibilities of technol
ogy. Thus the sort of leisure that today's society is con
cerned with is first of all a leisure due to affluence, but it
also involves a certain obligation to see that leisure does
not ultimately become the same thing as unemployment.
Finally, the third difference concerns the "content" or
use of th is leisure. We have indicated briefly that in tradi
tional societies leisur,e was always ,identified with, and oc
cupied by, the festival. Today, on the contrary, we are
faced with leisure as "vacant"-that is, empty--time. Our
leisure is no longer identified with a collective, organized,
meaningful activity which has a value common to the com
munity and which involves a strong emotional charge.
These three differences reveal the basic ways in which
leisure has become a new problem for today's society.
Thus it is not at all the existence of a long period without
work which is such an innovation, but that this leisure
should be now qualified in this way.
To finish defining the problem, we should examine two
more details. In the first place, the problem of leisure only
appears in technically developed societies. The Havana
seminar (see footnote on page 51) tried to show what lei
sure means in the underdeveloped countries. Actually
what it had to say on this subject was totally dull and un
interesting. Leisure is only a novelty in societies which are
approaching affluence. Elsewhere we find banal historical
situations. Secondly, the problem of leisure is exactly the
same in socialist countries as it is in capitalist countries.
It is in reality closely tied to the existence of technological
growth. It is a phenomenon of technological society; the
kind of political or economic striJcture matters little; it
does not change anything. Here again I have to disagree
with the work of the Havana seminar, which tried to show
that the attainment of leisure is a problem only in capital
ist countries, and that leisure in socialist countries would
automatically be a harmonious development of man, with
a sharing of common values, etc. This reveals a childlike
belief In dogma and does not take into account, for ex
ample, well-known facts which show the disquiet and lack
of adjustment of young people in socialist countries, pre
cisely because of leisure (hooligans, for example).
Leisure for What?
Having thus characterized the phenomenon of leisure,
we come to the famous question of a "civilization of lei
sure." First of all we have to remember that this term cor
responds to the expectations of philosophers, and of a cer
tain number of psychologists and sociologists-and to the
aspirations of the masses. The second factor is not worth
dwelling on-it is evident that the ordinary man wants to
work as little as possible, to shake off the yoke, to take
advantage of life (which seems possible to him only when
he is at leisure), to amuse himself; crowds are hungry 10r
amusement (but to distract them from what? To make them
forget what?). This is a permanent tendency of mankind,
and at the same time a need which is encouraged by our
society, with the generally accepted feeling that finally lei
sure is possible. It is useless to dwell on this idea, but not
to point out that the progress toward a civilization of lei
sure is accelerated by the desire, the will of the masses.
More surprising is the attitude of a great number of in
tellectuals: describing leisure and thinking about the pos
sibilities of a civilization of leisure, they assert that in this
52
free time man will become cultured, and will spend it
usefully, reading, learning and expanding his knowledge
(and they point out the growth in popularity of paper
back books); that he will be more interested in music and
the arts (and they mention the development of recording
and listening equipment); that he will travel, increasing his
knowledge and his contacts with other civilizations and
other peoples. They emphasize, then, the development of
the intellectual and even the spiritual side-the "noble"
side-of man, thanks to leisure. Man will take a positive
interest in his neighbor because he will no longer be com
peting with him; he will move toward a contemplative ex
istence and a spiritual elevation; his; life will be centered
around his family, etc.
I have seen this picture in innumerable studies on lei
sure (for example that of Hourdin); I hardly exaggerate it
here. Actually, it is based on practically no serious obser
vation of fact; of cou rse, certain facts are mentioned, but
facts which prove noth ing from the point of view of the
real qualitative development of man. This optimistic vision
is based on a belief in the natural goodness of man. !
shall not argue that point here; I shall limit myself to em
phasizing that concrete experience with leisure, both in
past societies and in the present use of "empty" time, in
no way confirms this arrival of a paradise. To put it an
other way: in itself, the eventual development of leisure in
our civilization will by no means be the cure for the flaws,
the lack of balance and the malfunctions of our society,
because leisure will create as many problems and bring
as many difficulties as it is claimed it will solve. in any
case, there is a preliminary question: Are we so certain to
reach in a relatively short period of time an extraordi nary
growth of leisure? Most sociologists who study work hab
its believe that in the next 30 years there will be further
reductions of work schedules, but not the transition to a
fabulous society in which men would work one day a week,
and only five hours on that day, whose advent some of the
prophets of automation are announcing. We must be more
modest. The best evaluations are in terms of five working
days of about five hours a day.
