Play is a voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain limits of time and place, according to rules freely accepted but absolutely binding, having its aim in itself and accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy, and the consciousness that it is ”different” from ”ordinary life”.
I have issues with Huizinga's insistence on the voluntary aspect of playing. But I refuse to interpret his definition as meaning that anything that is not done voluntarily cannot be called playing.
Like Michael I was intrigued by the stress on ”freedom", so I have spent some time studying Huizinga’s book ”Homo ludens”, from 1938, to find out what he meant. It was not altogether easy to follow his line of argument, but this is how I understand it.
To begin with, we need not worry about the terminological issue, because H. does not primarily speak about games. He focuses on the mere activity of playing. It does not matter
what or with what we are playing, but
that we are playing.
Playing is different from other activities, such as going, eating, working, sleeping. We know what is meant by: ”Now it is time to stop playing and go back to work!” or ”Don’t play, please be serious!” or ”I didn’t mean to hurt him, we were only playing”.
To play is not to work, not to be serious, to do things that are not meant to be what they seem to be … But what is it then?
H. notes that playing is not exclusive for human beings, animals also play. It seems to be a general characteristic of living cretures. Something basic in our existence. We do not need any excuse for doing it, we do not need to ”explain it”, it is just a matter of fact. But we have reason to try to characterize it – and ask ”is there a point with it?”
H. had studied the development of human culture in a historical perspective. To him it had become evident, that people, especially in earlier times, made a difference between playing and the doings of ”ordinary life”. They now and then sung and danced and put on fanciful clothes, and were joyful – despite the fact (or perhaps rather because of the fact) that their ordinary life was hard. Full of necessities, tasks, duties, work to earn their living. Having to tackle the brutal forces of the material world, in order to survive.
In relation to this ordinary world, the world momentarily entered in playing was experienced as a realm of freedom. You played not because you were forced to do it but because it was fun.
The freedom in playing is the freedom of Homo Ludens (the playing man) from the rational domination of Homo sapiens (the rational man).
Playing spontaneously shapes itself into periodic patterns of movement. Rythm, balance, harmony, enhance the joy of playing. Certain shapes become favorites, you memorize them in order to be able to repete them. They get individuality and a name. In that way a ”game” is born and taken up into tradition.
The defining ”rules” of a game are freely invented, i.e. they are not dictated out of any necessity. They may imitate traits from ordinary life, and get their flavour from being ”faked”. They are only valid within the confined region of space and time, where the playing occasionally takes place. It is a fun in itself to follow rules, and introduces a moment of tension in the play. It is important to keep to the rules, because of the fragility of the illusionary virtual world conjured up in playing. Breaking the rules means a flip back to the ordinary world. Because of that you are a ”Spielverderber” if you don’t accept the rules. (To Huizinga, playing is first and foremost a social acitivty, involving serveral people, as players or as spectators of the play.)
So, playing – at its very essence -- is an unnecessary activity, freely chosen, without purpose, unproductive, irresponsible, completely irrational. Is it then not just worthless, a waste of time?
Well, since the nineteenth century there is a tendency to look upon it that way, H. says. The element of play has been pushed aside under the influence of the industrial revolution with its idolatry of work and production. And this is regrettable, since playing is essential for the existence of human culture. In his historical studies H. finds that almost all cultural habits, conventions, institutions, have in their early stages of development been ”played”. They need this space of freedom to grow and establish themselves, before entering ”the ordinary world” and being taken for granted as belonging to our cultural inheritance.
You don’t play in order to survive, but in order to give meaning to life. Playing introduces meaning and beauty into life.
Concerning the arts, it is evident that music and dance, as performing arts, are most closely related to playing. They are more or less born out of the joy of playing. So is poetry, H. says.
But painting, sculpture, architecture do not belong there. Because they are essentially dealing with the material world, struggling with matter, giving it form. It cannot be a completely ”free” activity. Whereas playing essentially deals with the immaterial world, and its values, and that is the reason for its quality of total freedom.
I am not ready to accept that conclusion, without qualifications, I must admit. Maybe this is a suitable point where to leave the issue for discussion in our forum.
