Academics have a way of taking the fun out of anything, and
contemporary playresearch is hardly an exception. Although the
grandfather of play research, Johan Huizinga, could turn an eloquent and
upbeat phrase, much of the learned writing on the topic of play has been
technical, abstruse, and frighteningly dry.
Consider the following, penned by researcher E.A Plaut in 1979:
"Play activity in adulthood reveals the masterful mature function of the
ego, which, temporarily dominating id and superego, integrates their
components into ritualized expression within a structured, articulated
framework." Now that sounds like fun.
Granted, the psychoanalytic tradition isn't known for much humor;
Freud himself argued, back in 1908, that adults do not play, and his
adherents have been trying to explain the gaffe ever since. Yet even
outside psychoanalysis, play researchers often seem strangely detached
from the nature of their topic. "Drawing upon the theory. . . of play as
a metacommunicative frame created interactively," begins one 1987
article, "this study examined how adults frame play through their
messages and behaviors."
Another researcher argued that play stops being play when the
"observing ego loses its role and the capacity to pretend is lost, or at
least sharply changed from one of primary significance to a secondary or
tertiary role in the behavior and subjective experience, allowing for
maturational and developmental changes in such capacities and
tolerances." No kidding.
Play research, like any other research, requires exactitude and
scientific detachment. But the dry analysis Of play seems to reflect the
rising mainstream tendency to regard play and playfulness as distinct
"things" to be observed, instead of qualities of feeling to be
experienced. Some researchers now wonder whether the "psychologization"
of play by the academic community isn't itself at least partly to blame
for our growing inability to simply play. Like amateur scientists, we've
all begun to subject ourselves and our experiences to relentless
analysis.
Not surprisingly, many play researchers seem to be a pretty dour
lot. Several interviewed for the accompanying article, for example, were
quite pessimistic about the likelihood of any significant improvement in
the quantity or quality of adult play in America. They note that leisure
time for most Americans continues to decline. (The average American has
only 16.5 hours of leisure per week.)
As well, they argue that for many adults a raging self-awareness
and an almost militaristic commitment to professionalism is hobbling our
capacity to simply "enjoy the moment."
In fact, some researchers confess, almost guiltily, to their own
failure to balance work and play. One recalled sitting through a meeting
with a department colleague while secretly wishing to leave and go do
something fun. "It was ridiculous," the researcher says. "We were both in
leisure studies. We both realize how important leisure is supposed to be.
And yet I realized there was no way I could say to my colleague that I'd
had enough of the meeting and that I wanted to go. In everyone, I think,
there's this tension between what we say we believe and what we're
willing to act on."
Tags:
abstruse,
academic community,
adherents,
detachment,
developmental changes,
fun,
gaffe,
happiness,
johan huizinga,
mainstream,
plaut,
play,
playfulness,
psychoanalytic tradition,
research,
researcher,
sounds like fun,
subjective experience,
writing