Certainly this too is sufficient to show that the greater
part of life will be spent in leisure, but this also reveals
that when we reach this stage, the problem of leisure time
will not be posed any differently from What it is today, and
that, in thinking about the present situation, our train of
thought will be valid for a relatively long historical period.
Furthermore, if we characterize modern leisure as a lei
sure in abundance, a reduction in work which does not
reduce the possibilities of consumption, we must empha
size that as yet we have not quite arrived at this point. In
1965, when the French had to decide whether or not to
give a fourth week of paid vacation per year to all work
men, economists (Sauvy) then calculated how many fewer
houses would be built, how many fewer tons of steel and
coal would be produced, etc. These two facts show that
we are not yet quite as close to the situation of widespread
leisure as we imagine.
Filling the Vacuum
But let us consider how .Ieisure is currently used. Do
we see that its use by modern man prepares or foreshad
ows a new civilization? Leisure as it is conceived in our
society is in itself "empty" time. There is, so to speak, the
time of social and economic obligation and then, opposed
to it, a time without contact-given to man to fill as he sees
fit. This void is created by the separation (noted above)
of leisure from the festival. But it would be a mistake to
confuse empty time with free time. Man has never gained
anything from a void. He has never received anything from
a void. Nothingness is only an illusion at freedom. Actu
ally this ,man, who apparently can fill this empty lime ex
actly as he pleases, terribly conditioned and predeter
mined. To make an ideal of empty time is the mark of our
incapacity to organize and to dominaie our existence as
a whole.
To hand over some time to a man in the belief th at th is
is sufficient is on the one hand, as we said earlier, to have
ai', irratiohal confidence in the natural goodness of man,
and on the other hand to be ignorant of the real condi
tions of his life. Actually we shall have to consider later on
if the very conditions of life of the modern man do not
make him unfit for positive use of leisure. But first let us
consider for a moment if the collectivity could not validly
take the place of the individual. To put it another way: if,
man being incapable of using validly the empty time which
is given him, it would not be legitimate for this empty time
to be filled by society. This is the organization of lei
sure. Whether it consists of organized tours, youth clubs,
cruises, vacation clubs (like the Club Mediterraneen), clil
centers, etc., these organizations which are designed
to fill up the vacuum of leisure are being developed every
where.
Organized Recreation
Of course, it is not a question of denying the usefulness
of such organized leisure, which was pushed to the Iimii
in Hitler's Germany and in the USSR. In these societies
theater, the cinema, the vacation in the mountains,
sport became obligatory and are organized by the politi
cal power. But there is no diHerence of kind in the organ i
zation of I@isure in a democracy; it is only a question 01
degree. Now there can be some perfectly good elements
in this "organized leisure": excellent entertainment and
interesting journeys. But we should clearly understand that
the act of the man who leafs through a travel agency's
catalogue and chooses a tour or a cruise in which every
thing is organized for him has little in common, on the
'evel of human values, with the act of the man who gets
maps, studies a country, chooses Jar reasons of his own
some particular village or camping site, organizes his own
transport and his own route, etc. In the first case there is
a use of leisure; in the other there may be the exercise
of freedom (but not necessarily, as we shall see below). In
short, organizing leisure rules out the possibility of con
sidering it as a zone of freedom for man. Furthermore, or
ganized leisure can only encourage the birth of a false
culture, or superficial knowledge; collectively, one races
through a museum pausing with the guide at those paint
ings which cannot be missed, those which are but
which the man of leisure is completely unprepared tor in
terms of artistic maturity. He will have seen the "Mona
Lisa" or Rembrandt's "Night Watch," but afterwards?
Lastly, the organization of leisure gives no particular
meaning to empty time.
Here we reach the main point: leisure in our society is
in itself insignificant. It is worth nothing. Let us say simply
that at the superficial, sensual level it is pleasanter to be
stretched out in a comfortable chair or to be watching TV
53
than to be in the office under an employer's orders. But
that is all. Aside 1rom that, it is time with no meaning. And
the existence of a leisure organization which is objective,
administrative, etc., does not give any sense to the time
available to us; it fins it, and no more. This is particularly
serious because many psychologists and sociologists
think that it is during this empty leisure time that man
should rediscover a meaning in his life-or give it one-to
the extent that one admits that participation in politics or
work today no longer lends meaning to human life. In re
ality, to surrender to an organization of leisure signifies
that one has despaired of imparting this meaning to one
self. I think that we can expect everything from the organi
zation of leisure as far as filling empty time is concerned,
but we should expect nothing in terms of its giving any
kind 01 vali di1y to leisure.
