Recently, I read Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon written by Huizinga published in Homo Ludens for a class.  Not exactly great reading, but it was assigned so there was no getting out of it.  Supposedly the author is the first to recognize and attempt to study the concept of play as an area of scientific research, however the author makes no attempts to conceal or hide his humanist worldview.   If you can't tell, I come from a different worldview and acknowledge this up front.  I will try to be as objective as I can  in this review.

     

Huizinga starts out by making the claim that "human civilization has added no essential feature to the general idea of play".  To be back up this claim he cites the "playing of young dogs".   After this Huizinga goes on to say that, "even in its simplest forms of the animal level, play is more than a mere physiological phenomenon of a psychological reflex," and "in play there is something 'at play' which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action." In these statements a couple of presuppositions are made apparent and need to be taken into account by the reader.  Huizinga presupposes that animals act on something more than physiological/psychological reflexes and that something other than the ability to do the same feat separates humans from animals.  He does not go so far as saying animals have "will" or "mind", but is there really a middle ground?  Huizinga calls this middle ground a significant function.  

Huizinga goes on to summarize very rapidly the biological finding of play.  He calls attention to the many different views that have been put forth.  He sums up these findings by pointing out that, "they all start from the assumption that play must serve something which is not play, that it must have some biological purpose" (emphasis added by Huizinga).  Huizinga calls the explanations put forth so far as only partial solutions to the problem of the play-concept. 

During his discussion of the biological element of play, Huizinga points out that one element, fun, resists analysis and logical interpretation.  According to the author, no other language has an exact equivalent of fun. Huizinga further claims that, "it is precisely this fun-element that characterizes the essence of play."  However, Huizinga goes on to say that, "in acknowledging play you acknowledge mind".  Here we have a contradiction in terms as set out by Huizinga.  Earlier the author has said that the essence of play is something more than instinct, but less than mind.  If by acknowledging play one is acknowledging  mind, then Huizinga is saying that if we acknowledge that animals play, then we are acknowledging that animals have minds.  This is contradiction in definitions is compounded when the author states that, "Play only becomes possible, thinkable and understandable when and influx of mind breaks down the absolute determinism of the cosmos.  The very existence of play continually confirms the supra-logical nature of the human situation."   

At this point Huizinga begins to look at play as a function of culture.  He states that, "in culture we find play as a given magnitude existing before culture itself existed, accompanying it and pervading it from the earliest beginnings right up to the phase of civilization we are now living in."  This leaves us to answer the question of when culture started.  

Huizinga's stated objective is to "consider play in its manifold concrete forms as itself a social construction."  He then starts to examine archetypal activities of human society.  The first one he examines is language.  Huizinga says, "language allows him [mankind] to distinguish, to establish, to state things; in short, to name them and by naming them to raise them into the domain of the spirit."  The reader should keep in mind that the author's major field of expertise is history, not theology.  By making this assertion,  the author is stepping outside the realm of his expertise, thus making himself a non-player, at least for the moment, in the subject which he set out to explore.  The quality of play that Huizinga is trying to express in language is that in giving expression to life man creates a second poetic world.  He then goes on to examine myth and ritual where he continues the use of theological terminology.  Myth, he says, is an imagination of the outer world.  I would have thought, since the author's background and expertise is history that he would have noticed that myth is often mistaken for truth and thus, to the common man is not imagination, but fact.  He then makes quite a bold statement, "in myth and ritual the great instinctive forces of civilized life have their origin... rooted in the primaeval soil of play.'

Huizinga then goes through several examples to prove the point that play is not the opposite of seriousness.  The first example he looks at is laughter and makes the point that chess is play, yet one has no inclination to laugh during it.  He next looks at the comic himself.  Even though the comic may induce to laughter, he does not play.  The author also makes the surprising revelation that the mimicry and laughter-provoking  art of the clown can not be termed genuine play.  In my humble opinion, the clown invites his audience to make-believe with him or her for a period of time.  Thus, the clown is in a constant state of play in my opinion.  Not so according to Huizinga.  He concludes these examples by making some points about play:

• Play is not reducible to other terms.
  
• Play has no moral function.

Huizinga goes on to evaluate whether play can be considered an aesthetic.  He concludes that play has some aspects of beauty, most notably rhythm and harmony, but beauty is not not inherent in play.  Thus do we come to another point about play:

• Play must remain distinct from all the other forms of thought in which we express the structure of mental and social life.

Huizinga then confines himself to examining the characteristics of play.  

• Play is a voluntary activity.
  

Play can never be forced upon someone else.  It is never imposed by physical necessity or moral duty.  

• Play is not "ordinary" or "real" life.

Play is a temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all its own.  It interrupts the flow of desire and fulfillment.  Play is an activity that is satisfying in itself.

• Play is limited by a certain place and time.

Play has a duration.  Huizinga states that one of the underlying elements of play is repetition and alternation.  While I agree that play is only for a limited amount of time, I believe that the most enjoyment is found in the first time that play occurs and that repetition of play reduces its enjoyability.  If a play is repeated in exactly the same way as previously, then the fun quality of play has been reduced or lost. 

 

Huizinga calls the limited space that play take place in the "magic circle".  Within this magic circle an absolute order or temporary perfection is set up.   There is a tension that is found in play and the player is striving to relieve that tension.  Oddly enough, this tension Huizinga speaks of seems very similar to the biological explanation that he dismissed earlier in the reading.  In speaking of this tension, this testing, the author refers to a testing of the player's "spiritual powers" in that he even though he wants to win, he still must stick to the rules.  It would seem then, that Huizinga has pigeon holed all things spiritual as following a set of rules or procedures.  What he fails to realize is that not all things spiritual are about rules.  For example, Christianity is about relationship, not rules.  Rules are very important to play and are binding.  When they are broken, according to Huizinga, then play is shattered and brought crashing back to reality.  

The play community tends to become lasting.  The sharing of mutually withdrawing from the rest of the world and rejecting the usually norms, retains its magic past the individual game.  A question springs to mind, what is the difference between criminals and players?  Both reject the usual norms.  

To sum up, play is "a free activity standing quite consciously outside 'ordinary' life as being 'not serious', but at the same time absorbing the the player intensely and utterly.  It is an activity connected with no material  interest, and no profit can be gained by it.  It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and and pace according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of  social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress thier difference from the comon world by disguise or other means."  

Huizinga points out that play is usually found in two forms: a contest or a representation.  He then attempts to compare ritual and religion to play, but in so doing, he defies his own definition which he has labored so hard to come to.  For example, he says that religion has lasting effects outside the magic circle.  Earlier, he told us that play is confined to the magic circle and if the circle is broken, then play is shattered.   Huizinga belabors this fact for several pages.  Let me remind the reader that Huizinga's area of expertise is history, not theology.  It is obvious to the conscientious reader that the hidden agenda of Huizinga is to attack religion in a roundabout way. Once Huizinga has explained away the ritualistic religion, it is only a hop, skip and a jump away from dismissing the major religions of today. I could continue to show you Huizinga's attacks point for point, but at this point your eyes are probably glazing over.  While Huizinga did have some good ideas about play, I find it hard to take him seriously when he goes against his own argument.  Sorry Huizinga, go back to the books, rethink your position and come back to us when you have thought it through a little more thoroughly.