Material Sensibilities

making space for play across the life course

The Ludic

Ludic

adj. Of or relating to play and playfulness

Play is frequently overlooked as an irrelevant aspect of people’s social worlds. My work aims to assert the ludic as a fundamental element of the human condition, which is deserving of investigation in its own right. Two key points are central to this goal:

  1. Play is fundamental to human experience across the lifecourse
  2. Play is a significant geographical concern, allowing reconfigurations of the self and space-time

 

Common understandings of play

A review of the academic literature on play reveals 3 common understandings:

  • Play as utilitarian

Play is framed as a process of social and cultural learning, and emotional, cognitive and physical development (see Smith 2009)

  • Play as non-instrumental

Play is positioned in opposition to seriousness, morality and productive work, and the social relations these value structures help to reproduce (see Stevens 2007)

  • Play as ambiguous

Despite numerous attempts to develop typologies of play, the phenomenon proves hard to qualify (see Sutton-Smith 1997)

My work navigates these different understandings. Whilst I do not deny the importance of play to child development, I am interested in understanding play in the present – what it means to us in the here and now. To this end, I find Schechner’s focus on the verb – playing – rather than the noun – play –  instructive. Emphasising the verb rather than the noun stresses that there is no discrete activity called play, but rather a more fluid, polymorphous process.

To date I have written about play according to 3 frames of reference:

  • Playing and the everyday

Play is classically defined as ‘as-ifness’. This transportation to an imaginary sphere commonly relies on a separation of the world of the real and the world of play. However, I attend to two alternative, intersecting lines of thought that can be pursued from this ‘as-ifness’: the refraction and transformation of the everyday. This draws on an understanding of playful practice as both in and of the everyday.

  • Playing and politics

Understandings of play as non-instrumental and/or the preserve of children position it as ‘Other’, formulated through comparison to that which it is not, but with which it remains in constant tension. In this sense it is understood as a counterpoint to the everyday and the rational, and couched in a framework of resistance. I destabilise the resistant character of playing by attending to its autotelic – or internal – quality: vitality. As such the politics of playing are repositioned as inwardly rather than outwardly oriented.

  • Playing exceeding representation

The limits of theorising play in relation to discourse are found in accounts that emphasise its ambiguity. Playing’s ‘non-representational’ nature is felt in its prioritising of the non-cognitive and more-than-rational, its embodied character, its heightening of the affective register, its momentary temporality, and its intersection between being and becoming.

 

Advertisements

One response to “The Ludic

  1. Pingback: Play, playfulness and the notion of technology « Ludic Technologies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: