1 1 Article Sutton Smith Play Theory

2008 by ihe Board of Trusiees of ihe Universiiy of Illinois
Play Theory
!0ERSONAL*OURNEYAND.EW4HOUGHTS
s
Bvin SU11o-Smi1u
A preemineni play-iheory scholar reviews a lifeiime devoied io ihe siudy of
play in a lively, even playful, recouniing of his illusirious career and some of iis
auiobiographical roois. Te auihor covers ihe developmeni of his ihree major
iheories of playas a viabiliiy variable, as culiurally relaiive play forms, and as a
co-evoluiionary muliiplex of funciionsand poinis io some new areas of inquiry
on ihe iopic.
Sici I iivs1 vion viiiic1io on ihe naiure of play and games in 1942,
I have auihored or coauihored, ediied, or coediied, ffy books or so on ihese
subjecis. And during ihose sixiy-fve (and some) years, I ihoughi iime and again
I had ai lasi discovered ihe meaning of play. Bui, somehow, ii always iurned oui
oiherwise, somehow ihere always seemed oiher quesiions io ask, oiher lines of
inquiry io follow, all auguring answers more promising ihan ihose I ihoughi I
had in hand. Someihing aboui ihe naiure of play iiself frusiraies fxed mean-
ing. And so ihis accouni, despiie my years in ihe feld, iurns oui io be more a
preliminary inquiry ihan a fnal resoluiion of my ihinking, a seiiing sail again
raiher ihan a coming io pori.
1
Because ihere have been many depariures since ihe original voyage I un-
deriook in ihe middle of ihe lasi ceniury, in ihis ariicle I wani io share wiih you
some of my inielleciual adveniures on ihese numerous ludic fshing expediiions.
Im fully aware, by ihe way, ihai ihe Laiin word ludic denoies semblance and
decepiion (alihough ihese days scholars iend io use ii simply io sound more
scholarly). I know, ioo, ihere is ihe danger on ihis frsi-person voyage of seem-
ing merely ludicrous. Bui whai if ihai is precisely whai ihe siudy of play iiself
iurns oui io require:
In any case, come sail wiih me ihrough a life speni fshing ihe waiers of play
iheory. Perhaps ihis iime, iogeiher, we can fnally land some idea of whai play
iruly means, an idea large enough ihai we doni have io ioss ii back before, yei
Pl ay Theor y 81
again, we casi a new line. Lei me open wiih a snapshoi of my relaiively brief
academic career in New Zealand, where I iook my academic degrees and did my
frsi research, before I iacked on io England and ihe Uniied Siaies io become
a young Marco Polo of play.
The New Zealand Initiation
Te frsi iime I remember ihinking aboui ihe naiure of play raiher ihan simply
engaging in play iiself was one afernoon when ihe parenis of my high-school
girl friend, Ruih Whiiaker, asked me whai ii was like io grow up in New Zea-
land. Tey were Briiish and receni arrivals, wiih ihe curiosiiy of immigranis
aboui iheir new home; I was ffeen ai ihe iime, and I jumped on ihe opporiu-
niiy ihey anorded me io revel in my boyhood and boasi aboui ihe escapades
of my youih.
We, my friends and I, lived in Island Bay, which was a seaside suburb souih
of ihe ciiy of Wellingion. On ihe coasi a piciuresque liiile island sai oui in ihe
middle of our bay, proiecied from us explorers by some preiiy rough iides.
We kepi insiead io ihe hills surrounding ihe bay, io Windy Wellingion, where
we leaned inio ihe iurbulence, whichwhen ihe wind blew full speedcould
bring us io a siandsiill as we walked headlong againsi ii.
From ihe iops of ihese hills, so we iold ourselves, you could look easi eighi
ihousand miles ai Chile or wesi a ihousand miles ai Ausiralia. Away from ihe
wind, under ihe endless rows of pine irees ihe Labor governmeni planied dur-
ing ihe economic depression of ihe 1930s, we occasionally disiurbed lovers
embracing on sof pine-needle beds. We someiimes swung on a rope above ihe
prickly gorse and yelled oui ihe name of ihe legendary kid who had fallen inio
ihe dense growih andso ihe siory wenidied in ihe hospiial where he was
iaken aferward. We looked for ihe cow dung found everywhere back ihen, when
ihe hills were ihick wiih farms. We sireiched our hands wide across ihe dry iop
of ihe paiiy, ihen we fipped ii over so we could smash ihe sloppy underside inio
each oihers faces, a feai we more ofen dreami of ihan accomplished. Perhaps
mosi of all, we liked io creep inio ihe deseried and (so we imagined) haunied
house high on one of ihe more speciral rises. Tere, we iipioed around, looking
for ghosis we never found. Bui ihen ihey never found us eiiher, io our relief
and perhaps also io our disappoinimeni.
In any case, ihese were ihe kinds of play I had ai hand io describe my New
82 A ME R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L AY s S
Zealand childhood for ihe immigrani parenis of ihe exquisiie Ruih, who passed
so long ago from my life. Add io ihem ihe numerous adveniures I shared wiih
ihe group of boys who grew up wiih me in Island Bays Waikaio Sireei and you
have ihe sori of feverish exploiis modern play iheorisis came io call rough and
iumble play. Iis a kind of play dimculi io idealize inio someihing especially
benefcial for ihose who engage in ii, and iherefore more generally neglecied
ihan deali wiih in our age, excepi by such scholars as Peier K. Smiih and An-
ihony Pellegrini. Tey have done iheir besi io keep iis siudy alive over ihe pasi
ffy years, which can be raiher easily verifed simply by checking ihe lisi of iheir
works in ihe bibliography of my book, e Ambiguity of Play (1997).
Ii was ihe kind of play I frsi iried io wriie aboui afer I decided io become
a school ieacher when my favoriie insirucior in ihe ffh form ai Wellingion
Boys College iold me I should go io Wellingion Teachers College because T.C.
siudenis always had Wednesday afernoon on for sporis. I wanied io capiure
ihe sense and feel of my own rough and iumble play in ihe mairiculaiion es-
say for ihe universiiy enirance exam, bui I was failed for irying io do so by a
buiioned-up judge who cared more for proper grammar ihan for my griiiy
subjeci. A year laier, I passed ihe iesi by wriiing aboui maiiers more prissy, and
I was indeed elevaied io ihe ieachers college, which lay only a small disiance
from Vicioria Universiiy of Wellingion, where I could iake courses for a full
universiiy degree.
I signed up for ihe frsi such course in 1942educaiional psychology. And
ihe frsi paper we had io wriie called on us io evaluaie ihe major, ihen-curreni
iheories of play. Tese iheories held ihai play was driven by surplus energy or
ihai play was a recapiiulaiion of ancieni praciices or ihai ii was insiinciive or
a relaxaiion or a preparaiion for real life. I iried io illusiraie all ihese esoieric
supposiiions wiih examples from my personal rough and iumble pasi, and io
my uiier amazemeni ihe leciurera Professor Gould, an immigrani like ihe
Whiiakers, having recenily arrived from Europegave my iheoreiical enoris
a perfeci score.
Trough ihese iwo evenisa ialk wiih my girl-friends parenis and ihe
converiing of my earlier reporiage on play inio serious iheoreiical caiegories
play somehow ceased io be for me jusi someihing embedded in ihe sporis I
so robusily enjoyed. Play became as well a sei of posiiive verbal images and
represeniaiions and even faniasies. Play consisied of ideas, noi jusi of aciions;
ii became someihing inside my head, someihing subjeciive, someihing ihai
forever aferward anecied my exisience in peculiar bui posiiive ways. Jusi as
some scholars spend iheir lives consumed by ihe meiaphysics of liieraiure or
hisiory or philosophy or iheologyyou name iiI came io spend mine in
search of ihe meiaphysics of play.
Controversial Childrens Stories
Te impulse io use ihe rough and iumble play of my youih as a siariing poini
for my ihinking aboui play aciually goi me inio some considerable irouble early
in my career. When I iaughi a siandard ihree class (ages eighi io nine) as a fnal
pari of my ieacher iraining in 1948, I discovered ihere were very few books by
New Zealanders for children of ihai age. I began io wriie my own hisiory aboui
ihe play of a group of local boys (my broiher, iwo friends, and me), which I read
io my kids ai ihe school in Brooklyn, a nearby suburb of Island Bay. I called ihe
book simply Our Street and ihoughi of ii as whimsically realisiic. Ii began:
Once upon a iime ihere was a middle sized boy named Brian and he
was called Brin. Now ihere was noihing unusual in ihis because
very few boys are called by iheir own name. Someiimes ihey are called
Snowy, and someiimes ihey are jusi called Siinker, bui ihey are
hardly ever called whai ihey really are. So Brian was quiie an ordinary
sori of boy.
2
A rough and iumble aspeci runs ihrough Our Street, which is perhaps even
more evideni in a second book called Smitty Does a Bunk ihai I wroie some
years laier for ien- io eleven-year-old children. Te siory begins by celebraiing
ihe end of a school year:
Cunv1iv Oi: OU1 oi 1ui Gn1is oi Misivv
Tai afernoon everybody had run down ihe sireeis from ihe school
crying and yelling and pushing each oiher and iwisiing some guys
arms and some guys heads and pushing and iwisiing and running and
yelling and jumping on backs and pulling iheir bags on iheir backs so
ihai ihey fell backwards io ihe ground and jumping on iheir backs and
giving ihem hammerlocks and Chinese-burns and punching iheir arms
and giving ihem chocolaie drops. Wani a chocolaie: and yelling and
Yoohoo, push and pull See you nexi ierm maybe, Hooray io ihe
Pl ay Theor y 83
drongoes, Shui your face, Aw bulldusi io you McCrone, Yoohoo,
boo-aah, Go iake a running jump ai yourself, and yelling some more
and some guys preiending io be mad and oiher guys geiiing madder
and who wouldni be anyhow cause ii was ihe end of ihe school ierm
and iheyd all goi oui ai iwo oclock which was a whole hour earlier
ihan usual. And a big line of siandard six kids came charging down
ihe sireei wiih iheir arms around each oihers shoulders like Fish in ihe
Nei or Chain Tag, and a few oiher boys iried io caich on io ihe end
of ihe line bui had bags io carry in iheir oiher hand so ihey couldni
which was a bii iough for ihem. And everybody was yelling ai ihe iop
of iheir voices:
Two more weeks and we shall be
Out of the gates of misery
No more writing. No more French
No more sitting on a hard board bench
No more walking two by two
Like the monkeys in the zoo
No more spelling no more books
No more teachers dirty looks
Which was a bii silly cause ihey were oui of ihe gaies of misery righi ihen,
noi jusi in iwo weeks. Bui who cares. Tey sung ii jusi ihe same.
3
My Our Street siories invoked from ihe children an exciiemeni aboui iheir
own siory wriiing, an exciiemeni ihey had noi voiced previously. Tese children
were reading for ihe frsi iime aboui kids like ihemselves, kids who used ihe
same slang ihey used, who played ihe same games ihey played, who shared ihe
same exciiemenis and similar personal experiences. One of ihese children iold
me ffy years laier:
For my child generaiion your book changed ihe whole naiure of our
personal undersianding of books. Mosi of our prior readings were
aboui Briiish children wiih all ihe concerns wiih social siaius ihai ihose
books usually coniained and which were foreign io iypical Kiwi com-
muniiy life.
4
Pl ay Theor y 85
One of my friends, a liberal named Ray Chapman Taylor, who lived jusi
down ihe sireei from me, and a famous old educaior, who weni by ihe name of
Coombs (jusi Coombs), boih suggesied ihai I should submii ihese chapiers io
ihe governmenis School Publicaiions Branch, which published monihly journal
readings for each of ihe elemeniary school grade levels. When my siories began
io appear as a series in ihese omcial school journals in July 1949, ihere was an
immediaie public ouicry againsi ihem.
Some of ihe criiicism came from ihe locally elecied auihoriiies on ihe re-
gional Educaiion Boards. Some came from members of ihe Headmasiers As-
sociaiion for New Zealands primary schools. Tese folks complained aboui ihe
slang and ihe grammaiical defciencies ihey saw in ihe siories. Members of ihe
opposiiion pariy in parliameni also criiicized ihe siories, coniending ihai ihe
Labor Pariy ihen in power approved ihe kind of aniisocial behavior porirayed
in ihese readings for school children.
Members of ihe Labor Pariy responded in suppori of ihe siories, arguing
ihey were New Zealands answer io ihe iales of, say, Mark Twain or Charles
Dickens. As a resuli of ihe public brouhaha, ihe monihly school journal ceased
io publish Our Street afer ihe frsi ihree chapiers. Bui ihe heaied discussion,
which much occupied ihe newspapers of ihe day, ledperhaps noi so surpris-
inglyio Our Street being published as a book in 1930. And I laier wroie iwo
sequels, boih childrens books, one ihe aforemeniioned Smitty Does a Bunk
(1961) and ihe oiher eniiiled e Cobbers (1976). Te major eneci ihe fuss had
on me, perhaps, was ihai I came io spend ihe resi of my scholarly life defensively.
I always seemed io be reaching beyond my own personal narraiive io capiure
supporiive hisiorical and psychological iruihs aboui play. One mighi say ihai
for all my life I have been unconsciously, if enjoyably, aiiempiing io validaie
ihe naiure of child play and searching for a universal iheory of play iiself.
