'Function-centered
theories stress the beneficial consequences that playing supposedly
brings to the individual player and/ or her community. Many
psychologists, for instance, claim that playing enables people to
discharge excess energy or find substitute gratification. Others
argue that playing helps children to strengthen their sense of
self-restraint, to cultivate the moral or cognitive skills necessary
for normal adult life or to build up and sustain a coherent ego
identity.
... Play
exists, it would seem, because it is good for us.'
I like connecting this back to what he says about 'otherness' and an element of 'waiting to see' being an essential component of play. Even in otherwise solitary playtime - drawing on memories of my own play as a child - there is this imaginative interplay; it could be between two toys the child has 'talk' to each other, with the child allowing tiny stories and conflicts and routines to unfold. Backstories are created fluidly to help the play become even more intriguing as it goes on: a toy horse that had been trying to help a toy kitten, when the child finds themself wanting more depth from the play (waiting to see) turns out to have a lonely past rife with familial loss (or something).
I think that quote is the coolest idea to play around with (no pun intended) - how there is, in the absence or presence of another player, an 'otherness' present in the play that necessarily influences its nature.
I also think, to examine play between puppies as opposed to children, the imagination of 'otherness' is IMPOSSIBLE in the former. This is why if puppies don't play with other puppies, they don't know how to play and grow up thinking everything is serious (read = display aggression and fear), because an ACTUAL other player is the only source for gratification - dogs (as far as we know) don't have a capacity for imagination and using it for play. I suppose there is a large human capacity for the 'substitute gratification' in solitary play, owing to the abilities of imagination and perceiving 'otherness'.
Of course, I'm being massively general and theoretical, assuming my hypothetical child is receiving proper social stimulation and is physically sound. I'm only trying to explore the concept of 'otherness' in solitary play...please ignore my neglect of well-explained psychology.
I think the concept of "otherness" is always present in play. Kids often play by mimicking things adults do--house, for example. They're repeating patterns they see other people in their house make, wanting to be like them. They stack blocks on top of each other because that's how someone else modeled it. They're recreating ninja scenes they saw in that cool movie, whatever. Maybe I am out in left field here and please internet scream at me if I am, but could this be related to the concept of the "magic circle?" How within this place where your playing there are still societal rules and expectations to kind of keep you in line? I don't have the article directly in front of me, but I think he talks about how rules can create a circle around the space of play. I think "otherness" creates a kind of rule-like structure....I don't know.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a sociology class I took a few years ago. To be honest with you, I don't remember the details, but what you said about the puppies and the need for an "other" reminded me about something we talked about in that class. One theory of the way kids learn how to be a part of society is solely through interaction (play). To use his example, how does a kid understand what a ball is? He sees it being thrown. Ok, so he is handed a ball, he understands what to do with it, he knows the motions, but he's never done it before. To learn what the ball really is, he must throw it around himself. Say he throws it at a car and is punished. Now he's learned another rule about this ball.
ReplyDeleteTo tie into what Megan said, I do think this is related to the "magic circle" in the sense that a community is a magic circle. In general, people understand the rules of their interactions with each other and others' interactions with them. However, when those boundaries are crossed, that's when Caillois' uncertainty comes in. Like Rodriguez, I don't think this inherently leads to terrible things. Perhaps someone broke the societal rule regarding your personal space--they could be returning your wallet, or trying to give you the shank.
There were a lot of interesting things in this article, these are two of the things that really made me think.