The Struggle for Freedom
.1 have conslantly used the term "empty time." I believe
that the reader aclually thinks of leisure time as free time,
but it seems to me' that this is a deplorable confusion.
Leisure time is not free time because it is a holiday which
has been granted rather than won. I obviously cannot go
into a long explanation here of my views on freedom. For
me, it is never a neutral, indefinite zone in which one can
do as one likes: this is nothing more than the freedom of
indifference (the situation of Buridan''S donkey). Freedom
is something which man conquers by himself in struggling
against whatever holds him down, determines him, makes
him conform, or whatever identifies him with the others_
And this struggle is never over: freedom is never won-it is
always in the process of being won. It is really the act
of struggling which is freedom. One is never a completely
free man (a fin ite thing), but a man constantly fighting to
be iree. Hence what is given us from the outside by a gov
ernment, a constitution, a legal or economic system, is
never freedom; il is only another form of determination
Man car: try to give a meaning to the empty time of leisure,
try \0 make of it a free time; but that does not happen by
itself; ii is not si mple. Just because at that moment man
stops working it does not mean that he is free; all the
sociological constrictions are still weighing him down. But,
it will be said, at at that particular moment he has a
possibility of freedom which he does not have anywhere
else. This is not certain; I am afraid that the illusion of
freedom in leisure might be more destructive to the possi
b il ity of a real freedom than the existence of the "non
freedom" of work.
To develop th is idea somewhat, we have to consider
whether Western man is in fact likely to utilize his leisure
time to give meaning to his life. I would like to emphasize
here only three aspects. The first is that ot amusement in
the Pascalian sense. 11 is never either pleasant or spon
taneous tor man to take a good look at himself and to think
about his fate. Everything in our society is designed to dis
tract him from a spiritual examination of himself, from
bringing problems up into his consciousness. Both the
orientation of studies and the work system exterio'rize and
distract hi m. This general orientation is carried to its high
est point with leisure, For it is essential to note that mod
ern man does not approach the empty time of his leisure
with a fresh outlook tree from preconceived ideas. He lives
in a society which furnishes him with an image of leisure
that he is supposed to want to imitate (get a tan in Miami,
tour the world by plane, etc.), and because of the mass
media and advertising, he accepts this image of leisure.
But it is always an image at amusement, that is, something
which distracts him from himself. Instead of being the
moment when man, because he is no longer in the grip ot
everyday worries, rediscovers himself, thinking about
what he is and what he ought to be, leisure becomes on
the contrary the moment when amusements succeed to
the maximum in making him forget. But it is so because
man is oriented in this direction by the whole movement of
our society.
In the second place, leisure confirms man's general in
clination to be passive; we live in a society which turns
everything into a spectacle. We experience the most im
portant events as spectators; that is, on the one hand we
are made to conform by more and more powerful social
mechanisms, and on the other hand we are passive, hoping
that the state, some public power, a trade union or some
ideology will transform our own situation. In every aspect
of our lives, political or religious, aesthetic or ethical, we
Iive as spectators of events wh ich take place before our
eyes and with respect to which we are helpless even if
they are of vital concern to us.
This general attitude is confirmed by leisure time. We
use our leisure more and more to SUbmerge ourselves in
a world of conformity, Far from enjoying a time of innova
tion or initiative, or of free acts, during our leisure mo
ments we are much more susceptible to the mechanisms
of conformity because we are available; we are all tempted
to go to the same place which publicity has given such a
big buildup: we undertake auto excursions by routes used
by everyone, we go caravaning (under the impression that
we are doing something individual and rediscovering na
ture!), or we go yachting. But in reality we do what every
body else does, and everybody else does it as a conse-
Weekend traffic on West Germany's autobahn
4i}'.-ilt?:lj
Mass absorption of sun, at Lake Balaton in Hungary (above)
and on the beach at Nice, France (below)
quence of a global conformity. Now when we are forced
to do something (by our,employer), we may have a certain
feeling of rebellion or refusal; conformity is not total. On
the contrary, during our leisure time, we have the impres
sion that we are making our own decisions (when really
they are dictated by publicity, etc.) and in this way we are
much more completely integrated into the social unit. Thus
le'lsure becomes the opposite of what we believe it to be.