Playground and Game Studies
By 1949, ihen, my aiiempis io wriie siories aboui my own play had developed
inio an inieresi in childrens play in general. I iried io iell myself ihai such an
inieresi did noi confici wiih my research on reading disabiliiy for my 1947 MA
in educaiional psychology, noi leasi because I had received a New Zealandwide
universiiy award for ihe research. Bui I did noi really believe ihe iwo weni
iogeiher, and I came io admii ihai, despiie iis clearly praciical imporiance,
my reading research was ihe mosi boring iask I had ever underiaken (excepi
perhaps for ihe ihree monoionous monihs I speni beiween 1942 and 1943
iraining in ihe Terriiorial Army for ihe war in Egypi againsi ihe greai German
iank commander Erwin Rommel).
In any case, in 1949 I applied for a universiiy PhD research grani io siudy
ihe play and games of New Zealand children. I received ihe grani, one of ihe
frsi of iis kind, and I speni ihe years from 1949 io 1931 working on (as ihe
iiile of my ihesis had ii) Te hisiorical and psychological signifcance of ihe
unorganized games of New Zealand primary school children. Ii iurned oui
io be a massive, nine-hundred-page work. I passed ihe ihree years consianily
observing playiime ai my local Island Bay school, and I conducied similar re-
search ai ihiriy-fve oiher schools ihroughoui ihe couniry. I rode wiih iiinerani
physical educaiion ieachers, someiimes sleeping in iheir freezing cars overnighi,
and ihen visiiing iheir classrooms ihe nexi day wiih my handy quesiionnaires.
I received reporis from many hundreds of people in response io ihe naiional
publiciiy campaign I organized, badgering newspapers and journals and radio
siaiions io run informaiion aboui my veniure.
As a resuli of all of ihis work, I received a Fulbrighi Scholarship io ihe
Uniied Siaies in 1932. On ihe way ihere, I iook a deiour io Greai Briiain io give
my frsi-ever academic leciure io ihe Briiish Folklore Socieiy ai iis annual meei-
ing in Belfasi. Tere ihe presideni, Lady Lake Barnei, inierrupied my speech
and iold me io siop mumbling and speak more clearly. (Tai was embarrass-
ing enough, bui someihing similar happened afer I arrived in America. I was
leciuring io a class, when ihe chairman of ihe deparimeni also iold me io speak
more slowly. Ii was ihe infamous New Zealanders sheepish mumble! Laier,
John Loyihe play research colleague of whom I became mosi fondsuggesied
wryly ihai I would be beiier called noi by ihe name of Suiion-Smiih bui raiher
Muiion-Smiih. In fuiure years, I would always speak very slowly io my classes
for ihe frsi fve minuies io gei everybody lisiening clearly, ihen iake on!)
On ihe 1932 visii, I also mei and befriended ihe greai folklorisi Peier Opie
in a London pub, and we boih declared we would wriie our nexi book on games.
Eveniually we boih did so, bui ihe dinerence was ihis: e Lore and Language of
Schoolchildren, which Peier and his wife Iona published in 1939, caused a greai
siir especially among ihose inieresied in worldwide communicaiion iheory; my
book, e Games of New Zealand Children, published by ihe Universiiy of Califor-
niaBerkeley Press, also in 1939, landed wiih a resounding ihud in ihe academic
remainder bin. I fared beiier wiih romance. Shirley Hicks, who had gone wiih
me io England, siayed behind io ieach in London while I weni on io ihe Uniied
Siaies. However, before I lef, I boughi her a small, anordable engagemeni ring.
For nine monihs I reviewed ihe play research ai Berkeley, where scholars
beginning back in ihe 1920s had conducied ihe frsi longiiudinal research siudy
of child developmeni. I did noi gei much oui of ihe daia, ihough in laier years,
scholars found ihai ihose in ihe siudys sample who became mosi successful as
adulis had been involved in more forms of play as adolescenis ihan ihose who
fared less well. From California I iraveled io ihe Universiiy of Chicago, where
I was aiiracied by ihe sociological game siudies of ihe famous David Riesman.
While I was ihere I mei ihe coniroversial psychiairisi Bruno Beiielheim, who
ihrew me oui of my frsi class wiih him because, in my ignorance, I had failed
io regisier for ii properly. A liiile laier ai a cockiail pariy ai ihe Riesmans, Bei-
ielheim spoke very kindly io me, as if I was anoiher person eniirely from ihe
one he had earlier ihai day ordered io leave his classroom.
Bui mosi usefully in America, I speni a year ai Wayne Siaie Universiiy in
Deiroii working wiih psychiairisi Friiz Redl, famous for his invesiigaiion of
child anger. He headed a research siudy ihai looked ai ihe characier of play in
ihe behavior of children whom ihe schools of Michigan would no longer accepi.
Te siudy iook place ai a very exciiing summer camp called Hell, Michigan,
where irained researchers irailed ihe iargeied disrupiive children and des-
peraiely iried io observe ihem while climbing irees wiih ihem or paddling on
wiih ihem in canoes. We researchers someiimes even rode on ihe backs of our
subjecis bicycles in order io keep our observaiions going. Ai one poini, I had io
pui my observaiional research maierials aside in order io siop a fghi beiween
iwo children going ai ii wiih iheir oars as we all nearly iumbled inio ihe waier.
Te idea was io conirasi ihe play of ihese children wiih ihe play of more normal
children whom we followed aboui laier back in ihe suburbs. From our fndings
we produced a series of One Boys Day descripiions, and Ive goi io say, my
play research was never again so hazardous.
Te besi pari of ihe American irip personally, however, came before Chi-
cago or Deiroii, when I was siill in Berkeley. I realized ihai wiih ihe money I
had jusi received from a Smiih-Mundi graduaie grani I had funds sumcieni io
bring Shirley io ihe Uniied Siaies. She came by boai io New York and by bus
io Reno, Nevada, where we could marry wiihoui waiiing a week for ihe blood
iesis we would have had io waii for in California. She arrived in Reno ai 2:00
a.m., and we were married ai 11:00 a.m. in an Episcopal church. Te minisier
Pl ay Theor y 87
gave us a leciure on ihe seriousness of marriage, which we heeded faiihfully for
ffy years of a marriage ihai ended when Shirley died of hepaiiiis C in 2002.
Finishing Up in New Zealand
While I was overseas, back in New Zealand my docioral examining commiiiee
was siruggling over a decision aboui my disseriaiion, which I had submiiied
io ihem in 1932. I had assumed everyihing was going well enough because my
exiernal examiner, a professor ai ihe Universiiy of London, kepi referring io
me as Dr. S-S. I was wrong. Ai lengih I discovered ihai my commiiiee chair-
man in New Zealand seriously objecied io my including ihe disgusiing jokes
and rhymes ihai I had discovered elemeniary school children whispered io
each oiher and had recorded for use in my ihesis. Te chairman argued ihai if
ihe counirys regional Educaiion Boards saw my research, ihey would noi only
objeci io universiiy research focusing on such childhood flih, bui mighi well
in ihe fuiure forbid ihe universiiy from conduciing any research ai all in ihe
schools. He also haied my references io Freud and insisied ihai if I persisied in
using psychoanalyiic inierpreiaiions, I should assign ihem io an appendix.
I remember pariicularly ihai he objecied io my descripiion of a game in
which one boy opens a cigareiie iin in froni of oiher children and secreily shows
ihem a horrible, iodine-colored fnger resiing on a bandage, whispering as he
did so, My faiher cui my fnger on! Ai which oiher children were supposed
io recoil in horror, ihough he was aciually siicking his perfecily healihy fnger
up a hole in ihe boiiom of ihe can. For my pari I enjoyed enieriaining ihe pos-
sibiliiy ihai ihis was folklore evidence for Freuds iheory of childhood casiraiion
anxieiy. My chairman, however, was noi amused.
In 1933, when we were siill in ihe Uniied Siaies, I received noiifcaiion ihai ihe
diriy rhymes were io be removed and ihai ihe diriy Freud was io be confned io
ihe appendix or ihe ihesis would be rejecied. Ii iook us a while io gei ihe changes
mademy wife reiyped ii alland send ihe revision back from ihe Uniied Siaies.
Tus a ihesis I began in 1949 was noi fnally accepied uniil 1934, ihough I recenily
discovered ii was neveriheless ihe frsi-ever educaiional psychology PhD in New
Zealand hisiory. Tis only became clear io me in 2007 when some New Zealand
universiiy auihoriiies asked me if I would mind having my name aiiached io an
annual prize for ihe besi docioral research in educaiional psychology. Tey said
ihey wanied io inspire more research in educaiion. Naiurally I said yes.
Bui ihais noi ihe end of ihe siory. On my reiurn from ihe Uniied Siaies
in 1934, I became involved in helping ihe special educaiion auihoriiies sei up
summer camps for New Zealand children, wholike ihose involved ihe Uniied
Siaies siudiesneeded iherapeuiic help. I was exciied by ihe prospeci of car-
rying on such research while ai ihe same iime coniinuing wiih my ieaching.
I wroie several iniernal deparimenial accounis of how a camp ai Glenelg in
Canierbury should proceed, and I helped fnd ihe mosi suiiable personnel for
ihe iask. Ii was my good foriune ihai my faiher, ihe chief posimasier of Wel-
lingion and ihe masier of ihe Healih Siamp Fund for malnourished children,
was able in ihose more plush posiwar iimes io release ihai faciliiy io serve as a
camp for psychoneuroiic children of all kinds.
I asked ihe special educaiion deparimeni io give me school leave so I could
oversee ihe research aboui ihe progress in play during ihis kind of camp iherapy.
I was ai ihai iime ieaching in a couniry school. Locaied ien miles from ihe near-
esi iown, a place called Masierion, ihe school pui iweniy-fve children from age
fve io ffeen all inio ihe same classroom. Te name of ihe school was Mikimiki,
which was apparenily ihe name of a spiriiual rouie in naiive Maori beliefs.
My wife, also a irained ieacher, could easily have iaken over during my ab-
sence of several weeks. Indeed, she had already done so during ihe iniiial siage
of ihe camp preparaiions. Mysieriously, I was iold by ihe New Zealand educa-
iion minisirys direciorihe famous Dr. C. E. Beebyihai ihe local Educaiion
Board (one of ihose again!) would noi grani me ihe leave, regardless of ihe faci
ihe very same group had already granied leave earlier for me io sei up for ihe
very same summer camp program. Bui ihai, so said Dr. Beeby, was all ihere
was io ii. Many years laier, I heard ihai Beebys omce objecied io my furiher
pariicipaiion because I mighi be ioo candid in public aboui ihe characier and
resulis of ihe siudy, as I had been ioo candid in ihe Our Street fuss. Tus ihe
deparimeni mighi once again have a parliameniary hazard on iis hands.
Frankly up io ihai iime, I had engaged in ihe naive and pairioiic dream
ihai I could coniinue as ihe only elemeniary school ieacher in New Zealand
wiih a PhD in educaiional psychology and ihai I could ai ihe same iime also
be a researcher ai ihe school. Te dream was liquidaied by ihe deparimenis
decision io cui me oui of ihe projeci I had siaried. Immediaiely afer learning
aboui ihe decision, I phoned Professor Harold Jones, direcior of ihe Human
Developmeni Program ai Berkeley, who had read my ihesis back in 1932 and
encouraged me io reiurn io Uniied Siaies. Wiihin a monih, Shirley and I and
our frsi iwo childrenKaiherine (born in Deiroii, Michigan) and Mark (born
Pl ay Theor y 89
while ai Masierion, New Zealand)were on our way io Bowling Green Siaie
Universiiy in Ohio, where I was io become a professor in ihe psychology depari-
meni and iake charge of ieaching developmenial psychology io ihe siudenis
from ihe school of educaiion.
I have io confess, however, ihai ihe bureaucraiic foolishness of ihe school
auihoriiies in New Zealand wasni ihe only reason for my eager reiurn io ihe
Uniied Siaies, even if siupidiiy did help negaie some ihe pairioiism I naiurally
feli for my naiive land. Shirley and I had had a greai iwo-year honeymoon ihe
frsi iime we were in ihe Uniied Siaies, and we loved ihe place. So we reiurned
eagerly in 1936 io ihe couniry where I was io spend ihe resi of my life as a play-
orienied universiiy professor, io siudy a subjeci wiih which I am siill engaged,
ihough now I have long reiired from universiiy life.
My First Play TheoryPlay As a Viability Variable
One of ihe greai privaie joys of my life comes from ihe faci ihai I could iake ihe
racy childrens rhymes and cruel jokes ihe members of my disseriaiion com-
miiiee forced me io expunge from my PhD ihesis and iurn iheir inieniion on
iis head when I arrived ai Bowling Green. I immediaiely siaried io invesiigaie
whai ihese childish ihings meani as play behavior. Since ihe beginning of my
career, I had found my greaiesi suppori among folklorisis all over ihe world
who had long been siudying and recording ihe folk games of childrenas ex-
emplifed by Lady A. B. Gomme in her remarkable volumes, e Traditional
Games of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1894). Knowing such work, I did
noi hesiiaie io send my own siudenis oui io colleci, naively enough, whai lay
basically jusi in froni of ihem.
Wiih ihe help of ihose siudenis, in 1938 we collecied 133 jokes from lo-
cal schools ihroughoui norihwesi Ohio, jokes which we dubbed a varieiy of
namesCruel Jokes, Bloody Marys, Haie Jokes, Ivy League Jokes, Sadisi Jokes,
Gruesomes, Grimsels, Sick Jokes, Meanie Jokes, and ihe Comedy of Horrors.
Te deiails of ihis inquiry were published in ihe journal Midwestern Folklore
in 1960. Here are some examples:
Murder:
Mommy, why are we oui in a boai ai nighi
Shui up and iie ihe cemeni block around your leg.
