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 commenta
tors addressed two topics, in the main. The first of these is my epist
emological 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 oth
er ways of looking at the phenomenon ale useful and can extend the mat
erialist perspective. Second, each of the commentators addressed one o
r more substantive issues, Most suggested that I failed to mention som
e important theorists, that I should have examined other data or cases
, and that I should have cited additional books or articles. These cri
ticisms are largely correct and my only defense is that a book-length
treatment of the topic of leisure and culture would be required to add
ress these concerns.