But we must begin on the third and most' important as
pect. We often think of leisure as the possibility for man
not only to be free of a servile day-to-day existence, to be
himself in the face ot the alienation of work, to make up
for fatigue and overwork, but also to give meaning to his
lite. It is frequently admitted that work no longer has mean
ing, that family life is disappointing, that political liie has
no value, that human relations are degrading _ .. fortu
nately there is leisure! What seems serious to me about
this attitude is the acceptance of the fact tnatlife can ihus
be cut up into a man works in his oHice or at the
factory seven or eight hours; that time is sacrificed, lost,
spoiled, without value. But he leaves, goes home, and he
has two or three hours in front of him, and now he has a
slice of life which can be full, rich, significant, etc_ I think,
alas! this. is nothing but a dream; if one is dazed, ex
hausted, disgusted and overwhelmed by uninteresting
things at work, one is not suddenly going to become an
active, alert man who is interested in everything. It is very
possible that one will wish only to erase this bad working
time or to plunge into the maximum of comfort or uncon
ciousness in order to forget ...
The Continuity of the Personality
In other words, I do not believe that human life can be
carved up in pieces, but that it implies a fundamental unity,
and if one spends hours doing dull, absurd things, one
does not come out of it unchanged. One is marked by what
one has done; one is drawn in a certain direction. It must
not be thought that on the one hand there is work which
wid be alienating and absurd, and on [he other, leisure,
which will be a moment of freedom, of meaning and enrich
ment. The results of a great many recent studies show that
there is a close relationship between leisure and work. The
more "valid," intelligent or substantial one's work is, the
better the chance for leisure to be the same. Leisure will
not give meaning to life, but rather the opposite: it is the
richness of a personal life which can give meaning to this
empty moment which is leisure. And there is especially a
reciprocity of meaning and value between work and lei
sure. If work is meaningless, if it is a time "between paren
theses," lost, squandered, this futility reflects on the whole
person, and makes a leisure that is a value all the more
difficult to achieve. But reciprocally, if man squanders his
empty time in silly occupations or in conformist behavior,
this has an effect on the person as a whole, and makes i1
e"en harder to find a value in the unavoidable work which
society imposes on us.
It is essential to emphasize the continuiiy of the person
ality in time (and psychologists agree on this today). How
ever, we should not yield to the view that work is the su
preme value, that it represents the essential nature of man,
or that it is through work that man distinguishes himself;
this metaphysical value of work is the basis of the thought
of Marx, and we must recognize that if work has great
importance, there are in the life of man many other points
of reference, expressions, values just as characteristic
and :mportant. But, inversely, it is also quite impossible to
isolate work as "dead" time. That prevents man from es
tablishing an eqUilibrium in his life. And it is not in leisure
that the meaning and the balance will be found. Some
people believe that we must therefore resiore meaning and
worth to work. I cannot, in the limits of this article, discuss
the many proposals of this nature, but I must say that, tak
ing into account the general evolution, this idea seems
highly improbable to me. It is hardly possible to go against
the current of the organization of work and of automat'lon.
55
Sociologists like Friedmann, who 20 years ago hoped to
find ways 10 make work significant, are today very disillu
sioned.
But here we are confronted with a new problem: man
used to attach value to using h is leisure positively through
artistic or intellectual creation. However, computers and
various other electronic devices enter into this domain,
and "creative" machines are beginning to appear in music
and painting: machines which will be capable on an in
tellectual plane of assimilating infinitely more than the
human brain and of giving results that are infinitely more
exact. Man may then be tempted to despair: what is the
use of doing something when a machine can do it better?
In 1h is way he is pushed back toward an absolutely useless
and meaningless leisure; he is tempted to indulge in mad
ness, drugs, alcohol, to furnish this empty time, and to
escape from this over-organized world in which he no
Ianger fee Is he has a place.
I do not think the last word has been said on this subject,
but we ought to be well aware that we are face to face with
a crucial preble m for man. Let us start from these two as
sertions: Leisure in itself has no meaning, and it is no
longer possible for work as it exists in our society to be
come satisfying and meaningful again. '
However, work is indispensable to man as an outlet for
the expression of his creative instinct. The solution is that
leisure cannot be rendered significant, satisfying, enrich
ing and man unless it is made creative, that
is, occupied by some other work. Leisure must no longer
be empty time, but time utilized for real work which ex
presses man's personality. For it to be real, however, this
work must offer characteristics opposite to those of ihe
work which we have to do to live in this society, because
it is generally recognized that the latter is unsatisfying. In
other words, this work must be voluntarily chosen, in
vented, and not obligatory or imposed; it must be purely
personal and not part of a collective organization. It mus;
express the free choice and the creativity of the individual.