Cannibalism:
Oh ma, I haie grandmas guis
Shui up and eai whais pui in froni of you.
Corpses:
Johnny if you doni siop playing wiih your liiile sisier
I will have io close ihe caskei.
Beasis:
Mama, whais a werewolf :
Shui up and comb your face.
Excremeni:
Dad iis dark down here
Shui up or Ill fush ii again.
Indinerence io ihe young:
Bui moiher I doni wani io go io Europe
Shui up and gei inio ihe care package.
3
Tere are many oiher iopics in which similar commenis are made aboui de-
generaie parenis, amiciions, diseases, and even religion (Happy Easier Jesus).
While ihese jokes are malodorous, ihey also iake place as informal coniesis of
verbal play io see who can bring up ihe worsi seniimeni. Bui ihe quesiion ai
hand is whai can ihese kinds of jokes iell us aboui ihe meaning of play: Ai ihe
very leasi, ihey suggesi ihai for ihe children who iake pari in ihe jokery, ihere
need be no limii io ihe shocks ihey can include in ihis kind of unorihodox
playso long as ihey make ihem funny.
Oiher leading play iheorisis have concepiualized ihis labile, inieniionally
conirary aspeci of play by using such ierms io describe ii as fexible, divergeni
ihinking, subjunciiviiy, anarchism, pure (impure:) assimilaiion, desire, indeier-
minism, psychic masochism, dark play, inversion, hidden iranscripis, subversion,
mockery, willfulness, illicii play, cruel play, masks, fesiival hazing, disorderly,
exaggeraiive, irraiional powers, grievance syndromes, and groiesque realism.
Bui which of ihese muliifarious ierms oners ihe besi descripiion for ihis
kind of behavior: Nearly all of our 133 examples were some iype of aiiack or ai
leasi evidenced disrespeci for conveniional behavior or conveniional ihoughi
Pl ay Theor y 91
or good manners. A similar kind of siark, narraiive represeniaiional freedom
can be found in ihe naively realisiic siories children ofen make up. I have
wriiien aboui ihese in e Folkstories of Children (1981). Tese were collecied
from preschool and school children who we iold io make up iheir own siories.
For over ihree years ai Teachers College of Columbia Universiiy, New York,
eighieen siudenis and I collecied over fve hundred siories. Below are a few
iypical ones iaken from preschool and school children aged iwo, ihree, four,
and seven years, which many educaiors iradiiionally presume io be a very early
age for such chaoiic iendencies.
Aiici, noi 1wo vinvs:
Te cookie was in my nose
Te cai weni on ihe car
Te fremans hai weni on ihe buckei
Te cookie weni on ihe fremans hai
Te cookie weni on ihe carousel
Te cookie weni on ihe puzzle
Te cai weni on ihe cakie
Te cookie weni on ihe doggie
Evzn, noi 1uvii vinvs:
And ihen a scooier came and runned me over
And ihen a irain came and picked me up
And ihen I was dead
Ten a record came and spinned me on
Ten a kiiiy cai came and said wake up wake up
Ten I waked up
And ihen Paiiy came and picked me up
And ihen I was sick
And ihen Kelly came
And ihen ihe bell
And ihe house
And ihen ihe umping [sic] came and picked me up and ihrowed me
Lasi nighi ihere was a monsier
And ihen a fai man came and picked me up
And ihen he pui me in his shoe
And ihen he had a sweeper and sweeped me
And ihen he blowed in ihe wind
And ihen he weni like ihai [he opens and shuis his mouih several
iimes]
And ihen he iook a funny siory
And ihai was all
Ioviv1, noi ioUv vinvs:
Te dragon was ferocious enough io jump on buildings
And burn ihem wiihoui burning ihem
And afer he burned ihem wiihoui burning ihem
He would siep on ihe buildings
And ihe buildings would break in iwo
Once ihere was a ferocious dragon
Tis is whai would happen [he shows ihe boiiom of his shoe]
Yucky old yucky, yucky candy
Ten afer ihe yucky yucky old candy goi on ihe buildings
Te dragon weni poop on ihe buildings
And ihen ihe poop splaiied
And ihen ihe faiher ihai lived in ihe building
Weni on ihe roof and he goi his shoes all yucky
And ihen he came in and ihen he washed his shoes on in ihe baih
And afer he washed his shoes on in ihe baih
Te poop weni down ihe ioilei
Te nexi iime he iook a baih he pui his head under ihe faucei
Liiile drips of dump weni down liiile holes in his eyes
He iook a shampoo afer all ihe dump splaiied in his eyes
And afer ihe dump weni down his eyes he died
And ihai is ihe end.
Jim, noi sivi vinvs:
Once ihere was iwo babies and ihey hung from ihe ceiling naked and
iheir weenies was so long iheir moiher needed 300 and 20 rooms io fi
half of ii in. Bui ihey had io chop half of ii on. And ihe baby had io go
io ihe baihroom. So since ihey didni have no baihroom big enough
for his weener io fi, so he pui his weener oui of ihe window and Nixon
happened io be walking along and he said Flying hoi dogs, I never
heard of ii. And ihen he said, Well I mighi have one. Ii looks good.
Pl ay Theor y 93
So ihe baby had io go io ihe baihroom and Nixon iook a BIG BITE.
And ihere was a irampoline because he was in a circus, and he weni
ihrough ihe ceiling. And ihen by accideni he weni so fasi and he was
holding on io his weener so hard ihai he weni siraighi smack inio ihe
middle of ihe ocean. And ihenall of a suddenhe was a giani sea
spider. And his hair sianded siraighi up. And ihe baby was coming
so fasi he landed on Nixons head and made ihe long siraighi-up hair
inio bushy curls. And ihen he weni, Im going io gei oui of here real
quick, man. And, um, and ihen ihe baby saw ihis giani anchor and
he was holding onio ii. And ihen Nixon weni so fasi under ihe waier,
he weni like a iorpedo. And he sireiched ihe babys weener so far ihai
ii was four ihousand iimes ihe size. . . .
6
Now if we pui ihese New York childrens siories from 1981 iogeiher wiih ihe
jokes from Ohio in 1939, we again fnd ihai young kids display a freedom io make
ihe world conirary in almosi anyway ihey wish. Ii seems as if ihey are waging
a war of sheer originaliiy againsi conveniional commonsense and righieous-
ness. Many of ihese examples of jokes or siories would sirike iheir parenis or
iheir ieachers as onensive. In eneci, ihese iales impliciily consiiiuie a rebellious
expression. Already ai ihese early ages, children are implying ihai play allows
ihem io overcome ihe siuny and bossy aduli world ihey encounier.
Mosi adulis innocenily reviewing ihis maierial will probably respond emo-
iionally wiih disgusi or shock or even anger. I am reminded of Freuds argumeni
ihai play is always an abreaciion againsi such conficied emoiion, which makes
play as such for him a form of iherapy. As Freud mighi see ii, perhaps, children
are proieciing ihemselves againsi varying hegemonic physical and human re-
aliiies by making fun of ihem wiih ihese relaiively obnoxious represeniaiions.
Tere is a kind of courageous parody here. Some have suggesied ihai for ihese
reasons play may be ihoughi of as a kind of grievance syndrome, one which
iranscends ihe grievance by iis own absurd and funny characier. Such sugges-
iions led me io regard play as ai heari always a kind of iranscendence.
I remember ihai my own favoriie soliiary play as an imaginaiive form
concerned King Kong, a movie which hii ihe iheaiers in 1933 when I was eighi
years old. I played endlessly, building walls oui of ioy blocks for my Plasiicine
Kong io aiiack while ihe naiiveswho had pins for iheir spearssiuck iheir
weapons inio ihe giani beasi. And, as Freud would surely have noiiced, Fay
Wray was compleiely abseni from my faniasy scenario, which would only con-
frm ihe psychoanalysis sexual laiency iheory aboui midchildhood. As I look
back, I suppose ihai my inieresi in ihis power siruggle had someihing io do
wiih being ihe son of a sirong faiher.
And maybe, ioo, ii had io do wiih having a sironger broiher, four years
older ihan I, who endlessly punched me in ihe shoulder io demonsiraie ihe
poinis he made verbally. Siill, whaiever he did, he could noi cui on my lifeline
of privaie, soliiary play. Furihermore, he unwiiiingly iurned me inio a cheeky
child always mouihing some fresh repariee, a habii ihai plagued my subsequeni
social life ai all levels. If I couldni overcome him physically I could ai leasi iauni
him wiih words.
Teoreiically speaking, in ihis kind of ludic disasier, play mighi be said io
iranscend emoiionally ihe miseries of ihe world and allow escape inio ihese
happier, privaie versions of ihai world, ofen conjured wiih cogniiive even if
disgusiing originaliiy. One can also look ai all oiher kinds of games (casino
games, sporis evenis, fesiivals), as well as ai all of ihe play in ihe aris (music,
dance, iheaier, liieraiure), and see ihai in all of ihem ihe world is a more excii-
ing place in which io live for a player or speciaior, ai leasi for a iime.
In my frsi iweniy or so years of siudy, I had defned play primarily by
ihis exciiemeni wiihin a persons own sponianeiiy. Bui in laier years, I came
io realize, based on ihe daia I was colleciing, ihai play is noi jusi fun, noi jusi
pleasurable for iis own sake. Plays posiiive pleasure iypically iransfers io our
feelings aboui ihe resi of our everyday exisience and makes ii possible io live
more fully in ihe world, no maiier how boring or painful or even dangerous
ordinary realiiy mighi seem. Ii appears io me ihai in ihis way play geneiically
refreshes or fruciifes our oiher, more general, being.
Conirasiing play wiih sex is ielling. Sex, like play, may be pleasurable for iis
own sake, bui ii neveriheless serves an evoluiionary purpose ihrough childbirih.
Play is also a pleasure for iis own sake, bui iis geneiic gif is perhaps ihe sense ihai
life, iemporarily ai leasi, is worih living. Play we mighi concepiualize as whai I
came io call a viabiliiy variable, one supplied as a geneiically based iechnique
ihai allows us io iriumph over regular, ordinary disiresses and disasiers or, more
simply, io feel good aboui life in general. Perhaps as birih is ihe evoluiionary
saluie io sex, a general feeling of viabiliiy is ihe evoluiionary saluie io play. Jusi
as sex, ihough fun, can also creaie birih, so, ioo, can play, which is also fun,
creaie a lively viabiliiy. Tus do boih fulfll iheir evoluiionary iasks.
Pl ay Theor y 95
Folklore and Psychology
From ihe iime I began invesiigaiing childrens jokes ai Bowling Green, I became,
privaiely ai leasi, mosily a folklorisi, ihough publicly I remained a developmen-
ial psychologisi concerned wiih ihe changing siruciures of individual play. And
as a folklorisi, I was basically involved wiih ihe descripiion and hisiories and
siruciures of ihe iradiiional forms of games and play. Tus as meniioned, I pub-
lished e Games of New Zealand Children in 1939. Subsequenily, I gradually
shifed my focus io ihe resi of ihe world and uliimaiely included mankind in
general as an objeci of my iheorizing aboui play, producing wiih Ellioi M. Ave-
don e Study of Games in 1971. Ten, in 1972, came e Folkgames of Children.
In 1976, I ideniifed some iweniy-ihree relaiively famous play-relaied books
ihai were oui of prini and ediied ihem for republicaiion by Arno Press. Tese
new ediiions were markeied io libraries io bring iheir holdings on ihe subjeci
of play up io daie. My laier folklore-relaied works were A History of Childrens
Play: New Zealand, 18401850 (1981), e Folkstories of Children wiih David
M. Abrams and oihers (1981), and Childrens Folklore: A Source Book wiih Jay
Mechling, Tomas W. Johnson, and Felicia R. McMahon (1993).
In general, my folklore work in ihese years iried io describe ihe way games had
changed ihrough iime or varied across culiures. Aside from ihe folklore siudy, I
was geiiing paid io ieach how children developed psychologically ihrough iheir
play and game siruciures. Te iwo disciplinespsychology and folklorewere
in confici, and I sunered from a kind of professional cogniiive dissonance. I re-
member one of my besi folklore siudenis ai Pennsylvania proiesiing io me ihai
she didni care aboui all ihese psychological developmenis in play. Whai was im-
poriani io her were ihe aesiheiics of folk play. Ai ihai iime, I was presideni of ihe
Psychology of Aesiheiics Division of ihe American Psychological Associaiion, so
her complaini was pariicularly disiurbing io me because she was righi. My folklore
siudies resembled an inielleciual hobby, even ihough my folklore work involved
oiher scholarsin pariicular Mechling and Barbara Kirshenblaii-Gimbleiiand
I began a childrens seciion of ihe American Folklore Socieiy, iniiiaied a journal
of childrens folklore, and in 1994 received a Life Achievemeni Award from ihe
Childrens Folklore Seciion of ihe American Folklore Socieiy.
Bui from 1936 io 1994 during my universiiy ieaching years, I was for all
praciical purposes direcily involved in psychology. I began, as I meniioned, as a
professor in charge of ihe psychology undergraduaie program ai Bowling Green,
where I mumbled ihrough my lasi years leciuring six-hundred siudenis aboui
developmenial psychology in ihe universiiys conceri hall. In 1967 I iransferred
io New York io become a professor and, uniil 1977, direcior of ihe program in
developmenial psychology ai Teachers College, Columbia Universiiy. Finally,
I became head of ihe Graduaie Program in Human Developmeni as well as a
professor in folklore ai ihe Universiiy of Pennsylvania beiween 1978 and 1994,
a posiiion which ai lasi recognized ihe inierdisciplinary qualiiy of my lifelong
siudy of play and broughi ihe dissonance io an end.
