Based on the article by Huizinga’s Nature and Significance of play as a cultural phenomenon.
In the very beginning of the article, Huizinga says that human civilization has not contributed much to the idea of play, but later he says that rituals are play? Does this sound contradicting?
Play is described in various perspectives:
1) Discharge of ubiquitous vital energy
2) Satisfaction of imitative instinct
3) Need for relaxation
4) Desire to dominate or compete
5) Outlet for harmful impulses
6) Wish fulfillment
All these outcomes lead to various biological needs.
Its never a Task! Play is freedom, a feeling of freedom when you steps out of the real world. Regardless of age, everyone who engages in play pretends to be serious, honestly it is the respect paid towards this primitive play called play. You can see utmost seriousness in each one who engages in a play. Doesn’t it sound really great? It is a temporary activity satisfying in itself and ending there itself. Huizinga, in his article is trying to inter-relate cultural rituals as stages of play. Well, Im not sure how far he has been successful in proving it, but it was a good attempt by the author!
Play as always got its limits of time and place. It contains its own course and meaning. But I would like to add to this point that modern play can be considered with no boundaries or time. The author says that the arena, the card-table, the temple, the stage, the screen, the tennis courts are all considered as play grounds. I strongly disagree with the authors point that culture and its following rituals are also ‘play’. I think the author hasn’t researched much into the history of mankind and his civilization. He himself would have been born into some sort of culture or civilization, is he denying that? He is accountable to answer these questions when he writes the world’s version not his personal version.
One thing which I agree to the author about his conclusion of rituals as a play, is that “Religion develops the idea of make-believe in all religions. But on the contrary what if somebody is born into a religion and nobody is persuading him or her to a belief. Would that be considered for him as a play?
Here the author explains various aspects of play and its role in life. It is captivating and enchanting. It makes the player to want for something and want for something to go off, and thus he wants to succeed. Cheaters and cowards are ejected. Once when the umpire’s whistle breaks the play gets over and sets the real life start. Concluding the characteristics of play one can call it as a free activity standing consciously outside ordinary life as being not serious with no material interests.
Play can also be called as the representation of talents. The peacock and the turkey displays its talents by spreading out its feathers artistically. The audience tend to admire it. Same happens with the athlete or the riffle shooter. He is displaying his talents in front of a crowd in what we collectively call as an event of games.
Ritual is seriousness at its highest and holiest. Even though the author never agrees to the point that rituals are not plays, he agrees one thing that, in rituals holiness are not lost.
Thank God!