It must lead 10 the creation of an oeuvre, and not to earn
ing what is necessary to live. But such a use of leisure,
such an orientation (which alone can give a meaning to
this empty time, which may, eventually, make life satisfy
ing) presupposes an extraordinary reversal of our habits.
Three Approaches
IJ'I conclusion, it seems to me th.at three approaches
ought to be stressed: First of all, it is a question of fighting
against despair, and leisure must be used to this end. Con
sequently, amusement, evasion and distraction, which are
only destined to make us forget despair, must be rejected.
At best, this Struggle against despair will find its streng:h
In the Christian faith, but I will not develop this point. I
would only like 10 recall that it is through the creation of
work which will express his life that each man can over
come despair. But how can we expect this consolation
from creative work, for we are competing with a machine
which does it better? The change consists in this; we must
stress not the result, but the personal nature of the accom
pi ished effort. We are too used to having machines which
function perfectly, 10 listening to impeccably recorded
r.1Lisic; etc.-We-must-accept the imperfection that is-linked
with any human creation. It is belter to si1 down at the
piano and playa bit of music badly than to listen to a
perfect recording. In this work designed to express our
personality freely, the result should not count. We must be
able to say, "Here is this thing. It may not be a great suc
cess, but I did it myself." In this manner (and it is the only
possible way to achieve it) the machine must be reduced
to its limitations: a maker of objects which are perfect, but
purely utilitarian, and without any human significance. Man
must be the one who still creates things which are imper
fect but 'full of the hope, joy, suffering, anxiety or peace of
which man's life is composed. Provided that it is always a
question of active expression. This is the first condition for
making leisure a force. But we must reject everything that
requires us to fill our empty time with distractions.
Secondly, in order for leisure to mean something, it must
be completely personal and must be filled with individual
initiative. Each person must invent for himself his own form
of expression. That means on one hand a refusal of any
thing too easy, and also a rejection of every sociological
trend. He who wants to travel and relies on a travel agency
is caught up in a sociological current, as we said earlier,
and takes the easy way out. The man who, to use his
leisure, gets into his car and drives a few thousand miles
acts like millions of other Westerners-it is an escape, and
even if the trip is interesting it cannot give a meaning to
life. But there can be, of course, an individualized, intelli
gent, creative use of the automobile : the important thing is
that everyone must invent this use for himself. Also I think
that when I alluded earlier to an individual kind of work,
the reader may have thought of a hobby or of do-it-your
self; it should be clearly understood that neither one is
any1hing but obedience to a sociological trend. If a man
throws his energies into making scale models from a kit
prefabricated by big manufacturers, that has no value. On
the other hand a genuine little job of electricity or carpen
try can be really formative. We must constantly refuse to
take the easy way out which our society is always offering
us. It is good that required work, making our living, should
be made easier. But leisure must be the place where we
choose real difficulties for ourselves which we must over
come by ourselves; only at this moment can leisure repre
sent a positive element and contain gratification.
Finally the third approach consists in exercising criticism
towa-rd the society in which we live. Leisure time should
not be exclusively a personal withdrawal; it must serve as
a point of departure for a new re-entry into society. But if
our leisure has been a source of individual renewal, active
and creative, from this frame of reference we ought to take
a new look at the society we live in, and that look can only
be a critical one (in the Greek sense), and not a commit
ment to adaptation. By critical I do not mean negative or
pessimistic; it should be clearly understood that it is only
thanks to criticism that a social group can evolve posi
tively. If critical function disappears, a society tends 10
become sclerotic, to close in on itself, to lose its vitality
and its capacity to respond to a challenge. l\low, in our
society, everything is moving in the direction of conform
ity; it is only through the forceful, inventive use of his free
time that man can collect his thoughts and see, with this
new experience as a point of reference, what is unaccepta
ble in our style of IiVing. Then he enters on the path of
positive criticism, which is useful to society. Doubtless this
is the highest function of leisure, which at this point ceases
tobe insignificant, -and-the. entire .Iife of the_.man_ involved
in this dispute with his social group takes on, in his own
eyes, a value which leads him to self-acceptance.
Translated by Janice Heiple