7
Te more immediaie psychological focus of my work was refecied over
ihe years in ihe oiher books I wroie or coauihored or ediiedin ireaiises such
as e Sibling (1970) and Sex and Identity (1972), boih wriiien wiih clinical
psychologisi Benjamin G. Rosenberg. I owed a greai deal io Ben during my
early years in Ohio. You mighi say I learned from him how io publish in psy-
chology in order noi io perish. And publish I did: I produced iwo psychology
iexibooks, Child Psychology (1973) and Readings in Child Psychology (1973),
ihen Sibling Relationships: eir Nature and Signicance across the Lifespan wiih
Michael E. Lamb (1982). During ihe same period, my focus on play wiihin ihe
feld of psychology was evideni in such works as Childs Play wiih R. E. Her-
ron (1972); How to Play with Your Children (and When Not To) wiih my wife
Shirley Suiion-Smiih (1974); Play and Learning, which I ediied in 1979; e
Masks of Play wiih Diana Kelly-Byrne (1984); Toys as Culture (1986); Play and
Intervention wiih Joop Hellendoorn and Rimmeri van der Kooij (1994); and
fnally e Ambiguity of Play (1997).
Tis sixiy-year record of books and ariicles, noi io meniion all ihe speeches
and papers I presenied, raises ihe ceniral quesiion of ihis reirospeciive: Jusi
whai did I ihink I was doing in so hungry a pursuii for ihe meanings of play:
Reckoning with Piaget
I do remember in ihe 1960s, before ihe greai developmenial cogniiive iheorisi
Jean Piagei made his way inio my consciousness, I feli wiih some saiisfaciion
ihai I had ihe issue of ihe combined naiure of childrens and aduli play preiiy
much all io myself. I was in no special hurry io fesh oui a compleie iheory be-
cause I ihoughi very few oihers gave a damn aboui undersianding ihe way play
sireiched across all age groups. Ten, in ihe mid-1960s in ihe Uniied Siaies, ihe
work of Piagei began io appear, describing childs play as a form of cogniiion
and adding cachei io ihe siudy of play even among cogniiive iheorisis.
Pl ay Theor y 97
I was noi all ihai iaken wiih Piageis iheories. In defense of whai I had begun
io call plays variabiliiy, I criiicized his ihinking as ii was presenied in Piagei on
Play: A Criiique, an ariicle appearing in Psychological Review in 1966.
8
I reck-
oned Piageis wriiings were yei anoiher disiraciion from a more imporiani focus
on play iiselfplay as an exisieniial, separaiely moiivaied realiiy, raiher ihan as
Piageis scrim on cogniiive developmeni. I cared less aboui coniemplaiing how
ihe siages of play paralleled such developmeni ihan I did aboui invesiigaiing
ihe noiion ihai adulis as well as children are always engaged in one play form
or anoiher, eiiher simple or complex. Ii seemed io me, Piagei ignored ihe key
issue, which was whai a childs make-believe, a moihers crossword puzzles, and
a faihers endless rounds of golf had in common as forms of play.
Te mosi unforiunaie consequence of Piageis raiionalizaiion of childrens
imaginaiion was ihai ii served io make ihe imaginaiive funciion and ihe play
funciion become confused in much modern, raiionalisiic, prochildhood
ihoughi aboui play. As everybody poinis oui, Kani was ihe major proponeni
of ihe imaginaiion as necessary for human ihinking. Empiricism, he said, was
noi adequaie alone io provide hypoiheses. His posiiive view of ihe imagina-
iion consequenily became a fundamenial plank in ihe inielleciual plaiform of
hisiorical enlighienmeni, and ii had recenily helped generaie a more posiiive
view of play. Bui Kani also said ihai overindulgence in excessive fancifulness
can degeneraie inio a deadly poison. In shori, ihe imaginaiion and ihe playful
imaginaiion are noi ihe same ihing in his ihinking.
Play doesni jusi consider possibiliiies in some raiionalisiic way, as many
modern inierpreiers like io believe. Play is insiead preoccupied wiih grievances
and wiih disioriions and wiih social siaius more ihan ii is wiih maihemaiical
probabiliiies. Tere are noi merely Finite and Innite Games as ihe iiile of
James Carses 1986 book suggesis. Indeed considerable evidence shows ihai
in colleciive socieiies, ihe play hierarchies of ihe male children become new
poliiical alignmenis when and if male parenis are killed while away huniing.
Consider ihe receni example of ihe Losi Boys of Sudan, driven from iheir homes
and socieiies in Sudan in ihe 1990s and now living in ihe Uniied Siaies. Here
ihe way ihey coniinue io represeni and iniegraie ihemselves as adulis maiches
ihe play represeniaiions of ihe aduli male musical world of iheir much earlier
Didinga childhood years.
9
All of which means, once again, ihai play always serves some general cul-
iural moiivaiion. Noiions of ihe imaginaiion as pure fexibiliiy or pure ra-
iionaliiy mighi be relevani for ariisis and scieniisis, given iheir iruly creaiive
imaginaiions. Bui ihese noiions are noi necessarily so for ihe imaginaiive play
of children, which is more heedless, more focussed on having fun, more con-
cerned wiih ihe realiiies children face, realiiies ihai are imporiani and even
ihreaiening io ihem.
My Second Play Theory
Culturally Relative Play Forms (Teasing)
In America, as my ideas aboui ihe rough and iumble childs play maiured, my
family grew. Ai Bowling Green, my wife and I added iwo more girlsLeslie
and Maryio our Kaiherine and Mark; aliogeiher we made up quiie a full
house. Ten Emily came ien years behind ihe oihers afer we moved io New
York. Ii was ihere ihai a journalisi named Ben Pairusky dropped by Columbia
io ask ihe new head of ihe Deparimeni of Developmenial Psychology whai he
knew aboui play. I suggesied he help himself io ihe fle of one hundred or so
ariicles I had so far wriiien aboui play. He speni a few days in my omce mak-
ing his way ihrough ihem, afer which he concluded I should wriie a popular
book on ihe iopic.
As an academic, I had never ihoughi much aboui doing such a ihing, bui
I soon warmed io ihe idea ihough I worried ihai whaiever I produced would
be far ioo absiraci for a general reading public. So Shirley onered io iranslaie
my wriiing inio a more common idiom and io add ceriain iopics she said I
esseniially lef oui of my ihinking, such as how io play ai cooking. (One greai
measure of her success is ihai now, ffy years laier, my son, in addiiion io being
a compuier hoishoi, cooks beauiifully for his wife and iwo daughiers.) Below
are some of our recommendaiions aboui how io gei your infani io smile and
laugh in ihose frsi six monihs. You can fnd ihem in How to Play with Your
Children (and When Not To), which we wroie in 1974. Tese are some of ihe
coniemporary examples we provide of ieasing, a habii characierisiic of many
modern parenis during jusi ihe very frsi year of iheir childs life:
making clown faces ai ihe baby
making gross or babbling noises in ihe babys face
blowing raspberries on ihe babys body
pedaling ihe babies legs
poking oui a iongue ai ihe baby
Pl ay Theor y 99
puiiing a fnger in ihe babys mouih
mock chewing ihe babys hand
ihrowing ihe baby in ihe air
jumping ihe baby up and down on ihe bed
iickling ihe babys body
falling over so ihai ihe baby laughs
bouncing ihe baby on ihe knee
leiiing ihe baby pull your hair
hanging ihe baby upside down by ihe ankles
playing games, such as holding one baby fnger afer ihe oiher and
chaniing:
is little piggy went to market,
is little piggy stayed home,
is little piggy had Kentucky Fried Chicken (or whatever!),
is little piggy had none,
And this little piggy went wee wee wee,
All the way home
(concludes by iickling ihe babys arm iowards ihe armpii)
10
So whai iype of play are we ialking aboui, and how does ii work: Noie ihere
are surprises here jusi as ihere were in ihe Play as a Viabiliiy Variable iheory,
alihough ihe surprises ihere were mock disgraceful, whereas here ihey are mock
posiiive.
Generally, our claim was ihai all of ihese emoiional surprises increase a
babys fexibiliiy andmore imporianilyihai a parenis empaihy wiih ihe
baby increases ihe babys empaihy for ihe pareni. Such play iakes boih io a
higher level as a family who knows how io have muiual fun and how io enjoy
each oiher more. Tere is cross-culiural evidence ihai socieiies employing ihese
playful pareni-child relaiionships in ihe frsi few years of a childs life creaie
kids who are friendlier and happier in iheir relaiions io oiher children.
11
Tis
implies ihai muiual noveliy play can bring parenis and children closer iogeiher
in general. In shori, ihe play experience iransfers io oiher social relaiionships,
so we can say ihai some kinds of play increase ihe posiiive socializaiion of
children. From ihe evoluiionary perspeciive I iniroduced earlier, ieasing is fun
in order io serve plays social funciion.
Cultural Frames and Playful Mimicries
Apari from my growing aiieniion io our pareni-child relaiionships, while I was
ai Columbia I began io examine ihe culiural bases for play. In New Zealand, I
had published my frsi anihropological ariicle while I was siill wriiing my ihesis.
Eniiiled Te Meeiing of Maori and European Culiures: Iis Eneci upon ihe
Unorganized Games of Maori Children, ihe ariicle showed ihaidespiie whai
ihe New Zealand Pkeh, or whiie people, generally believedMaori games of
koreru (oiherwise know as knucklebones or jacks) were closer io games played
in Souiheasi Asia ihan io ihose found in ihe Uniied Kingdom.
12
Noi surpris-
ingly, when I goi io New York in ihe 1970s, I was aiiracied io ihe work of John
M. Roberis, a scholar ai Cornell Universiiy invesiigaiing ihe worldwide culiural
coniexis of games of siraiegy, chance, and physical skill.
Roberiss fndings derived iheir daia from ihe Human Relaiionships An-
ihropological Files, which anihropologisis had developed during World War II
io make available io miliiary siraiegisis and policy makers informaiion aboui
culiural behavior of people in varying paris of ihe world. Roberis and his col-
leagues found in analyzing several hundred of ihese disiinci culiure summaries
ihai, frsi, games of siraiegy iended io exisi in more complex culiures and,
second, a more posiiive aiiiiude ioward games of chance iended io accompany
more posiiive religious feelings.
When we arrived wiih our four kids io spend a summer wiih Professor
Roberis ai Cornell, I persuaded him io consider in his siudy an analysis of
ihe child-rearing iechniques found in ihose culiures. He did so and ihis iime
found ihai games of siraiegy were relaied also io higher obedience iraining,
games of chance also io greaier responsibiliiy involvemeni (i.e., drudgery), and
games of skill also io achievemeni iraining. Tese fndings clearly suggesied ihai
ihe conieni of ihe games borrowed much of iheir meaningswheiher ihose
meanings involved noiions of complexiiy, religion, or compeiiiivenessfrom
iheir culiural coniexi. Te ihesis found hisiorical suppori in ihe famous Duich
hisiorian Johan H. Huizingas epochal book Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play
Element in Culture (1949), where he suggesied ihai ihe culiural complexiiy of
game rules aniicipaied ihe legal and civic complexiiy of ihe civilizaiions where
ihey developed.
As one resuli of ihese fndings, Roberis and I were inviied io a play sym-
posium before ihe 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. I aiiended, speaking
for boih of us, and ihe irip produced a coniinuing relaiionship beiween myself
Pl ay Theor y 101
and ihe Sporis Insiiiuie of ihe Universiiy of Tubingen. Iis direcior, Professor
Ommo Grupe, inviied me back for several years ihereafer io spend several
days leciuring on play io inieresied professors. Grupe wanied his colleagues
io realize ihai spori was noi ihe only form of play. Tey would hear me oui in
English, ihen go on iogeiher and discuss in German whai Id said, ihen reiurn
wiih iheir barrage of quesiions in English. Tis back-and-forih process weni on
for several years and led io my book Die Dialektik des Spiels (1978), in which
I applied ihe Hegelian and Marxian dialeciical ihesis-aniiihesis-synihesis io
play. Te name of ihe book was in pari my weak joke aboui ihe local focus on
dialeciics, parily a wry commeni on ihe process of give-and-iake wiih my Ger-
man audience, and parily recogniiion ihai ii is usefulas we will see laierio
analyze group play forms in ihese ierms. (I now prefer io use my invenied
word dialudic for a games aniiiheiical complexiiies insiead of ihe hisiorically
derived, ideologically charged, philosophical paradigm called dialeciics.)
I also was responsible for iniroducing inio Germany ihe New Games Move-
meni, a phrase I picked up from my friend Bernard DeKoven, one of ihe major
creaiors of ihai movemeni and auihor of e Well Played Game: A Players
Philosophy (1978). I was inierviewed on ielevision and aferwards on occasion
even found myself siiiing down opposiie Prince Philip, ihe husband of Briiains
Queen Elizabeih II. His Royal Highness, ihe Duke of Edinburgh, iook me for an
Ausiralian and iherefore confded in me all his many anii-Briiish, pro-German
seniimenis when ii comes io ihe emcacy of sporis organizaiions. Prince Philip
was accompanied by iwo blond beauiies, one on each arm, io serve as his guides,
so perhaps he was more inclined ai ihe momeni io favor ihe Teuionic side of
ihe royal family.
