Culture as play according to Huizinga

"To [my] our way of thinking, play is the direct opposite to seriousness"(5). This statement pretty much sums up my [heretofore] position on play. Some of you may recall as much from my introduction on the first day of class. However, there could not have been a better person to help me interrogate the place of play in the academy than Huzinger, because he begins off his argument by recognizing the place of play in general terms before advancing his own position on it.

Huzinger sets out to rehabilitate my conception of play as being of no sense by suggesting that play precedes society—it is "a significant function—there is some sense to it" (1). There is the element of civilization as play; of play as culture; play as nature or occurring from nature. And so it is imbued with tension, mirth, and fun (3) the last of which captures the essence of play. The dichotomy in play is that no matter the fun, there is in it the tenor of seriousness that defies logic. It appeals to the irrational (animalistic) aspect in man that then dates back to nature and play.

Characteristics:

• play as a social construction (4)
• play as a link between mind and matter (4)
• play as non-seriousness (6)—take for example, play as exacting laughter and abandon, while at other times serious (chess) but pleasurable nonetheless.
• play as beauty—brings to mind the athletic body—those Greek sculptured bodies
• play as voluntary (7) and this carries with it an element of freedom for it " can be deferred or suspended at any time" (8).
• play as a rite (now that erodes the freedom associated with play). That's because in this regard, play is bound up in myth, which elevates to a place of control and imposition as is wont to be with rituals.

Features—formal

• disinterestedness (9) as an interlude in our daily grind; a complement, a sideshow to allows us get on with the more serious aspects of our lives.
• play as festivals-->ritual-->sacred-->is of significance to humanity, who find in it the essence of their being.
• play as secluded and limited—"contains its own course and meaning" (9)
• play plays itself to the end (9)
• play becomes tradition in transmittal
• play within boundaries
• play as an ordered activity—containing rhythm and harmony
• tension—uncertainty
• play as bound by rules herein lies a paradox: it is free, voluntary and yet bound by rules. Breaking those rules renders one a spoilsport.

play is "a free activity that stands consciously outside "ordinary" life as being "not serious", but at the same time absorbing 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 space 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 their difference from the common world by disguise or other means" (13).

Play and seriousness: absolute antitheses? ritual as play carries connotations? are priests in ritual solemn or playing? ritual transports people to different heights—making play superior to culture (in this sense) and yet inferior in another sense (18). In churches as congregants, we know that most acts are really symbolic and we attach a profound meaning to them. But we also know the priests are at play[ing] the part.

consciousness in play

make-believe

archaic ritual is sacred play at once indispensable for the wellbeing of the community and yet play nonetheless (25-26) without losing its potency, its holi-ness.