looking back on play
Play has always felt like a creative and subversive act to me. The way I began approaching play as a topic was through criticisms of hyper-rationalism, instrumental reason and how modernity and late modernity saw things in terms of its universal truth or its productive value. In the face of these things, play was a reappropriation of rules and limits. A dismantling and reconfiguration of boundaries according to local needs of a social group or play community. An interplay of Dionysian and Apollonian forces. There is no ācorrectā way to do things, just the ways we chose because we find, as a group, they are good for us. No universal principle should dictate a priori what is meaningful to us as a group. We make meaning as we build together.
Play also felt radical in its unproductiveness. We donāt play to gain or obtain something. And as much as games can be used in education and play can find transformative functions, the fact that it is an activity we engage in for its own sake and not for some external gain or benefit is what seemed impactful to me. In a world that seeks to monetize every aspect of life, play is the act of saying āI do this because I value doing it, because I appreciate it, enjoy it, care about it, and nothing elseā. It's choosing whatās meaningful to you and not letting all meaning be reduced to its productive value.
And when I first read Huizinga, I saw it as a proto-postmodern or critical theory critique of instrumental reason and late-capitalism through play. And as much as it is a critique of those things, it is not proto-postmodern. It is in some ways a deeply reactionary text. Revisiting the text while listening to Game Studies Study Buddies helped me realize what I had overlooked the first time around, in all my hype. For all the critiques of the ways industrialization and instrumental reason have shaped society, an idealized version of āwestern civilizationā stands behind them. It really ends up being a call to stop society from ādevolvingā into a form he doesnāt like. Its curious that the same civilizatory principle (agonic play) is what causes this ādegenerationā. To his credit, He was criticizing the fascist movements of the 20th century. But his call was one to return to an earlier form of civilization. It feels like all the pieces were there but he drew the wrong conclusions from them.
It struck me then. A lot of people nowadays that find solace in conservative, alt-right or fascistic movements share a lot of the criticisms of neoliberalism and experience the same political disenfranchisement that many in the left do. The talking points overlap widely when discussing the way those in power use capital to perpetuate their power. The difference is that instead of looking forward for a better, more nuanced understanding of the way society, the economy and politics operate in a contemporary, mediated, hyperreal context, they look backwards. Instead of critiquing the principles that got us here, reflecting and building on them, they say āwe like these principles, but make them more traditional, we went too farā, just like Huizinga did. Except in the case of fascists, there is a degree of mythologizing the past where that traditional lost past was never real.
Iām not sure what the point Iām trying to make is. I think this realization helped me understand better what I value about play and understand the problem with certain conceptions better. I can now say āthis is why I think play is importantā while also noting how to avoid pitfalls and point in the right directions. I can situate my interest in play better. But it also made me frustrated at how many people who could stand to benefit from a proper critique of neoliberalism find their frustrations redirected under a simplistic, comforting narrative that protects them (or does it?) while harming others.