I had ihe mosi produciive decade of my life ai Columbia Universiiy during
ihe 1970s, wriiing four iimes as many books and ariicles as I had during ihe
1960s or 1980s. Academic and ariisiic life in New York Ciiy deserves much of
ihe credii. One was always obviously on some sori of creaiive froni line in New
York. My wife Shirley was also a painier, a quilier, and a choral singer of some
noie. I personally carried oui research projecis on childrens flm making and
iheir dramaiic gifs. Also, I joined wiih oihers io launch a new socieiy dedi-
caied io ihe consideraiion of play. Known iniiially as Te Associaiion for ihe
Anihropological Siudy of Play, ii laier shoriened iis name io Te Associaiion
for ihe Siudy of Play (TASP).
I was presideni for a year, and aferward sunered ihrough ihe only roasi
ihe socieiy ever held. Ii was a raucous anair, wiih ihe well-prepared speakers
someiimes aiming ihe kind of polished obsceniiies ai me iypical of such evenis,
io which I responded wiih some cheeky language of my own. I found ihe whole
ihing hilarious, as did mosi of ihe audience, bui ihe occasionally blue naiure of
ihe evening led some of our more sensiiive or conveniional members io resign
from ihe socieiy.
Since ihen I have received ihree, less coniroversially conducied festschris
celebraiing my scholarship, iwo from an anihropological associaiion and ihe
oiher from a group of developmenial psychologisis. More recenily, I was inviied
io leciure in Belgium for ihe fve-hundredih anniversary of ihe Universiiy of
Leuven. Tere I ialked mosily aboui ihe greai ffeenih-ceniury Flemish ariisi
Pieier Bruegel, whose painiings included numerous games. As a resuli, Roland
Renson, a professor ai ihe universiiys School of Physical Educaiion, began
sponsoring new iheses on ihe subjeci, and I served as a visiiing professor ihere
for some years. (I also occasionally leciured in Swiizerland, Sweden, Norway,
Denmark, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Mauriiius, andmore recenilySpain
and ihe U.K. [i.e., York and Wales].)
In any case, during ihai ever-so-produciive decade of ihe 1970s, I also
received several awards for my research on ioys. I frsi iook up ioys early in
ihe decade when ihe American ioy companies had come under aiiack for ihe
purporied racism and sexism of iheir producis. Te manufaciurers did noi
know whai iheir ioys meaniin oiher words, ihey lacked ihe basic social
science necessary even io undersiand ihe charges, much less io answer ihem.
So ihey asked me, who did undersiand ihe social and culiural impori of ioys,
io iravel around ai iheir expense and iell folks aboui ioys.
I did a few ielevision iours, mei all kinds of famous characiers, speni early
mornings in innumerable green rooms wiih movie siars and poliiicians of
every ilk, and ihen weni on air io discuss wiih ialk-show hosis how ioys
apari from iheir simulaiive valuewere a form of economic iraining and
socializaiion for coniemporary children. I poinied oui again and again, in ihe
modern wesiern world, unlike in iradiiional colleciive socieiies, we work in
large measure alone ai our desks using our imaginaiions. And soliiary play
wiih ioys helps acculiuraie us io such a world. Tese iours and some invesiiga-
iions funded by various research granis culminaied in Toys as Culture (1986),
which some proclaimed as ihe frsi look ai ihe subjeci from ihe perspeciive
of ihe social sciences.
Wiih all ihis as background, we can now reiurn io ihe analysis of ieasing.
Tis iime, however, we can see ii more clearly in culiural ierms.
Pl ay Theor y 103
Teasing As Culture
Jean L. Briggs probably gives us ihe mosi ihorough accounis aboui ihe role of
ieasing play during child rearing in her books Inuit Morality Play (1998) and
Never in Anger (1970). In boih works she describes ihe ieasing play of ihe Inuii
Eskimo iribes of Bamn Island, Nunavui, Canada, deiailing how some Inuii
adulis dramaiically play wiih iwo- io four-year-old children. Te parenior
someiimes anoiher aduliposes a dimculi, perilous, or novel quesiion.
Are you siill a baby:
Is your moiher good:
Are you good:
Do you wani io come and live wiih me:
Why doni you kill your baby broiher:
Why doni you die so I can have your nice new shiri:
Your moihers going io die. Look, she cui her fnger. Do you wani io
come and live wiih me:
Are you loveable: Are you really:
No, youre noi. Youre no good.
13
Te adulis, playfully exaggeraiing, ai frsi ask ihese negaiive quesiions
inirusively, aggressively, loudly. Tey ihen employ ihese perilous ieasings
repeaiedly in a paradoxically good-humored and playful way. Using ieasing,
ihey aim io wean iheir children from infaniile aiiiiudes and encourage ihem
io accepi ihe prevailing (and, in ihis case, unspoken) quieiisi survival values
of ihe group. Tese public values include emoiional reserve and appropriaie
cool behavior in inieraciions wiih oiher children, adulis, and sirangers.
Te Inuii generally forbid ihe open expression of anger and sadness wiihin
ihe family. And ihese emoiions are noi supposed io exisi ai all in ihe larger
communiiy. (Some ouiside invesiigaiors, however, have voiced skepiicism
aboui ihese poinis.) Te ieasing aims io ieach children behaviors ihai show
respeci bui noi fear iowards oihers and ihai cauiion ihem regarding danger-
ous people and animals. Te relaiionship beiween such survival or shock play
and ihe environmenial and social coniexis of ihe Inuii seems clear. Teir
nomadic and ice-bound lifesiyle requires iniense cooperaiion. In ihese iribes,
survival depends upon consiani collaboraiive work, shared beliefs, and social
coordinaiion.
Te paradox is ihai ihe Inuii respond io shock in iheir own lives by pro-
voking ii in iheir children, ihereby gradually ieaching ihem io avoid being
shocked. Noiably, ihey doni begin ihe iraining uniil afer ihe frsi iwo years
of loving coniaci. Bui ihe infani play is clearly a form of socializaiion. Ii is fun
bui ai a price.
To daie, Judy S. DeLoache and Alma Goiilieb have conducied ihe only
oiher siudy examining a similar number of cross-culiural conirasis of ihe role of
socializaiion in ihe playful ieasing wiih infanis. In A World of Babies (2000), ihe
auihors bring iogeiher anihropological informaiion aboui ieasing as ii relaies io
child rearing in six of ihe worlds older socieiies: ihe Ifaluks of Micronesia; ihe
Muslims of Turkey; ihe Fulani of Africa; ihe Balinese of Indonesia; ihe Warlpiri
of Ausiralia; and ihe Beng of Africa. For each socieiy, ihe auihors develop a
hypoiheiical, modern, Benjamin Spock-like child-rearing manual, supposedly
based on whai ihey have derived from ihe group anihropologically. In oiher
words, ihey self-consciously provide us wiih a kind of Dr. Spock inierpreiaiion
for each of ihese culiures.
Lei me summarize iheir daia on ieasing. Two of ihese six socieiiesihe
Ifaluks of ihe Caroline Islands in Micronesia and a village of Muslims in ceniral
Anaiolia in Wesi Turkeyavoid ieasing aliogeiher. Insiead, ihey praciice con-
siderable genileness wiih infanis. For ihe Fulani of Wesi Africa, ieasing exisis
bui has no relaiionship wiih child play. Insiead, a group of adulis direcis insulis
and ieasing ioward ihe new moiher. Tis ieasing, ihe auihors say, is someihing
ihai a compeieni moiher musi ioleraie if she expecis io learn all she needs io
know from ihe oihers. Ai ihe same iime, ihe moiher iries io avoid referring io
her baby in posiiive ierms and wishes io preveni oihers from doing ihe same,
as ihis behavior could make her child vulnerable io ihef by wiiches. Te Fulani
commonly roll a child in cow dung io fool greedy spiriis inio ihinking ihai ihe
child is noi worih iaking. Addiiionally, a Fulani moiher occasionally insulis
her child io see ihai ii accepis ihe auihoriiy of adulis. In iurn, Fulanis encour-
age children io insuli even younger children, ihereby conserving ihe social
hierarchy of elders over beginners. While ihis negaiiviiy mighi verge on play
in ihe hands of adulis or children, we have no evidence of ihai.
Te remaining ihree socieiies, however, do show signs of ieasing in a play-
ful fashion. Te Balinese of Indonesia, who, wiih iheir emphasis on personal
emoiional conirol as valuable behavior, seem io iease iheir children so ihai ihey
learn io mainiain composure in ihe face of shocking siimuli (a behavior noi
unlike ihai of ihe Inuii). One of iheir parenial iechniques involves children of
Pl ay Theor y 105
aboui iwo years old. Parenis borrow a younger baby from anoiher family and
play wiih ii so ihai iheir own baby becomes iniensely jealous. DeLoache and
Goiilieb oner ihe following praciical advice in lighi of ihis praciice:
Your young child will experience sirong emoiions and may ihrow ian-
irums. Your job is io help him or her learn how io remain calm even
in ihe face of upseiiing siiuaiions. . . . Play wiih ihe baby, or even lei
ihe baby nurse from your breasis, while your child waiches. Of course,
ihis will make your own child feel jealous, and a ianirum may ensue.
Doni become angry or punish ihe childindeed, doni reaci sirongly
ai all. Tis will encourage your son or daughier io fnd a way io deal
wiih ihe naiural feelings of jealousy. Ten, ihe nexi iime you borrow
a baby, your child may reaci more calmly and may even play wiih ihe
liiile one. Be sure io convey how proud you are of ihis new appropriaie
behavior. . . . If you use siraiegies like ihis one, by ihe age of ihree or
four your child will have developed equanimiiy in ihe face of provoca-
iions, disappoinimenis, or frusiraiions.
14
Here ihe shock of ihis play wiih anoiher by ihe moiher becomes a kind of
moraliiy iale and a raiher hard form of shock play for ihe child. In a sense, ihe
baby remains beref uniil he or she fnally accepis ihai ihe moiher is only play-
ing wiih ihe oiher baby and ihai ihe baby is noi iaking his or her place. In ihis
case, ieasing is a clear-cui, if playful, insirumeni of socializaiion, insiigaiing
shock in ihe child ihai he or she musi overcome in order io be accepied. Mosi
imporianily, ihe play is a useful way io gain a childs obedience io ihese culiural
codes of behavioral equanimiiy. Te parenis use such weaning play, iherefore,
io saiisfy iheir desire for iheir own childs appropriaie socializaiion.
Te Walpiri socieiy lays modesi claim io a more posiiive kind of shock
as play. Tese aboriginals in ihe norihern ierriiories of Ausiralia iease iheir
babies by imiiaiing baby ialk uniil ihey are aboui fve years old. Tis behavior
aims io preserve ihe childs infancy because ihe parenis claim iheir children are
siill ioo young io speak properly. Tis ieasing fis inio ihe adulis more general
joking and ieasing of each oiher, io which ihe children become accusiomed
and, in due course, replicaie amongsi ihemselves. Raiher ihan being simply a
iechnique of socializaiion by ihe aduli, ihese behaviors illusiraie more clearly
a general shared ieasing play form beiween child and aduli.
Te mosi siriking and playful ieasers (io us adulis anyway) come from ihe
Ivory Coasi African socieiy of ihe Beng. Tere parenis ieach iheir children io
insuli iheir grandparenis as a way of making ihe children feel free and familiar
wiih ihese older relaiives, ihereby encouraging close and loving iies beiween
babies and iheir grandparenis. Te Beng reach a level of highly enjoyable shock
play unparalleled among ihe oiher groups, bui lei me poini oui ihai ihe play,
however enjoyable, has again been converied inio a form of socializaiion. As
DeLoache and Goiilieb say of ihe Beng:
Afer learning io greei poliiely, ihe nexi ihing your baby musi learn is
how io iease ceriain relaiives by iossing diriy names ai ihem. Anyone
your liiile one calls Grandma and Grandpanoi jusi your parenis and
your husbands parenis, bui all iheir sisiers and broihers as wellwill
iease your baby son by calling him jokingly, Shii prick! Red prick!
Raw shii scroium! or your daughier, Shii cuni! Black cuni! Tiny
cuni! Your child will soon learn ihai ihis is all in good fun and you
should ieach ihe liiile one io engage in ihe repariee by laughingly shoui-
ing back diriy insulis. Tere is noihing cuier ihan a one-and-a-half-
year-old shrieking oui wiih delighi, You red balls! io her doddering
grandfaiher or, You black asshole! io his old grandmoiher. Laier
when you become much siricier wiih your children, ii will be a com-
fori io ihem io have such a relaxed and ieasing relaiionship wiih iheir
grandparenis. Tey may even seek refuge wiih ihem if you chasiise or
punish ihem ioo severely one day.
13
DeLoache and Goiiliebs several case siudies demonsiraie ihai, ihroughoui
ihe course of childhood, ihese complex evenis allow play and realiiy socializa-
iion io peneiraie each oiher in a varieiy of ways. Play is noi simply separaied
from realiiy by ihe meia-communicaiion ihai, Tis is play, as Gregory Baie-
son, philosopher, anihropologisi, and naiuralisi has poinied oui. Te preseni
ieasing play eveni raiher begins as one realiiy for ihe child (shock) and ends as
anoiher realiiy for ihe aduli (socializaiion).
16
Such a process mighi seem relaiively unimporiani excepi ihai we fnd ii
replicaied in iodays schools in whai is called curriculum play. Some claim
ihai curriculum play rouiines insiigaie and suppori higher levels of liieracy,
narraiive conirol, reciprocal perspeciive iaking, and so on. Te same kind of
iransformaiion also occurs in organized sporis play, where children are direcily
coached in ihe skill and moraliiy of iheir sporiing iasks. Adulis deploy coaching
Pl ay Theor y 107
rheioric io onsei ihe ihreai ihai comes along wiih ihe dimculiies of acquiring
ihe relevani skills. Even in iheir own play, children ofen mimic real sporis and
acquire some vesiige of sporiing skill.
