Play and Games in a Technological Age

Roger Caillois, author of Man, Play, and Games and Johan Huizinga, author of Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, both discuss and philosophize over play and the relation it has to society and culture. Play is growing and evolving faster than ever before in our modern-day American society largely due to the large role technology now has to play in our modern age. This technology is not only making play more frequently accessible, but also teaching us new ways to play and reconnecting a business oriented society with play.

Huizinga believes that play has always been apart of culture. Or in other words, that culture is derived from play. We see this immediately, almost directly at the beginning of the book as he uses this theory as basically a basis for everything else he discusses. “In culture we find play as a given magnitude existing before culture itself existed, accompanying it and pervading it from the earliest beginnings right up to the phase of civilization we are now living in” (Huizinga, 4). Caillois on the other hand, actually starts off is book by explaining his opinion on Huizinga’s belief that culture is derived from play: “The spirit of play is essential to culture, but games and toys are historically the residues of culture. Misunderstood survivals of a past era or culture traits borrowed from a strange culture and deprived of their original meaning seem to function when removed from the society where they were originally established. They are now merely tolerated, whereas in the earlier society they were an integral part of its basic institutions, secular or sacred. At that time, to be sure, they were not games, in the sense that one speaks of children’s games, but they already were part of the essence of play, as correctly defined by Huizinga. Their social function changed, not their nature. The transfer or degradation that they underwent stripped them of their political and religious significance. But this decadence only reveals, when isolated, what is basically the structure of play” (Caillois 58). For while to Huizinga culture derives from play. But to Caillois, he believes that culture is created by elements of theatricality, exhibitionism, virtuosity, joyful improvisation, competition and challenge.

According to Huizinga, he defines play as “a free activity standing quite 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” (Huizinga, 13). Huizinga describes play as something that is freely engaged in and is an expression of one’s freedom, something that is outside of ordinary life, has its own space and time, has rules that creates order, and also that connected to social and community groups that engage in the play.

Whereas according to Caillois, play is an activity that is free, separate, uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules and make-believe (Caillois, 9-10). “Play is simultaneously liberty and invention, fantasy and discipline. All important cultural manifestations are based upon it. It creates and sustains the spirit of inquiry, respect for rules, and detachment. In some respects the rules of law, prosody, counterpoint, perspective, stagecraft, liturgy, military tactics, and debate are rules of play. They constitute conventions that must be respected. Their subtle interrelationships are the basis for civilization” (Caillois, 58). Caillois takes this and takes it a step further by breaking down play into four general categories that consist of Agon which refers to competition, Alea which is chance, mimicry which is simulation, and ilinx which is vertigo. It is there however that Caillois and Huizinga clash again as Huizinga has a much more narrow (and yet also broad as Caillois pointed out) way of breaking down play. “The function of play in the higher forms which concern us here can largely be derived from the two basic aspects under which we meet it: as a contest for something or a representation of something. These two functions can unite in such a way that the game "represents" a contest, or else becomes a contest for the best representation of something” (Huizinga, 13).

If you look back at a family of German settlers on a farm in America in the late 1880s, you would see children playing with their homemade stilts, dolls, and ring rollers. You would see the parents playing as they whistle as they work or even implementing play in their forgery or with a needle. Fast forward to modern day. You see the business man decorating his cubicle with a few playful things to keep his mind awake as he works throughout the day. Music playing in almost every store you walk into. And people of all ages, playing with electronics. It is no question that throughout time, both adults and children alike, seek, find, and create play throughout their lives in what can seem like an infamous number of ways. However, when debating if play has increased or decreased in modern-day American culture, one must now take into account that this culture we speak of is in a technological age. So to determine the effects that play has on our culture today, that is where we must look.

Technology and play. In many ways, this new combination has increased play in many ways shaping up into the society we are today. It has sped up and increased the creation, distribution, and consumption of music and poetry which according to Huizinga "cuts clean across any possible distinction between play and seriousness" (Huizinga, 110). It has allowed people to be able to more often and for a cheaper price (therefore making it available to more people) take part in the rowdy consumption of and cheering on of their favorite sports from even their home. It has even created entire new ways of play such as video games that range anywhere from on a computer to at an arcade. The play that comes from and can be seen in trials, courts, and politics can be seen more and more as well as it has become apart of our culture too now broadcast all of that.

A prime example of how play has grown can be seen in social media such as Instagram. According to Caillois, play is not focused around dominating others or seeking power, the primary goal is the desire to excel and be honored among one’s people (Caillois, 50). This can be seen very clearly on Instagram as that is usually people’s goals on that site. This example alone can be argued to be comprised of Agon, Alea, and Mimicry (more specifically skill, luck, identity) as those are the three components you must have to “succeed” at this “game” due to the extreme saturation of the site along with because of how the algorithm works. Instagram alone can also be argued to fit Caillois’ requirements of needing to be free, separate, uncertain, unproductive (unless you want it to be as it does also have the potential to be very productive), governed by rules and make-believe. As for Huizinga’s requirements, it fits that as well. You can freely engaged in and express your freedom on Instagram, it can be something outside of ordinary life, it has its own space and time, it has rules that creates order (especially when it comes to learning the algorithm of how the site actually works), and it is entirely composed of connecting you to social and community groups.

All in all, electronics present a world that is ever expanding and changing and therefore defeats the issue of a hedonic treadmill (ie the higher level of expectation of pleasure that increases after each new expectation is met) by presenting people with devices in which an extended period of time they are better able to keep playing in more and more new ways everyday.

Huizinga may not agree with this however as he states, and raises a good point saying “As a civilization becomes more complex, more variegated and more overladen, and as the technique of production and social life itself become more finely organized, the old cultural soil is gradually smothered under a rank layer of ideas, systems of thought and knowledge, doctrines, rules and regulations, moralities and conventions which have lost all touch with play. Civilization, we then say, has grown more serious; it assigns only a secondary place to playing. The heroic period is over, and the agnostic phase, too, seems a thing of the past” (Huizinga, 75). I do agree that civilization has grown a lot more serious and very business oriented, however, once again I bring it back to technology as it is that that is beginning to ease society of these issues Hazinga addresses. It is technology that is slowly reconnecting us with play. Gen Z (the generation that is one step younger than millennials and that grew up knowing nothing but electronics) is actually talked about in media and the news as the generation of people that are the most freethinking and will change the world actually because of electronics (this new form of play and culture). Technology has not only lowered their average attention spans that will cause them to later create a more flexible and playful work environment, but it has also opened their minds up in ways that were not possible before that will make it all possible.

So while I do not think it is possible to know for sure if culture comes out of play or play comes out of culture, if anything, I can simply agree that they do work hand in hand. However, I do believe that play is both growing and evolving in our society. Due to technology, the world we live in (and therefore culture and play as well) is changing faster than they ever have before and being reconnected to it’s roots of play. This often scares people and causes them to claim things such as that now due to electronics kids are becoming less social, creative, and are losing the ability to play. Being apart of the generation that has equally grown up apart of both I disagree. I simply think that the way we see people create and play looks very different than it would have ten years ago and also very different than the way it will ten years from now.

Work Cited

Caillois, Roger, and Meyer Barash. Man, Play and Games. University of Illinois Press, 2001.

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens a Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Angelico Press, 2016.