As I was immersing myself into the beauty of qualitative thought and the revelation that play is part of our nature, I hit a 'reading bump' (page 11-ish, depending on how you printed). What Caillois said about all instincts being, "destructive and frantic," rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose our ability to empathize (and thus forth set the foundation to our ethics and morality) separates us from the others in the animal kingdom and assigns us the glorious, superior title of 'human nature'.
But although I disliked what Caillois said, I had to agree with him. If play, an instinct or element of our nature is left unchecked, we step out of the bounds of, "stringent social conventions," and risk harm to others. I appear to identify more with the functional arguments. I guess this shows how this era of virtual spaces is compartmentalizing my thoughts on the more objective, scientific side.
Tolby, I have some amazing resources on the idea of the "irrational." If you'd care, I can get some of those for you. Most of my resources are feminist pieces, and they significantly changed how I view "irrational" and "nonsensical" things. My dean's circle paper last semester directly engaged this. (Seriously, read it please! I swear it isn't as awful as my typical engagement of things, you will probably enjoy it.)
ReplyDeleteBut I too was rubbed the wrong way by Caillois. He held a fairly masculine, westernized, sterile view of play and games, which is seriously problematic for me. I think that nonsense and irrational engagement is often the most significant mode of play that we can take. I would even say that the most playful a person can be in a game and with a game is to bring nonsense into the magic circle. I also think that counter-publics (and other subversive ways to engage serious problems) are often forms of "play." So yes, nonsensical motivations and illogical drives can lead to world-shaping, significant activity. I would argue (and do in my paper) that nonsense is THE starting point for significance.
I agree with you about identifying more with the functional arguments. Especially because the quote "Function-centred theories describe play as a tool for the satisfaction of a biological or social need" works well with my gaming/maslow's theory. lololol
ReplyDelete