Download as PDF, PPTX
![»Games have a long-running, deep, and
habitual association with “play,” itself a
shallowly examined term, historically and
culturally specific to Western modernity. […]
None of [. its] features holds as an intrinsic,
universal feature of games when they are
examined empirically«
thomas malaby
beyond play (2007: 96)
7
issue
#1](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vortragmalaby130824-130829200304-phpapp02/75/Back-to-Play-A-Reply-to-Malaby-7-2048.jpg)
![»If by “play,” we are trying to signal a state or mode of human
experience (something like Csikszentmihalyi’s […] “flow”)—a
way of engaging the world whatever one is doing—then we
cannot simultaneously use it reliably as a label for a kind or
form of distinct human activity (something that allows us to
differentiate between activities that “are play” and those that
“are not”). This is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s […]
investigations, where he was surprised to find situations of
“work” just as likely (in fact, more likely) to produce the state of
“flow” than so-called “play” activities.«
thomas malaby
beyond play (2007: 100)
15
issue
#2/2](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vortragmalaby130824-130829200304-phpapp02/75/Back-to-Play-A-Reply-to-Malaby-15-2048.jpg)
![»Exploration, play, crime […] are not categories of
behavior, they are categories of contextual
organization of behavior. [... They] do not define
the actions which are their content. […] In
ordinary parlance, ‘play’ is not the name of an act
or action; it is the name of a frame for action.«
gregory bateson
mind and nature (1979: 134–8)
16](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vortragmalaby130824-130829200304-phpapp02/75/Back-to-Play-A-Reply-to-Malaby-16-2048.jpg)
![Keyings are »conventions by which a
given activity, […] meaningful in terms of
some primary framework, is transformed
into something patterned on this activity
but seen by the participants to be
something quite else.«
Erving Goffman
frame analysis (1986: 43–4)
19](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vortragmalaby130824-130829200304-phpapp02/75/Back-to-Play-A-Reply-to-Malaby-19-2048.jpg)
Uploaded bySebastian Deterding
Back to Play: A Reply to Malaby
1) The document challenges the view that play has universal intrinsic features, arguing that definitions of play reflect Western cultural norms rather than universal characteristics. 2) It argues that play is better understood as a frame or context that transforms activities, rather than an activity itself. Playfulness is a mode of engagement rather than a distinct type of activity. 3) Key features of play across cultures and species include autotelic engagement and limited immediate function rather than separation from work or being inconsequential as often defined in the West. Play provides a frame allowing activities to be meaningful while engaged in playfully.
More Related Content
Similar to Back to Play: A Reply to Malaby
Back to Play: A Reply to Malaby
- 1. back to playareply to malaby Sebastian Deterding MAGIC Lab, Rochester Institute of Technology DiGRA 2013, Atlanta, August 28, 2013 c b
- 2. Highly influential definition ofgames Sage 2013 Practice-theoretical, process- oriented challenge to formalism, essentialism, exceptionalism in current game studies a gift to game studies 2
- 3. 3 games play separable: opposite towork safe: free from consequence pleasurable: fun, normatively positive
- 4. 4 games play separable: opposite towork safe: free from consequence pleasurable: fun, normatively positive
- 5. games »a semibounded andsocially legitimate domain of contrived contingency that generates interpretable outcomes« 5 play »a label for a mode of experience, a way of engaging the world«
- 6.
