Irwin Vs. Huizinga… PLAY ball

Johan Huizinga presents a very defined definition of play in “Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture.” Huizinga gives specific elements that are necessary for an activity to be considered play, such as the activity having designated rules and material gain cannot be received from the activity. There are many more classifications, but you get the idea here. I disagree with not only Huizinga’s definition of play, but also the way he approaches defining play.
Spurs up daily
So let’s tackle this head on. (Too soon for that picture?) Anyway, I would like to first address the weaknesses of Huizinga’s definition of play and then provide a better metric to define play. Huizinga’s definition includes the stipulation that there must be set rules for an acitivity to be considered play. I would argue to the contrary. For example, think of a group of children playing together. Their creative young minds can enjoy an activity in which one domineering kid is constantly creating new rules and expanding the scope of their game. Surely any person would look at the group of children and say that they are playing. Another issue with Huizinga’s definition arises from professional sports. If a professional athlete loves the sport he is playing, why should it not be considered play? Furthermore, even in casual pickup games, players have separate motives for participating. Some compete simply because they want to win while others play sports for the enjoyment they receive. So if we take the first group, it would not be considered play because they are receiving a material gain. But if we take the second group, it would be considered play because the game itself is the end result. Huizinga’s argument fails to address such a dilemma.
nullnull
Alright now I am about to rain threes on Huizinga like I am Nik Stauskas and he’s Aaron Craft. Look at those rosy cheeks. The concept of play is a leisurely activity. So I propose that the manner in which we define play should also be done in a leisurely fashion. Play is such an innate part of human nature. For example, children easily grasp the concept of playing. So why would we try to complicate such a simple activity. I propose the following simplified definition of play: play is any leisurely activity in which that specific individual receives enjoyment. Short, simple, to the point, and all-encompassing. My definition provides a basic understanding of play, as well as, clarifying disputes between individuals who perform the same activity for different motives. A professional athlete who is participating in a sport simply for the paycheck is not playing. On the other hand, a professional athlete who is playing a sport because of his love for the game is playing. Sometimes less is more.
-Paul Irwin

Photo credit: Clowney- gamecocksonline.com, Stauskas- standingosports.com, Craft- borntocompete.com

Advertisements

One thought on “Irwin Vs. Huizinga… PLAY ball

  1. Hey Paul,

    Just wanted to see I absolutely agree with what you say in your article. In fact “enjoyment” is exactly how I proposed to define play in our group discussion during lecture. But afterwards I got to thinking about a scenario that makes it difficult. Taking things away from the NCAA, let’s look at a player like Roger Federer. The guy’s won everything in the tennis world (including an Olympic Gold), and has already made a legacy. So then why does Federer play on, even when he is getting faced by injury after injury and barely wins any major tournaments anymore. As a Federer fan I’d like to argue that it is for the love of the game. But on the opposite side I can’t help but think that money has to be a factor. So I guess on top of your definition we can add the test: “would xyz play without the money.” If the answer is yes, and truly a yes, then that is really play. If even the slightest motive is for money it stops being a game. It’s work. And we all know how the grasshopper feels about work 🙂

    Best,
    Abhi

    Like

Comments are closed.