For example, I rememberas I recorded in Our Streetwe invenied a game
of kicking ihrough ihe rugby uprighis ai ihe local park. You had io kick from
ihe spoi ai which ihe ball arrived when kicked by one of ihe oiher players. You
goi ihree poinis for a drop kick, iwo for a place kick, and one for a puni. Tis
weni on endlessly, bui ii paid on years laier, when I goi io be capiain of ihe
second rugby ieam in my primary school, and ihe only poinis we scored in ihe
one maich we played ihai year were ihe ihree poinis of my penaliy drop kick.
We losi ihe game, bui I neveriheless became famous locally for ihe kick and
weni on playing righi ihrough high school iill I fnally goi my cap for being in
ihe frsi ffeen. Ii was my momeni of primeval glory, and ihe cap siill hangs
on my wall.
Te praciical similariiy beiween ihe uses of play in ihe pasiieasingand
in ihe presenicurriculum and sporis playsuggesis ihai we should look again
and skepiically ai ihe modern noiion of play as a realm of soliiary imaginaiive
freedom, auionomy, and nonfunciionaliiy. Our ieasing examples indicaie ihai
in earlier culiures ai leasi play was much less a world of freedom bui also less
a world of negleci ihan we imagine ii ioday. Indeed, ihis cross-culiural daia
aboui exiended family ieasing colleciives indicaie ihai in spiie of our modern
concepiions of play, aduli-orienied child play was aciually quiie as prevaleni
in ihe ancieni world as ii is in our coniemporary socieiy. And, ironically, many
modern, poliiically correci adulis would probably prefer ihese kinds of aduli-
coached play io iheir childrens own auionomous and faniasiic creaiions.
Modern evidence of ihe baiile over coniemporary play coaching comes from
ihe Uniied Kingdoms Playwork Program. Tis is a governmeni-subsidized,
afer-school-hours, day-care program employing universiiy-irained play ieach-
ers io look afer ihe children of working couples. Ai preseni ihe play workers,
who believe ihai ihe oui-of-school iime should be used for building childrens
learning skills, are waging an ideological war againsi ihose who feel ihai ihe
afer-school hours should be speni in free play iime. Tese laiier poini io, say,
modern Adveniure Playgrounds, where children can use iheir imaginaiion io
bring innovaiive play apparaius io life. Whai mosi amazes me, however, is ihis:
all over England, you can now gei a bachelors degree in play. I have leciured io
iwo of ihese warring groups, one in Leeds and ihe oiher in Wales, in 2006 and
2007, respeciively. Teir iniense focus onand exciiemeni overihe various
kinds of play, and on which is appropriaie ai whai level of childhood, very much
graiifes me.
Regardless of ihe ouicome of ihis ideological siruggle, ii seems clear io me
ihai ieasingwhich afer all was our poini of depariure hereoners several
ways for children io siruggle wiih ihe dangers of socieiy ihrough pareni-guided
play represeniaiions. Tese ieasing plays are an exiraordinary adapiaiion io ihe
perils of survival, endowing boih parenis and children wiih a higher kind of
muiual social iniegraiion. As sociologisi Emile Durkheim mighi have said, ihe
play is a unique, formulaied realiiy in ihai ii boih symbolizes and supporis ihe
cohesion beiween parenis and children as ihey face lifes ihreaiening evenis.
Te aduli-orienied play we have laiely been discussing helps beiier iniegraie
children inio complicaied socieiies ihan does, say, everyday soliiary play. Our
conclusion is ihai ieasing is an iniiiaiion, a form of play ihai helps a child deal
wiih being shocked, a form of play aimed ai aiding parenis in socializing of
iheir children. Mosi imporianily, ieasing is a form of play ihai represenis a
higher symbolic siaie of culiural iniegraiion for boih parenis and children, jusi
as Durkheim would have ii in his iime-iesied and siill-ienable hypoihesis.
17
Te quesiion ihen arises wheiher all social play has such cooperaiive un-
derpinnings in addiiion io ihe characier-building benefis ii oners individual
players. (In ihe case of ieasing, an example mighi be ihe ieaching of resilience.)
Looked ai in a ceriain lighi, we mighi see in ihe siudies I have meniioned ex-
amples of a sociobiological collaboraiion beiween aliruism (cooperaiion by
parenis wiih children) and selfshness (resilience by ihe children), raiher ihan
a siruggle beiween ihe iwo, which has been ihe drif of some argumenis by
reduciive sociobiological iheorisis.
In oiher words, our examples of ieasing suggesi noi merely ihe exisience of a
selfsh gene, bui of socially funciional, cooperaiive genes. Indeed, ihere are many
mundane examples among humans and oiher animals of cofunciional coopera-
iion wiihin species, wheiher ihai purpose is served by aliruism, by selfshness, or
by prudence. (Whenever we drive an auio and follow ihe laws, for example, we
engage in such prudeniial cooperaiion.) While ihe ieasings I have discussed may
have a geneiic basisin, say, ihe siimulus exchanges of pareni and childihey
also involve varied socializaiions and psychological aiiribuies. Tese iogeiherio
gei ahead of myself a liiilecreaie ihe kind of ieasing I include in ihe concepi of
coevoluiionary funciioning, which I develop below as one example of whai Peier
A. Corning would call ihe coevoluiionary synergies in his Holistic Darwinism:
Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution (2003).
Pl ay Theor y 109
I have been discussing ieasing in relaiion io ihe aduli socializaiion of play
(and some of ihe cross-culiural variables of ieasing ihai are imporiani io my
inierpreiaiion of play) as if my wife and I knew exacily whai we were up io
when we frsi began ieasing our kids. Bui of course we never suspecied we were
involved in ihe socializaiion of our children. We ieased ihem because ii was
fun. Ii was fun io inieraci wiih ihem, io see ihem laugh or frei for a momeni,
and ihen io laugh wiih ihem. Bui while we were playing ihese games wiih our
own children in ihe 1930s and 1960s, ihe evidence was mouniing all around us
in developmenial psychological liieraiure ihai such siimulaiion of children
fun or noicorrelaied wiih cogniiive success in nursery school. Ai ihe iime,
experis were unceriain wheiher ihis meani play was ihe causal aniecedeni of
such cogniiive developmeni or wheiher ihere was simply underlying pareni-
child correlaiion in inielligence and playful predisposiiion.
To complicaie maiiers, ihe lasi ffy years have wiinessed unprecedenied
levels in wesiern culiure of media-child siimulaiion ihrough newspapers, ra-
dio, ielevision, video games, compuiers, ihe Iniernei, mass-produced ioys and
games, cell phones, and ihe like. Tese media supplemenis have made ii in-
creasingly common for parenis io socialize iheir children inio ihis iniense and
varied siimulaiion, which parenis ihemselves now experience. Tus, alihough
new forms of play ioday surely consiiiuie a meihod of socializaiion, ihey mighi
be more specifcally a means io habiiuaie infanis and young children io ihe
high cogniiive energy levels and ihe personal informaliiies increasingly valued
in ihe modern, consumer-informaiion-orienied world. Noi surprisingly, in
a civilizaiion ihai spends so much on enieriainmeni, ihe abiliiy playfully io
join or lead ihe enieriainmeni of oihers has become a valued and direci form
of adapiaiion. We mighi consider ihis abiliiy in adulis as a meiaplay funciion
because ii involves professionally playing wiih play.
All of which makes clear jusi how ambiguous play can be. Play is boih
auionomous and heieronomous in varying degrees, depending on ihe kinds
of play. One cannoi simply defne play in ierms of iis represeniaiional conieni.
One musi also know ihe culiural coniexi in which ihe play under consideraiion
iakes place in order io evaluaie iis characier, which I mighi add was a major
iheme of e Ambiguity of Play. Bui Ive come io believe ii now possible io gei
beyond ihese complexiiies wiih a discussion aboui play as a more evoluiionary
concepi, a discussion of ihe cooperaiive inierlay of geneiics and culiure io be
found wiihin ihe varied forms of play.
New Thoughts about Play Theory in Retirement
Up uniil 1990 when I reiired, I had been embroiled in ihe professional plural-
isms of academic life. In my lasi years, for example, I was a direcior of ihe Hu-
man Relaiions Program, bui I was also ihe chairman for our Graduaie School
of Educaiion. I speni far ioo much iime in faculiy meeiings, arranged in pari
I believe because I broughi a sense of playmosily verbal lighinessio ihese
occasions and, whenever possible, helped preveni ihe dean from losing his
iemper. I also headed ihe ienure commiiiee, which was hard work in ihe spring
semesier. Bui worse ihan ihai, ii meani wresiling wiih ihe quesiion of who goi
ienure, always a grim business because of ihe devasiaiing impaci iis denial has
on someones life. I used io meei regularly wiih my greai colleague Erling E.
Boe, associaie dean and professor, ai his place for mariinis on Monday nighis
io ploi ihe course of campus joy and iragedy.
Ten, all of a sudden, came reiiremeni, which lef me wiih only my research
io worry over and ihink aboui, excepi for a bii of world iravel wiih my wife on
various boais and barges. Ai lasi I had iime io ihink ihings ihrough more io
my saiisfaciion, which has resulied inhow shall I sayihicker books like
e Ambiguity of Play and a volume yei io come, ieniaiively eniiiled, Play as
Emoiional Survival. Te frsi of ihese I had iold Harvard Press in 1990 would
be fnished in a year or so, bui ii came oui some seven years laier. As for ihe laier
work, I am noi seeking a publisher uniil I am sure ihe iime has come io bury ihe
case. I have aciually fnished ihe work iwice and ihen unraveled ii in ihe lighi
of furiher informaiion. In addiiion, play, all of a sudden, has become among
oiher ihings a sociopoliiical maiier of some complexiiy, and I wani io consider
ihe role of such a phenomenon in ihe markeiplace as well as in ihe playpen.
None of which siops me from sharing some of my preliminary ihinking
wiih you now.
My Third Play TheoryPlay as a
Coevolutionary Multiplex of Functions
In making ihe case for my frsi iwo play iheories, I have emphasized iheir fun,
iheir viabiliiy, and iheir culiural relaiiviiies. Bui much more is required for a
compleie analysis of ihe many varied play forms.
Pl ay Theor y 111
In e Ambiguity of Play, I focussed on whai I called ihe rheiorics of
play. Esseniially ihese had derived from my iweniy-year membership in Te
Associaiion for ihe Siudy of Play, because ihe organizaiion included many
kinds of academicsanihropologisis, folklorisis, sociologisis, psychologisis,
hisiorians, zoologisis, philosophers, ariisis, and biologisis, among oihers. In
my early dealings wiih ihese diverse scholars, I arroganily decided ihai mosi
of ihem did noi know whai ihey were ialking aboui. Uliimaiely I realized ihis
was my problemihe bias of an ill-informed psychologisinoi iheirs. Teir
scholarship was ofen ouisianding, and gradually I undersiood ihai each dis-
cipline had iis own noiions aboui play, dinereni noiions from mine, noiions
wiih which in due course I had io come io ierms. Tus I formulaied ihe seven
rheiorics of play.
In brief, I believed ihai, when mosi of ihese scholars ialked aboui play,
ihey fundamenially presupposed ii io be eiiher a form of progress, an exercise
in power, a reliance on faie, a claim for ideniiiy, a form of frivoliiy, an issue
of ihe imaginaiion, or a manifesiaiion of personal experience. My argumeni
held ihai play was ambiguous, and ihe evidence for ihai ambiguiiy lay in ihese
quiie dinereni scholarly ways of viewing play. Furiher, over ihe years ii became
clear io me ihai much of play was by iiselfin iis very naiure, we mighi say
inieniionally ambiguous (as, for example, is ieasing) regardless of ihese seven
general culiural frames.
Since I wroie e Ambiguity of Play, ii has become even more obvious io
me ihai ihe culiural-frame approach io play consiiiuies only one layer of an
evoluiionary muliiplex of ludic funciions. Decades of research inio mammal
and primaie evoluiion and inio ihe origins of language have recenily shown
ihai each of my ludic sysiems has muliiple characierisiics across a varieiy of
relevani funciional domains. Tere are nexi io no simple causes or processes io
accouni for ihe characierisiics of ihese evoluiionary funciions. Te iwo iheo-
ries of play Ive already discussedvoluniariness and viabiliiy, my frsi and
second iheoriesmay for ceriain be frequenily characierisiic of play, bui ihey
are abseni from some play forms.
Afer all, ihere is much of ihe involuniary aboui frequenily conforming io
ihe wanis of oihers in social play. And ihe afermaihs of play experiences are
noi always posiiive, as I discovered long ago in Windy Wellingion. So, like ihe
133 or so play concepis lisied in ihe Ambiguity of Play, my frsi and second
iheories accouni for only some of ihe variance in many forms of play. Tey
are all irue for some forms of play and some aspecis of play, bui noi for all of
ihem. As a siep iowards a more comprehensive ihird iheory of play, ihen, I
have ouilined below a hypoihesis io accouni for ihe relevani muliiple layers of
play and iheir poieniial iniegraiion.
Adaptive Layer 1Evolutionary Conict Origins of Play
Tere are several kinds of speculaiion aboui ihe origins of play:
(a) Te frsi holds ihai play originaies as a muiaiion and iherefore an
amelioraiion of dangerous adapiaiional conficis. According io
John Allman in Evolving Brains, ihis play muiaiion consiiiuies a
pre-exisiing geneiic funciion.