- 7. »Games have along-running, deep, and habitual association with “play,” itself a shallowly examined term, historically and culturally specific to Western modernity. […] None of [. its] features holds as an intrinsic, universal feature of games when they are examined empirically« thomas malaby beyond play (2007: 96) 7 issue #1
- 8. essentializing western »play« •Play definitions (of Huizinga & Caillois) claim universal features of play not really universal: • Separable, opposite of work: Not all cultures know Western work/leisure distinction • Safe, inconsequential: Gambling, goldfarming, soccer championships show material and symbolic consequence • Pleasurable: Gaming comes with unpleasant experiences – »engaging« is more apt than »fun« 8 issue #1/2
- 9. universality of animal& child play • Play found across species; all mammals play; higher primates, humans most playful species Burghardt 2005 • Object, social, pretend & rule play found across all studied cultures Pellegrini 2009, Konner 2010 • Rule play (= gaming) evolutionarily and developmentally latest emerging form ibid. • Ethology, developmental psychology, anthropology agree on characteristics of play Burghardt 2005, Pellegrini 2009 9 counter #1/2
- 10. actual characteristics ofplay • Limited immediate function • Incomplete, exaggerated, recombined, repeated, metacommunication, e.g. play smile • Autotelic, means over ends, voluntary • Happening in »relaxed field«, with no immediate threat present Burghardt 2005, Pellegrini 2009, Konner 2010 10 counter #2/2
- 11. actual characteristics ofplay • Limited immediate function • Incomplete, exaggerated, recombined, repeated, metacommunication, e.g. play smile • Autotelic, means over ends, voluntary • Happening in »relaxed field«, with no immediate threat present Burghardt 2005, Pellegrini 2009, Konner 2010 11 != separable or inconsequential: activity is not chiefly organized and avowedly done for the sake of an external consequence counter #2/2
- 12. actual characteristics ofplay • Limited immediate function • Incomplete, exaggerated, recombined, repeated, metacommunication, e.g. play smile • Autotelic, means over ends, voluntary • Happening in »relaxed field«, with no immediate threat present Burghardt 2005, Pellegrini 2009, Konner 2010 12 != separable or inconsequential: activity is not chiefly organized and avowedly done for the sake of an external consequence != fun, pleasurable: but “autotelic” is primary quality of “flow” activities counter #2/2
- 13. actual characteristics ofplay • Limited immediate function • Incomplete, exaggerated, recombined, repeated, metacommunication, e.g. play smile • Autotelic, means over ends, voluntary • Happening in »relaxed field«, with no immediate threat present Burghardt 2005, Pellegrini 2009, Konner 2010 13 != defined as “safe”: lack of threats facilitates getting into “a playful state of mind” counter #2/2
- 14. essentializing western »play«? •Yes: The features (named by Huizinga & Caillois) are part of the modern rhetorics of play as frivolity and the self Sutton-Smith 1997 • But: Good evidence in ethology, anthropology, developmental psychology that play is universal • Ethology, anthropology, psychology identify different features than Malaby critiques • The features critiqued by Malaby describe norms of Western cultivation of play & games, not essential characteristics – which allows for norm deviation 14
- 15. »If by “play,”we are trying to signal a state or mode of human experience (something like Csikszentmihalyi’s […] “flow”)—a way of engaging the world whatever one is doing—then we cannot simultaneously use it reliably as a label for a kind or form of distinct human activity (something that allows us to differentiate between activities that “are play” and those that “are not”). This is consistent with Csikszentmihalyi’s […] investigations, where he was surprised to find situations of “work” just as likely (in fact, more likely) to produce the state of “flow” than so-called “play” activities.« thomas malaby beyond play (2007: 100) 15 issue #2/2
- 16. »Exploration, play, crime[…] are not categories of behavior, they are categories of contextual organization of behavior. [... They] do not define the actions which are their content. […] In ordinary parlance, ‘play’ is not the name of an act or action; it is the name of a frame for action.« gregory bateson mind and nature (1979: 134–8) 16
- 17. play(fulness): activity orattitude • Play cannot logically be an attitude toward any activity and one specific activity Malaby 2007 • Work activities give rise to play attitude/flow: play is attitude not activity Malaby 2007, Csikszentmihalyi 1990 • Play, crime, exploration are not definable behaviours, but contexts, frames of behaviours Bateson 1979, Stevens & Bateson 1979 17 issue #2/2
- 18. • Formal featuresof activity and setting don’t determine, but afford playful attitude, flow Csikszentmihalyi 1975, 1990 • Autotelic engagement is core feature of play and flow Csikszentmihalyi 1975, 1990 • There can be playing and gaming as defined types of activity, and playfulness as a mode of engaging Sicart in press, Stenros in press • Even playfully engaged-in activity needs to be made observably intelligible to others and self as playful: the activity needs to have a signature form Garfinkel 1967 • Playfulness is a not a type of activity, but a type of transformation of activity and attitude: a keying Goffman 1986 18 play(fulness): activity or attitude? counter #1/1
- 19. Keyings are »conventionsby which a given activity, […] meaningful in terms of some primary framework, is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else.« Erving Goffman frame analysis (1986: 43–4) 19
- 20.
- 21. or playing withchess 21 Photo: yeanvm
- 22. summary: reinstating playI • Play is a trans-species phenomenon • Childhood play is an anthropological universal, rule play its latest developmental stage & the mould for adult gaming • We never encounter childhood play & adult gaming but in locally cultivated form • Huizinga and Caillois exemplify the rhetorics of frivolity and self that are part of Western norms of playing and gaming 22
- 23. summary: reinstating playII • Playing and gaming are frames = culturally shared contexts organising activity and attitude • Involving, in today’s Western cultures, conventions of autotelic engagement, limited immediate function, play smile, etc., most of which »show through« features of animal play • Playfulness is a secondary transformation, keying of already framed activity 23
- 24.