Your name
Instructor
Course
Date
Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture
Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture book was first published in 1938 by Johan Huizinga. The book expounds on the significance of the play element of society and culture. Huizinga argues that play element is necessary for and to the generation of culture. He showcases various methods through which cultures foster the concept of play and how it is witnessed in various aspects of civilization. Huizinga focuses on play and the concepts of language, law, sports, politics, religion, war, philosophy, mythopoesis, and poetry, and the components of play fostering their production. In the introduction, Huizinga points out that there are numerous anthropological and scientific explanations for play. Huizinga further points out that a “play must serve something which is not playing” (Huizinga, p.2). Play is a component that resonates with other things.
In Chapter I, Huizinga further differentiates between the play and contest for something. He uses a Chinese history of Marcel Granet, who perceived contest and ceremony are intrinsic components of every activity. Picking flowers, cutting wood, climbing the mountain, and even crossing the river are all transformed into competitions showcasing agonistic ideas at work. Both groups compete to showcase who is superior in climbing mountains, producing crops, and so on. In this realm, the ritual and religion warp into play, altering terms, and changing names “the play itself remains competitive representation (Huizinga, p.18). Huizinga gives an example of potlatch practice from a tribe called Kwakiutl in British Columbia. Kwakiutl was subdivided into two competitive sides. “The potlatch competition was to showcase how much possession and food one can surrender and still get it back” (Huizinga, p.58). Baptism, purification acts, and religious salvation or other cleansing are based on the honor that can be given to the community. Play acts as a precursor for complex multicultural exchanges, just like an athlete winning for fans.
In chapter II, Huizinga focuses mostly on distinguishing the play concept as expressed in language. Linguistically the term play differs from one culture to the other. In English, the term play means a lack of or exclusion of seriousness. In ancient Germany, the play was an abstract representation of the drinking competition. Huizinga pointed out that other societies regard play as a “reference for sexual conduct or a way of expression laziness” (Huizinga, p.40). Huizinga further points out that all individuals play and play similarly; however, their language varies in their perception of the play. The idea of being earnest or serious evolved later in civilization development.
Huizinga pointed further posited that there are a couple of words that have evolved in various languages showcasing exclusion of play components. However, he also noted that play could remain in its initial state despites being earnest and serious. Huizinga also pointed out on impacts of civilization on the play aspect. He stated that civilization has resulted in a series of divisions between two aspects of mental life, which most of the people differentiate as seriousness and play, respectively. All these aspects originally developed “continuous mental perception wherein civilization began” (Huizinga, p.111).
In chapter III, Huizinga talks about play and contest as civilizing functions. Huizinga does not imply that play becomes a culture, but he set the culture and play side by side and points out their relationship. However, at the bottom line, Huizinga points out that “play is necessary” (Huinziga, p.46). Huizinga acknowledges plays and contest as civilized functions. Huizinga points out that play is unique from other forms of thought in which human beings express their social life and mental structure. He further points out that play cannot be categorized or defined, but one can define characteristics of play and the features of a non- playing thing. Huizinga points out that play should be a voluntary act, and imposing order to play changes it from being a play. As such, he states that play distinguishes it from the natural processes.
Huizinga further states that the aim of the play is not to seek power or dominate others, but it’s “a desire to excel and be honored among people” (Huizinga, p.50). Huizinga points out that a play may start, end, or be played anytime and has a winning definition. Winning a play showcases one’s superior outcomes against the opponent or partner. Victory can be a precursor for collaboration since success can be shared with other groups. For instance, if one team is winning and the other team is losing, their respective fans may “boo or cheer since all competitive components still exist” ( Huizinga, p.50).
