休閒的出現一直被當成現代化發展歷程的一部分。人們習慣把休閒與工作配對、視休閒為工作的獎勵。休閒與工作定期輪替，主要是工業化資本主義的產物。只要休閒和大眾休閒的擴張與消費社會的興起綁在一起，休閒就會被理解為「不事生產的時間概念」（范伯倫），或者被批評為一種「市場的創作」、或一種「強迫力的行動」（法蘭克福學派）。然而，在「工作」和「休閒」這兩個對立的語彙之間，另外思考介乎二者之外的第三個語彙：「閒暇」(idleness)，自有其論述的重要性。事實上，「閒暇」一詞的影響力漸增，並快速成為現代「休閒」概念替代詞。本篇論文主要討論述羅素著作中論述閒暇的思想，並間或涉及史蒂文森和恰佩克的相關論述。

The emergence of leisure has been mainly seen as part of the process of modernization. We are used to see leisure as the counterpart or as a reward of work, as the consequence of the regular alternation of work and leisure, a product of industrial capitalism. As soon as the expansion of leisure and mass leisure became to be seen as tied to the rise of consumer society, leisure itself could be understood either as a 'non-productive conception of time' (Th. Veblen) or criticized as a 'creature of the market' and a 'forced activity' (The Frankfurt School). Besides the two terms of this opposition between 'work' and 'leisure', it is important to consider a third one: 'idleness'. The term imposed itself and soon functioned as an alternative to the modern concept of 'leisure'. The article discusses the argumentative potentials of the notion in the writings of B. Russell, R.L. Stevenson and K. Capek.