On the Play Element of Culture

It was not my object to define the place of play among all the other manifestations of culture, but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play. (Foreword)

Huizinga’s main thesis is on the central role of play in the development of human culture and civilization. He notes that while others have tried to explain play through the biological or psychological advantages it offers, they fail to recognize the value of play in itself.

Even in its simplest forms on the animal level, play is more than a mere physiological phenomenon or a psychological reflex… It is a significant function—that is to say, there is some sense to it. In play there is something “at play” which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action. (p.1)

Huizinga offers a perspective that flips the equation around. Play didn’t emerge to serve some biological or cultural purpose. Rather, human civilization has has developed out of our impulse to play. Most of the book sees the author push this idea as far as he can take it. He uses historical examples to illustrate the play element in the formation of a wide range of cultural activities.

The spirit of playful competition is, as a social impulse, older than culture itself and pervades all life like a veritable ferment. Ritual grew up in sacred play; poetry was born in play and nourished on play; music and dancing were pure play. Wisdom and philosophy found expression in words and forms derived from religious contests. The rules of warfare, the conventions of noble living were built up on play-patterns. We have to conclude, therefore, that civilization is, in its earliest phases, played. It does not come from play like a babe detaching itself from the womb: it arises in and as play, and never leaves it. (p.173)

Many of his examples show how these activities can be traced back to basic types of play like contests, pageantry, and ordering into patterns.

While I’m not sure I’m convinced of the extent of his argument, I can appreciate the idea that play is a fruitful framing for many of our activities as humans. For designers, a playful mindset can help us pose interesting questions about the context of a design. What are the rules and how do people know them? What delineates the temporal and spatial bounds of the interaction? Can we recognize an aspect of ritual, pageantry, or competition that drives the activity?

Additionally, design itself can be seen as a type of play. This suggests some intriguing approaches to design process that borrows from play activities like games, improv, roleplay, or other systems of rules. I think designers have already recognized this as evidenced by some of the interaction design methods out there.