In part IV, Huizinga tries to connect the play element to honor and, thus, the idea of law and justice. Huizinga pointed out that dignity was a form of competition that forcibly maintained and publicly acknowledged if needed. Samural obeyed the social order for reverence by the other individuals. The concept of honor evolves together with how civilization resolves conflicts and disputes. Huizinga points out that the lawsuit would often be “settled with rhetoric battle, a game of chance, duel between champions or race” (Huizinga, p.45- 46). In this argument, the courtroom becomes a play platform. Individuals wear outfits, wigs, and ritual robes. There are two opposing sites and a clear moment of victory. In some way, litigation solves disputes between law pursuits having ethical results and simultaneously maintains play component leaving some component of a chance to exchange. Huizinga states that ” the language and style in which juristic wrangling of modern lawsuits are couched often showcases sportsmanship passion of indulging in argument and counter-argument”( Huinziga, p.78)
In part V, Huizinga relates to playing with war. He points out that most people regard war as a game. Huizinga points out that war is only a game when the individuals acknowledge the humanity of their opponents, and it becomes barbarism when it ceases to be a game. Huizinga posits that all fighting bounded by rules has the unique features of play by that limitation. He acknowledges that such a game is the most energetic and more intense form of play and simultaneously primitive and palpable. Huizinga states that war can only be viewed as a cultural function if the individuals wage it within the limit where the fighting members or partners treat each other as rivals with equal rights.
Huizinga notes war is similar to play. Huizinga claims that the noble statesmen pretending to be pursuing economic and justices’ necessities are not appealing to an individual’s vain-glory, pomp, and sense of pride. Huizinga differentiates such conflicts from various examples in Chinese military conflicts that resulted in fostering the Lord’s honor instead of actual victory. Huizinga also noted that “nations at peace still engage in a game competing through constant negotiations and treaties” (Huizinga, p.100).
In chapter VI, Huizinga focuses on play and knowledge. In the chapter, the death penalty and riddle-solving are dominant. Huizinga pointed out that for an ancient man, daring and doing is power, but knowing is magical. Huizinga further claims that certain knowledge is “sacred knowledge-wonder-working, and esoteric since it directly resonates with cosmic order itself” (Huizinga p.105). Huizinga utilizes the story of Mopsos and Seers to provide an insight into Greek tradition. He detailed that contest when Mopsos met Chalcas after death, Troy. In the piece, Chalcas points out a fig tree and pose a question to him, asking “how many figs are there in that one fig-tree” (Huizinga, p.109). Mopsos answered 9, and Chalcas said 8. Chalcas was wrong and died on the spot.
In chapter VII, Huizinga distinguishes between play elements and poetry. He points out that Poiesis is indeed a play-component. Huizinga states that poiesis is undertaken within the mind play-ground, in its world created by the mind. In that world, the ideas and things have unique features from the ordinary ones individual wear in normal life. He argues that these things are bound by ties that are not casual and logic. Huizinga provides different examples of the archaic poet. He pointed out that “true appellation of the ancient poet is the raving one, God-smitten, the possessed and the vates” (Huizinga, p.120). There is an intrinsic connection between poetry, philosophy, and language and play generative function. Writing and language often simplify the meaning of symbols and words through regular use. Play counter and poetry counter such basic forms of communication through inputting new meaning to familiar words or concepts.
In Chapter VIII, Huizinga focuses on the play and elements of mythopoiesis. Mythopoiesis is literary of making myths or mythopoeic thoughts. Huizinga points out that the metaphor is contained in the description of events or things in life and movement, and then the next thing is personification. He further points out that representing inanimate and incorporeal as a person is the center of mythopoiesis and almost all poems. In chapter IX, Huizinga connects the play element with philosophy. He argues that philosophy started as a riddle game that was incorporated with festivals and rituals. With time philosophy started connecting to the larger element of play as studies about the nature of truth began. At the same time, philosophy also started evolving at a most remote level of sophisticated quackery and intellectualism.
The philosophical challenges started to emanate when the culture failed to differentiate between knowledge and play, just like Stoics’ perception of a “word grammatical pitfall or pun is intellectual dilemma” (Huizinga, 152). Such developments extended de-evolution in the education system and remained persistent as the education system transformed into rule-oriented engagements. Individuals were either in support of or against the academic concepts. Individuals were a must to cite previous philosophers to be accepted, and failure to cite would automatically lead to rejection. As a result of a competitive element, the generative function of play was ousted, leading to adverse impacts in education.
