Wanna play?
Wanna play?
I have always been fascinated by the concept of play. Play is how we engage with games, music, theatre, friends, toys, sex partners. How do you play? And what does it mean when you do?
I have always been fascinated by the concept of play. Play is how we engage with games, music, theatre, friends, toys, sex partners. It’s what children do, but it’s also something adults do throughout life. The smartest animals play: dolphins, apes, octopuses, cats. It’s obviously important… or is it?
How do you play? And what does it mean when you do?
According to Johan Huizinga (author of Homo Ludens), play takes place in “temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart” (1950 edition, p. 10). He conceptualised a set of characteristics that could be ascribed to all play:
According to Huizinga, all play has the following characteristics:
play involves stepping outside of ordinary life into a temporary alternate one
each “temporary world” of play has strict rules of its own
engaging in play is voluntary
play is unserious but all-absorbing as it unfolds
play is limited, with a beginning and end in time and space.
The trouble with these specific conditions is that they don’t always fit. Sometimes the rules of play are not strict, but can be negotiated in the moment (like in improv or playground make-believe). Sometimes a player is not free to opt out of play (such as in mandatory school sports — argh). Some play has serious, real-world stakes and consequences, like gambling.
So the definition of play is inevitably uncertain. Brian Sutton-Smith wrote a book about this: The Ambiguity of Play, which outlines seven ways in which play has been conceptualised in historical and contemporary societies. These seven ways are not described as theories — they don’t try to explain how play works, or draw on empirical evidence into studies of playful practice. Instead, Sutton-Smith calls them “rhetorics”, or ideologies which position play in certain ways within society and human behaviour.
Needless to say, I’m a fan. These seven rhetorics are used by players to ascribe purpose to their activities. They are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to layer these lenses so that play has multiple purposes, but the moment frivolity is laid over any other lens, the idea of play as purposeful is made ironic.
The rhetorics of play
Play as imaginary
This rhetoric positions play as improvisational and unreal. Players explore the dynamics of imagined circumstances, whether possible or impossible: fantasy, science fiction, alternative histories, alternative identities.
Play as the self
This rhetoric is invoked is reference to solitary play, involving activities which are introspective, relaxing, or involve a retreat from social worlds into one governed solely by the player.
Play as identity
In contrast to the rhetoric of self, play as identity is a practice of collective engagement, bonding and belonging. This rhetoric draws on ancient ideals of communal bonding, ritual and tradition.
Play as power
This rhetoric applies to kinds of play involving competitive games with rules and the possibility of triumph: sports and other contests with established and collectively-agreed winning conditions.
Play as progress
This rhetoric is popular in contemporary views of play as a form of development, particularly for children. It positions play as a practice of discovery, adaptation and learning.
Play as fate
Another ancient rhetoric, play in this framing involves toying with destiny. Games of chance, including gambling, invoke this rhetoric and allow players to surrender ideas of control.
Play as frivolity
Challenging the fundamental idea that play might have a purpose, this rhetoric positions play outside of the realm of intention. Play is idle, silly, ironic, pointless, and the rules (of games, manners, law, science) are thrown into question. This rhetoric challenges every other — but if frivolity is not present in the act, can it be said to be a playful act?
The game is afoot
Often when we think of play, the first thing that comes to mind is the game. But what is a game? The dynamics of games are explicitly present in the rhetorics of power and fate. Power games emphasise displays of skill, strength and strategy, while fate games put their players at the mercy of chance. Both involve rules understood in advance, including explicit winning conditions.
The other rhetorics (progress, identity, imaginary, the self) can manifest through games or other means. Playing by oneself or communally, playing to learn, imaginative and frivolous play can unfold according to pre-determined or emergent rules. But when they have rules, they are games.
And games are fascinating, because although their rules are temporary and separate, they have curious effects on the ordinary world outside. I think of gaming as a vector for socialising neurodivergent kids, the Olympic Games as a driver of international respect and cooperation, the intricate rules of Dungeons & Dragons as enabling disparate geeks to share a culture.
What games do you play? How do your game worlds interact with the “ordinary” world outside them?
Huizinga, J. (1950 [Translated from the 1938 original]). Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture. Roy Publishers.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Harvard University Press.