18
(b) Some scholars claim ihe mosi fundamenial confici arises beiween
dangerous and muiually ihreaiening opponenis. In siudies of such
conficis, 80 perceni of ihe iime creaiures from anis io mammals
aciually engaged in defensive riiuals or simply reiired from ihe
feld of baiile.
19
(c) Over iime ihese defensive riiuals have increasingly incorporaied
whai we mighi call imiiaiive represeniaiions boih as a way of emu-
laiing serious conficis and as a way io avoid engaging in ihem.
Richard Schechner in Performance Studies gives us a muliiiude
of cross-culiural examples of relaiionships beiween riiual perfor-
mances and play.
20
(d) Gordon Burghardi asseris in e Genesis of Animal Play ihai mam-
mals as a class of animalone ihai survived ihe exiinciion of di-
nosaurs sixiy-fve million years agocharacierisiically proiecied
iheir young by developing play siimulaiion io replace oiher, more
dangerous siimulaiions from which mammals now shielded iheir
infanis.
21
Obviously all of ihese inierpreiaiions can hold irue ai ihe same iime.
Adaptive Layer 2Reexive and Reective
To refne ihis confici-reduciion paradigm a liiile, ii seems possible io me ihai
even sixiy-fve million years ago, mammals adapied noi only by using iheir
ancieni refexive responses bui also by using refeciive responses, ihose which
gave ihem iime io consider iheir aliernaiives. In oiher words, ihey could ihink
before ihey acied as well as aci insianily.
Pl ay Theor y 113
Te danger for ihemand ihis would be irue for early humanswas ihai
ihey mighi choose ihe wrong aliernaiive, ihinking before ihey acied raiher
ihan aciing insiinciively, which given ceriain condiiions could mean insiani
deaih. So over iime mammals developed a ihird response, which we call play,
ihai imiiaied confici bui removed iis immediaie dangers and reduced ihe ien-
sions ihai accompany such confici. Tis play also had ihe poieniial benefi of
providing exercise of a kind ihai mighi subsequenily help when real confici
occurred. Animal play iheorisis suggesi someihing similar perhaps when ihey
ialk aboui how play has developed as a negaiive behavioral signal in creaiures
wiihoui language or wiihoui ihe abiliiy io oiherwise signal negaiion.
Adaptive Layer 3The Duality of Primary and Secondary Emotions
If we accepi ihe assumpiion ihai play emerges as an imiiaiive mediaiion of ihe
refexive-refeciive adapiive dualiiy, ihen ii should follow ihai ihe naiure of play
can be described as a dynamic dualiiy of coniending forces, ihai is as dialudic.
Te mosi ancieni refexive level implies immediaie and ofen irraiional
expressions and aciions, while ihe laier refeciive responses imply enoris ai
moderaiion noi unlike ihose iradiiional in playriiuals, rules, and referees.
Perhaps some neurological suppori for ihe exisience of such a dualiiy lies in
ihe combaiive inieraciions beiween ihe ancieni amygdala region of ihe hypo-
ihalamus and ihe more modern prefronial coriex of ihe brain.
22
We can fnd more immediaie evidence of ihe dualiiy, however, in ihe re-
laiionships beiween ihe primary and secondary emoiions as ihey manifesi
ihemselves wiihin various forms of play. Some argue, for example, primary
emoiions exisi ihai provide ihe moiivaiions for various iypes of play. Accord-
ing io Anionio Damasio in Descartes Error, ihese primary emoiionslocaied
in ihe amygdalaare shock, anger, fear, disgusi, sadness, and happiness.
23
Tese expressive emoiions appear ceniral io pariicular iypes of playshock
(or surprise) is a major moiivaiion in ieasing and hazing; anger is a major moii-
vaiion in physical or menial coniesis; fear is a major moiivaiion in risk iaking,
wheiher physical as in many kinds of spori or menial as in games of chance;
disgusi is a major moiivaiion in ihe play forms ihai use profaniiy; sadness is a
major moiivaiion behind many fesiivals; and happiness is a major moiivaiion
in all of ihe above forms of play.
Wiih ihe second side of our dualiiy come ihe rules, iradiiions, and referees
for ihe conirol of ihe emoiions connecied wiih expressive play, which are in iurn
moiivaied by emoiions of iheir own. Tese can all apply io all of ihe above play
forms. Te major conirolling moiive remains, of course, happiness, bui ihis is
supplemenied by such posiiive, rule-relaied emoiions as pride, empaihy, and
envy and by ihe more conirolling negaiive emoiions such as embarrassmeni,
guili, and shame. If ihe Darwinian concepi of ihe siruggle for survival indeed
fnds a place in play, ii is probably and mosi appropriaiely relaied io ihe urgency
of ihe primary and secondary emoiions.
Adaptive Layer 4The Duality of Play Performances
Wiihin play iiself ihese emoiions fnd iheir direci expression in ihe dualiiies
ihai surround ihe performances of ihe players. Teasers and hazers harass iheir
subjecis, and compeiiiors aiiack each oiher. Bui ihose who prevail againsi ihe ha-
rassmeni and aiiacks overcome ihe anger ihai moiivaies ihem wiih resilience and
vigilance, enabling ihem io come io ierms wiih ihe complexiiy of ihe siiuaiion
and mouni ihe besi defense. Tose flled wiih fear ai ihe enormiiy of iheir own
risk iaking fnd ihe courage io siay focussed and ignore ihe fear long enough io
compleie ihe challenge ihey have sei for ihemselves. Arrogani players someiimes
disgusi speciaiors wiih iheir iconoclasm bui ofen make iheir unorihodoxies ul-
iimaiely accepiable wiih iheir wii and iheir humor. Sad, lonely people gei caughi
up in ihe exuberances of ihe privaie pariies or public fesiivals ihey aiiend and
aci uncharacierisiically friendly and joyful. Te bored or apaiheiic escape iheir
subjeciive funks in play experiences ai ihe local movie houses, iheaiers, sporis
arenas, gyms, playgrounds, casinos, you name ii. Tis is play being valued in
oniological ierms. One wins or loses bui mosi imporianily one feels dinerenily
aboui oneself, somehow more fulflled, perhaps more accomplished.
Adaptive Layer 5Dualistic Cultural Scripts
We have gone from geneiics, io anecis, io performances, bui fnally we have io
concede ihe culiural relaiiviiy of much of ihe above discourse, since each of iis
levels arises from culiural processes, processes which in iurn diciaie ihe scripi
for ihese represeniaiions of play.
Teasing and hazing, for example, are more iypical of culiures where real
iniiiaiion riies ensure ihe dimculiy of joining imporiani social groups. Similarly,
coniesis iend io iake place more ofen in socieiies concerned wiih various kinds
of compeiiiive resoluiion io iheir problems, socieiies ihai value huniing and
warfare, socieiies where criminals and enirepreneurs abound. Games of chance
and risk iaking occur in socieiies ihai evidence sirong belief in ihe power of
ihe spiriiual fgures of iheir myihologies, wheiher ihese are beliefs, say, in a
Pl ay Theor y 115
magnifcenily infniie God or a more mundane Lady Luck. Iconoclasiic play is
ofen found in socieiies where conficis rage over orihodox belief and behavior.
Finally, plays valued for iheir subjeciive, experieniial qualiiies (play in which
one fows, for example, or is in ihe zone, or simply has vivid feelings) express
socieiies like our ownmodern, individualisiic, consumer socieiies. Te frsi
play iheory I discussed, which emphasized ihe viabiliiy of play in iis afer-enecis,
would for example be included in ihis oniological caiegory. Play has worih, we
said, if ii projecis feelings of saiisfaciion inio ihe posi-play world.
In sum, ihe represeniaiions and funciioning of any of ihese forms of ex-
pressive-regulaiive mediaiion, which we call play, are characierized by dualiiies
ihai are geneiic, aneciive, performaiive, experieniial, and culiurally relaiive.
Jusi as we saw a dualiiy in ihe emoiions relaied io playa dualiiy refecied
in neurology and in biological adapiaiionswe show a dualiiy in performances
connecied io play. Ii is probable ihai wiihin groups and wiihin dinereni social
sysiems ihere are also binary relaiionships. Corning says of such dialudic par-
allels in his Holistic Darwinism, ihe key io evoluiion is noi any single prime
mover bui ihe eniire suiie of cooperaiive behavioral, culiural, and morphologi-
cal inveniions.
24

Te parallelism of ihese dualisiic funciions for Corning can be described
as a synergy of synergies orfrom our poini of viewa dualiiy (ihe dialudic)
of dualiiies. Play is a complex phenomenon wiih many levels, and any ac-
cepiable iheory of play needs io encompass all of ihem and accouni for iheir
exisience. Indeed, ihe neurological and evoluiionary developmenis involved
poini io someihing more complex ihan Darwins noiion of naiural seleciion
as ihe single driving force behind evoluiionary change. To ihe conirary, ihe
concepi of naiural seleciion may have biased us io favor uniiary explanaiions
and prevenied us from appreciaiing jusi how complex ihese maiiers become.
According io receni research by Douglas H. Erwin, evoluiionary ouicomes
are likely also io depend on complex, funciional, iniernal, and sponianeous
neurological developmenis wiihin ihe genes ihemselves.
23
Pui more simply, play as we know ii is primarily a foriifcaiion againsi ihe
disabiliiies of life. Ii iranscends lifes disiresses and boredoms and, in general,
allows ihe individual or ihe group io subsiiiuie iheir own enjoyable, fun-flled,
iheairics for oiher represeniaiions of realiiy in a iacii aiiempi io feel ihai life is
worih living. Tai is whai we called earlier play viabiliiy. In many cases as well,
play leis us exercise physical or menial or social adapiaiions ihai iranslaie
direcily or indirecilyinio ordinary life adjusimenis.
All ihe iheories peppering ihe play liieraiure probably have some relevani
grounding in ihis complex neurology and behavior. I lisied some of ihe con-
neciions in e Ambiguity of Play, and I feli ii would be rewarding when ihey
all have been locaied and iniegraied in ierms of culiural frames, specifc games,
emoiional expressions, and performance dialudics.
26
Bui ihai lay in ihe fuiure,
and I believed ihe curreni accouni of ihe dualiiies remained ioo concepiual.
I hoped io fnd ii evideni ai some more coniemporary and experieniial level,
which goi me ihinking how ihese dualiiies mighi appear among children jusi
learning how io play by preiending.
The Infant Echo of Plays Dualities
In ialk of evoluiion, we began wiih ihe muiaiion inio play of ihe dangers of life
by refexive-refeciive mammals. Tere mighi appear io be, ai frsi blush, some
biological equaliiy beiween ihe refexive and refeciive responses, wiih neiiher
leading especially io a more enhanced life or a more sudden deaih. Pariicularly
from a human reirospeciive, we should probably give increasing weighi io ihe
refeciive aciiviiy, since ii resulied over iime in ihe pluralisiic socieiies, ihe
muliiple languages, and ihe increasingly rule-bound civilizaiions our games
came io refeci. In my own research, I have found ihai ihe more complex so-
cieiies have ihe mosi complex games, which are besi symbolized, perhaps, by
ihe complexiiies of games of siraiegy such as chess.
We should probably also presume ihai in culiural evoluiion ihese second-
ary and refeciive anecis gradually gained ground over ihe more insiinciive
primary emoiions, ihough ihese laiier mighi remain sumcienily iroubling
culiurally io mainiain iheir roles as represeniaiions in ihe games played. We
have already discussed how ihe primary coriex (ihe refeciive operaiions) con-
sirained ihe insiinciive amygdala (ihe refexive operaiions) io produce accepi-
able rule boundaries. Bui which side of ihe dualiiy, insiinci or guile, should
prove mosi esseniial for successes wiihin ihe games ihemselves, seems io me
a ioss up, wheiher we discuss sporis, chance, siraiegy, profaniiy, fesiivals, or
cynosural performers. More imporiani was ihai we envisioned play as es-
seniially a muiaiion, a synihesis of ihis dualiiy of emoiional expression and
emoiional regulaiion.
Bui how is ihis synihesis learned in early childhood: If we look ai ihe very
beginnings of play in ihe frsi few years of life, we discover ihere is a hierarchy
Pl ay Theor y 117
in how children learn iheir own dualisiic play. And here I quoie from my old
and dear, now-deparied professor, Greia Fein:
1. Ai frsi ihe young children have io learn ihe immediaie realiiy of ihe
disiinciion of having or noi having access io ihe iniernal preience
play arena. And ihis is where ihere are ofen greai dimculiies in
being accepied by oiher players who are already in ihe play frame.
Bui ihe play frame when negoiiaied provides immediaie iranscen-
dence from ihe ordinary realiiy of noi knowing how io share privaie
meanings.
2. Ten ihere is ihe naiure of preience or symbolic play which is bloom-
ing in ihe roles and enacimenis of ihose who have already gained
access io ihe play frame. Leis play houses ihey mighi say or Leis
play circuses. In iheir now shared subjeciive worlds, ordinary social
rules aboui people or life in general can be violaied, someiimes wiih
much player enjoymeni ai ihese violaiions.
27
William Corsaros research demonsiraies ihe frsi poini quiie well.
28
Te second
fnds suppori above in my examples of siory and joke play. Bui whai may be
mosi imporiani in all of ihis is ihe benefi play anords each child, who gains
confdence in a varieiy of ihese play preience forms and ihereby develops an
inner, subjeciive life, a life ihai becomes ihe childs own relaiively privaie
possession.