In part X, Huizinga links the play component with art. The arts, like poetry and music, assume the generative purpose of play component. Huizinga points out that arts “are dominated by a system of play rules which fix a range of symbols and ideas to be utilized, poetic or sacred as the case may be”(Huizinga, p.132). He further claimed that the validity of poetry or music solely depends on the manner it conforms to rules of play. Music is an innate connection to an individual’s emotions. Huizinga points out that a musician is constantly competing to capture our emotions better as it generates greatness in the music industry. Other components of ritual and music also compete similarly.
Huizinga further posits that solid and physical arts do not play but are only meant to serve a representational function or facilitate play. He claims that if the play component is lacking appearances in the execution of art and enjoyment and contemplation of it, then it lacks the scope. Huizinga states that “where there is no visible action, there can be no play” (Huizinga, p.166). The agonist impulses enhance arts because of the need to perform extraordinarily or undertake difficult performance. Artist’s feats always motivate an individual, yet it is not a play object itself (Huizinga, p.169).
In the last two chapters XI and XII, Huizinga focuses on the play-element and the modern civilization beginning around the 18th Century all the way up to the time Huizinga authored the book in 1938. Huizinga showcases how play element has been developed by pomp, nationalism, rank, seriousness, and other factors to a point it has stopped playing. When stricter order or forms are applied to play, then it ceases to be a play and becomes an imitation. Fighting or wars ceases being play when individuals do not respect opponents’ humanities. It is like copying a play to gain support for ill-motives. Huizinga points out that sports cease being play when there is a distinction between amateur and professional. He states that “the play spirit of spontaneity and carelessness” (Huizinga, p.197) ceases as a result of the creation of “true” sportsman instates of the normal inferior one. Huizinga points out that “sports have ceased to be a play, culture creating activity due to its rigid rules (Huizinga, p. 198).
Huizinga further posits that financial games like bridge and gambling are sterile activities that “do not enrich the soul in any way” (Huizinga, p.199). They instead fix and consume intellectual energy that would otherwise be utilized better elsewhere. He also noted business and commercial activities had grafted the play-element onto its operation, turning everything into a competition to outdo other businesses. Most organizations are large, but there is no defined objective in their huge sizes. Huizinga criticizes the nationalism that embraces competitive features of play and turning nations into the club-like state. Huizinga utilized America to showcase that politicians of our times are only focused on outdoing their opponents and winning elections rather than assisting the electorates. Huizinga calls such trends a “blend of adolescence and barbarity” that is evolving in government and business “puerilism” (Huizinga, p. 205-207).
Huizinga points out that there is danger. He states that while all these seem to play, there is nothing of that sort. Huizinga points out that as civilization evolves and become more overladen, more variegated, and more complex, and with the technique of social life and production becomes finely organized; the ancient cultural soil is molded under numerous layers of regulations, rules, and doctrines, a system of knowledge and thought and ideas. All these, together with conventions and moralities, have lost essence and touch in play. He further states that “civilization has become more serious as it only gives a secondary place to play. The heroic period is over, and the agonistic phase, too, seems a thing of past” (Huizinga, p.75).
Towards the end of the last chapter, Huizinga points out that “he is not trying to assert all human actions to a play,” an attempt he calls it a “philosophical short circuit.” He states that “it is the moral content of action that makes it serious (Huizinga, p.211). He stated that the only way out of this situation is only with the individuals whose validity and objective value of ethical standards. Huizinga claims that the only way to avoid the conclusion of viewing the entire human life as a game is “turning to the Ultimate” (Huizinga, p.213). Huizinga cites Plato declaring that individuals are gods’ plaything. In the end, Huizinga quotes the Book of Proverbs “We can be free of any concern about our conduct being mere play so long as truth, justice, compassion, and forgiveness have a part in our resolve to act”(Huizinga, p.213).
Works Cited
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. 1st ed., Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1944.