The Unique Movement of Play

This post is Part 2 in a series.

In my last post, I introduced Hans-Georg Gadamer’s conception of human understanding as an interpretive and linguistic process of “play” between human beings—a back-and-forth, dialogical movement in which we present and recognize meaning with each other and come to a shared grasp of some subject matter in our world. Such a dialogical play can take place not only in face-to-face conversation but also when we encounter the language of art, text, and tradition.

In this post, I want to take a closer look at what kind of movement “play” really is. This will help us begin to recognize which kinds of human activity cultivate genuine dialogue and understanding, and which lead us to avoid, halt, degrade, or destroy them.

8 Characteristics of Play

In Gadamer’s description of play, eight key characteristics emerge.

1. Play is something that happens “in between” the players.

First, Gadamer emphasizes that play is not something that takes place in the mind or the behaviors of the subject. Play is not a subjective act but, rather, an interactive engagement. It is something that takes place “in between” different players in their back-and-forth movement with each other. Play is not, thus, something one can engage in alone. Play requires that there be at least one other play-partner who responds to our moves with their own.

2. In play, the players must be active.

For play to function, both (or all) players must be active participants. This implies something important about the power dynamics of play. There must be room made and maintained for the different players to contribute. Though there is typically some level of friction, resistance, or tension in play (born of the differences between the players), play won’t work if, for instance, one player dominates the other to the point that they are made passive or unable to participate freely—that, in a sense, “kills” the play.

This may surprise some people: Play is actually not about dominating the other and winning. Competition games aim to end the play rather than sustain it. For Gadamer, play is a “to-and-fro movement that is not tied to any goal that would bring it to an end” (Truth and Method, 103).

3. Play is a free movement that’s unpredictable.

The partner with which one plays, as we said, must be responsive for play to function, and they must be responsive in surprising and unpredictable ways. That means that they must be able to move freely in ways that are not determined in advance. If the players move without variability—for instance, in ways that are identical to each other, formulaic, or mechanistic—what they are doing ceases to be play. It’s the players’ spontaneous and variable movement that makes play a phenomenon whose outcome cannot be known in advance, which is one of the reasons it captures our interest so completely.

4. Play has a life of its own that we can’t control.

Gadamer describes play as having an essence or spirit of its own that emerges between the players—an essence that’s bigger than the players, and that is beyond the control of any one of them. Play is something in which the player “loses himself” and “becomes absorbed.”

5. Play is a movement that “presents” something beyond the players.

Gadamer shows how play “presents” something that would not be noticeable if it weren’t for the players’ to-and-fro engagement. On this point, it’s helpful to imagine children playing “house.” Each of the players takes on a different role or character (e.g., mother, brother, uncle, grandma). Through their interactions with each other, something bigger than their individual roles is presented, for instance, what family life is like in their culture. This activity of “presentation,” for Gadamer, is the “mode of being” of play itself, and play has no other purpose or goal beyond it.

6. Play transforms the players.

Play is something that fills the players with its spirit. It affects them, tests them, tries their abilities, teaches them new things, draws them into new relationships, and develops them. Play is like an adventure from which you return changed.

7. Play is fundamentally open-ended.

Play Essential Reads

Why Adults Need to Play

What to Do About Screen Time This Summer

Play’s activity of “presentation”—of presenting something beyond the players—is a fundamentally open-ended process. Consider again our example of kids playing house. Presenting what family life is like is an inexhaustible process. The kids could play out all sorts of different scenarios and story lines, and the process would never be “complete.” There’s no final move or final word when it comes to play.

8. Play is a self-renewing movement.

In play, though we as players expend effort, we experience a kind of lightness and ease. We lose track of time, we forget ourselves, and we are carried away by the game. The strain of exertion is lifted as the to-and-fro movement renews its own energy through constant repetition.

Have We Lost Touch With Play?

It may help us to see what’s so unique about the movement of play by pausing for a moment to distinguish it from what it’s not.

• Play is social, not solitary.
• It’s about engagement and active contribution, not being passive or an outside observer.
• It’s collaborative—not domineering or destructive of the other player.
• Play is free, variable, spontaneous, and unpredictable—not controlled, determined, or mechanistic.
• Play is about participating in something bigger than oneself and giving up control, rather than manipulating a situation to get the outcome one wants.
• Play is an activity that develops the players and cultivates them, rather than degrades them, uses them up, or breaks them down.
• Play is open-ended, not aimed at winning/losing, or even at some finished product.
• Play is self-renewing, not draining or exploiting of energy for some purpose outside of play.

It’s worth pausing to consider whether we really make time for “play” interactions with others currently in our culture. It seems that we (adults and children) are spending a lot of our time isolated, withdrawn from social interaction, and passively “watching” events go by as we scroll on our screens. We also seem to have our time monopolized by work activities that are heavily prescribed, controlled, and directed by others—activities that are determined like the movements of a machine, draining our energies, and serving as a means to an end of some form of production, profit, domination, or “winning.” My sense is that we have largely lost touch with play, and with the freedom and social engagement necessary for cultivating genuine dialogue/understanding and (as Gadamer sees it) for developing as human beings. My hope is that Gadamer’s descriptions of play can act as a guiding light that inspires us to re-engage.

In the next post, we’ll consider the ethical conditions of dialogue-play and understanding, which will highlight even further how play has become such a counter-culture activity. But, hopefully, it will also give us new clues that help us find our way back to the kinds of human engagement in which we learn, grow, and connect with each other.