Tus we veniure ihai ihe earliesi preiend play of iwo- io four-year-old chil-
dren serves as ihe basis for iheir developmeni of ihe dualiiy of privaie and public
ihai we adulis iake for granied. Adulis know ihai ihe discrepancies beiween
public and privaie are viial io our own lives and our ihoughi. Te sophisiicaied
ouicomes of aciing discreeily aboui whai we say publicly and whai we ihink
privaiely, for example, goes by ihe descripiions of having good manners or being
socially inielligeni or suppressing our laughier and impulses. On ihe oiher hand,
of course, ihere exisi some blundering people, inexperienced perhaps in ceriain
kinds of childhood play, who cannoi easily synihesize iheir public and privaie
dualiiies, which ofen reveals iiself in iheir obsessive, single-minded egoism.
Perhaps indeed ihis preiending or noi preiending consiiiuied ihe infaniile
subjeciive dualiiy ihai, for example, was ihe basis for ihe greaiesi of all Shake-
speares characiers, Hamlei, when he cried oui in his anger and his pain ihai
ihe ceniral quesiion was io be or noi io be. He saw his choice was io go on
sunering privaiely ihe slings and arrows of ouirageous foriune or, insiead, io
iake arms againsi his sea of iroubles, which he was experiencing privaiely, and
by opposing ihem, end ihem. In our case, we are supposing ihai ihe years of a
childs self-preiending could have provided him wiih ihe subjeciive confdence
io amrm ihe inner selfs desires io be and io iranslaie ihai desire appropriaiely
inio public consciousness.
I am suggesiing ihai preiending or noi preiending is an experieniial dual-
iiy, which in refeciive evoluiion has now developed semaniically beyond all
ihe earlier, more confned evoluiionary dualiies I have discussed. Again more
imporianily, in ihe early years of childhood, ihese preiend ludic worlds will
educaie ihe players in ihe semaniics of ihe subjeciive-objeciive dualiiy des-
iined io occupy iheir minds forever aferwards. In ihis way, children will learn
ihrough play in ihese early years ihai ordinary social objeciiviiy is one obvi-
ous ihing, iheir own personal subjeciive inieniions and conclusions anoiher,
and ihai boih are also relevani io iheir ihoughis and io iheir beings. While
ihe public rules of poliieness and fairness in social siiuaiions will lay obvious
claim io ihe children, iheir own minds will also adopi an iniernal and mosily
hidden framework, a framework for iheir personal, secrei, and usually privaie
enjoymeni. Tese early preiend games or preiend feelings or preiend morals
can become a pari of iheir personal, dualisiic heariland forever.
In shori, io pui ii blunily, preiend play begins a childs iraining in ihe
social dupliciiies. Whai fascinaies me here is ihe dualism in human ihoughi
beiween, on ihe one hand, ihe iriad of refexive responses io danger, ancieni
unconirollable emoiions, and ihe workings of ihe amygdala, and on ihe oiher
hand, a childs own privaie preiending ihai counieracis ihe power of ihese sub-
jeciive drives wiih equally wild sources of auionomous energy. Yei remember
ihai ihrough play many of ihese counierpublic negaiives are iniroduced inio a
civilizaiion under ihe conirol of ludic regulaiions (riiuals, rules, referees, and
so on). Tus children who grow up wiih early access io ihis kind of play and
who enjoy ludic suppori for ihe whimsy of iheir inner lives are likely io be
more sophisiicaied in iheir maiure social lives and more diplomaiically adepi
in iheir everyday social relaiions.
29
All ihis is pariicularly irue as ihese worlds of preiend meanings gradually
iake on ihe successive personal coloraiions of make believe, wishful ihink-
ing, day dreaming, primary processing, irony, allegories, baihos, parody, eu-
phemism, innuendo, inversion, and various rheiorics. Tese early subjeciive
preiences serve as a frsi iraining for ihe sophisiicaied semaniics of ihe social
Pl ay Theor y 119
world, iis muliiiude of languages, and iis ubiquiious and varied media. Despiie
ihe opposiiion of ihe reading-wriiing-and-ariihmeiic Puriians wiih iheir no-
child-lef-behind work eihic programs, ihe coniemporary world needs io be
aware of ihe layers of ludic dualiiy involved in forming ihe minds and menial
healih of ihe very young.
A New Zealand Epilogue
I was coniacied noi long ago by represeniaiives of ihe recenily esiablished New
Zealand Folklore Socieiy (in pariicular Moira Smiih) who have begun siudy-
ing childrens playground rhymes. Tey seni me a paper ihai ihey are on ihe
verge of publishing eniiiled Coniinuiiy and Change: Te Subversive World
of New Zealand Children. Tey repori ihai recenily iheir siudeni groups have
collecied some eighi-ihousand rhymes. (Perhaps ihis is whai happens when
you negleci ihe subjeci for ffy years.) Tey summarize iheir fndings ihis way:
Trough ihe vehicle of playground games, children could safely mock ihose
in auihoriiy or who held power over ihem, explore iheir developing sexualiiy
and iaboo subjecis (faris, poos, and wees), and commeni on fuiure life passages
and gender-based siereoiypes.
I include here ihe frsi rhymes ihey seni io me from iheir vasi colleciion:
On top of Mt. Egmont, all covered in sand
I shot my poor teacher, with a grey rubber band
I shot her with pleasure
I shot her with pride
I couldnt have missed her
She was 40feet wide.
I went to her funeral
I went to her grave
Some people threw owers
I threw a grenade
Her con went up, her con went down
Her con went splat all over the ground
I looked in her con, she still wasnt dead
So I got my bazooka and blew o her head.
Te only rhyme ihai I vaguely remember from my own exiirpaied colleciion
back in 1933 is miserable by conirasi io ihis one, bui will do as a fiiing whisper
io my old, now long-dead, examining chairman and serve perhaps as a small
reminder of whai ii was ihai aiiracied me io a lifelong search for ihe meanings
of play:
Ink, dink, pen and ink
I smell a great big stink
And it comes from
Y.O.U.
30
I had planned io end here, which I found an amusing idea in keeping wiih ihe
ione of ihis whole accouni. Bui ihen I suddenly remembered ihai I aciually
have a sori of Freudian-siyle iip-on io ihe real reason for ihe durable inieresi
of ihe naiure of play. Someiime in ihe midsi of ihe coniroversy over Our Street,
my moihera somewhai shy and a nice person herselfsaid aboui ihe book:
Bui why did you only wriie aboui ihai kind of siun. She was implicaiing my
broiher as well. You were such nice boys, she said. Tis hii me like a boli of
lighining. Us: Nice boys: Really?
Maybe she was ihinking of ihe iime I goi a prize for perfeci aiiendance in
Sunday School or ihe ceriifcaie I goi for being ihe mosi improved boy in my
lasi year ai primary schoolbui nice: Who wanied io be jusi nice: For some
iime ii puzzled me. I could only assume she was ialking aboui our good man-
ners, which I supposed my broiher and I exhibiied reasonably well mosi of
ihe iime. She ceriainly was noi ialking aboui our pranks in ihe hills of Windy
Wellingion.
Ten ii dawned on me ihai perhaps, jusi perhaps, ihe whole of my scholarly
enoris for undersianding play mighi have been in a sense my enori io show
my moiher ihai whai she imagined was wrong aboui us in ihe book, all ihai
rough and iumble play, was really OK. Perhaps I had speni a lifeiime siudying
all ihis play siun in eneci io convince my long-dead moiher we were really
fne, absoluiely normal, even when we were engaging in all ihai rough siun. In
shori, I have been saying here and everywhere only ihis: nice boys are allowed
io aci quiie horribly as long as ihey are playing. Or am I overesiimaiing ihese
psychological underpinnings of my desire io engage in ihe research and siudy
of play: Perhaps ihey more likely iriggered ihan susiained my lifelong voyage
Pl ay Theor y 121
of discovery. If so, ihai hardly changes my fndings or diminishes ihe joy of ihe
journey.
Play begins as a muiaiion of real conficis and funciions ihusly forever
aferwards. Play was always iniended io serve a healing funciion wheiher for
child or aduli, making ii more worihwhile io defy ihe depressing and danger-
ous aspecis of life. Play is neurologically a reaciive iich of ihe amygdala, one
ihai responds io archeiypal shock, anger, fear, disgusi, and sadness. Bui play
also includes a fronial-lobe counier, reaching for iriumphani conirol and hap-
piness and pride. Play begins as a major feaiure of mammalian evoluiion and
remains as a major meihod of becoming reconciled wiih our being wiihin our
preseni universe. In ihis respeci, play resembles boih sex and religion, iwo oiher
formshowever iemporary or durableof human salvaiion in our earihly box.
No1is
1. Oiher auiobiographical musings include A Play Biography, Childrens Folklore
Review 20 (199798): 342; A Memory of Games and Some Games of Memory, Life
and Story, Autobiographies for a Narrative Psychology, ed. D. John Lee (1994), 11342.
2. Brian Suiion-Smiih, Our Street (1973, frsi published 1930), 7.
3. Brian Suiion-Smiih, Smitty Does A Bunk (1973, frsi published 1961), 78.
4. Te referenced siudeni is former New Zealander John Wareham, leadership psy-
chologisi, leciurer, and auihor of numerous books, including Secrets of a Corporate
Headhunter (1980), e Anatomy of a Great Executive (1991), and a novel, Chancey
on Top (2003).
3. Brian Suiion-Smiih, Te Cruel Joke Series, Midwestern Folklore 10 (1960),
1118.
6. For ihese and more childrens siories, see Brian Suiion-Smiih, e Folkstories of
Children, in collaboraiion wiih David M. Abrams and oihers (1981).
7. My visiiing professorships included a year (1963) ai Clark Universiiy, where
Sianley Hall developed his recapiiulaiion iheory of play. And during ihai same iime,
my family and I vacaiioned in ihe Adirondacks, ai ihe Puinam Camp, where early in
ihe ceniury Carl G. Jung and Sigmund Freud had visiied and conferred. In Europe, I
was a visiiing professor and leciurer ai ihe Universiiy of Tubingens Sporis Insiiiuie
(1976; hence my 1978 book Die Dialektik des Spiels) and a visiiing professor ai ihe
Universiiy of Leuven (1991). Te laiier is siiuaied in ihe Flemish disirici, where, in ihe
1300s, ariisi Pieier Breughel creaied his famous masierpiece of children playing games.
8. Psychological Review 73 (1966), 10410.
9. See Felicia R. McMahon, Not Just Childs Play: Emerging Tradition and the Lost
Boys of Sudan (2007).
10. Brian Suiion-Smiih, How to Play with Your Children (and When Not To) (1974),
23337.
11. See Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, James E. Johnson, and Frank H. Hooper, eds., Chil-
drens Play in Diverse Cultures (1994).
12. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 60 (1931), 97107.
13. Jean L. Briggs, Inuit Morality Play: e Emotional Education of a ree-Year-Old
(1998); Jean L. Briggs, Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family (1970).
14. Judy S. DeLoache and Alma Goiilieb, A World of Babies: Imagined Childcare
Guides for Seven Societies (2000), 113.
13. Ibid., 8384.
16. Gregory Baieson, Steps of an Ecology of Mind (2000), 17882. See also Steps to
an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epis-
temology (1972).
17. Te mosi receni and excelleni accouniing of sociological views of play is Tomas
S. Henricks, Play Reconsidered: Sociological Perspectives on Human Expression (2006).
18. John Morgan Allman, Evolving Brains (1999).
19. See Susan E. Riecheri, Game Teory and Animal Coniesis, in Game eory
and Animal Behavior, ed. Lee Alan Dugeikin and Hudson Kern Reeve (1998), 6493.
20. Richard Schechner, Performance Studies: An Introduction (2002).
21. Gordon M. Burghardi, e Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits (2003).
22. Tese neurological suggesiions are derived from an appendix by Kelly Suiion
Skinner in my forihcoming book Play as Emotional Survival. A leader in ihese neu-
rological inierpreiaiions is Richard J. Davidson. See, for example, Kenneih Hugdahl
and Richard J.Davidson, eds., e Asymmetrical Brain (2003); Richard J. Davidson
and Paul Ekman, eds., e Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions (1994). See also
Destructive Emotions: How Can We Overcome em?: A Scientic Dialogue with the
Dalai Lama, narraied by Daniel Goleman, wiih coniribuiions by Richard J. Davidson,
ei al. (2003).
23. Anionio R. Damasio, Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
(2003), chap. 7.
24. Peier A. Corning, Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics
of Evolution (2003), 43.
23. Douglas H. Erwin, Darwin Siill Rules, bui Some Biologisis Dream of a Paradigm
Shif, New York Times, June 26, 2007.
26. Brian Suiion-Smiih, e Ambiguity of Play, 21920.
27. Commeniary, Human Development, 36 (1993), 24732.
28. See William Corsaro, Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years (1983).
29. Tese issues will be deali wiih in much more deiail in my forihcoming book
Play as Emotional Survival. An earlier form of ihis play accouni was presenied in Brian
Suiion-Smiih, Teriiary Emoiions and Ludic Naiure: Te Ideologies of Human Naiure,
in Michael Kruger, Menschenbilder im Sport (2003), 26278.
30. Michael Brown, Moira Smiih, and Lydia Wevers showed me various chapiers
from iheir works in progress on New Zealand Folklore.
Pl ay Theor y 123

1 1 Article Sutton Smith Play Theory

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 1 Article Sutton Smith Play Theory

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2008 by ihe Board of Trusiees of ihe Universiiy of Illinois

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi