What is play?
There are many lenses through which play scholars have examined play. In his book, The Ambiguity of Play, Brian Sutton-Smith details what he has identified as the seven rhetorics of play that most play activities and behaviors can be categorized. He operationalizes his use of the term “rhetoric” by stating, “each is called a rhetoric because its ideological values are something that the holders like to persuade others to believe in and to live by” (12). In his analysis, Sutton-Smith outlines four “ancient” rhetorics and three “modern” rhetorics. The more seasoned include the rhetoric of play as fate, the rhetoric of play as power, the rhetoric of play as identify, and the rhetoric of play as frivolous (although it should be noted that the rhetoric of play as frivolous has modern adaptations.) Those that have come into existence in the last few hundred years include the rhetoric of play as progress, the rhetoric of play as the imaginary, and the rhetoric the self. Sutton-Smith also notes that although there are seven broad rhetorics of play, each is comprised of several other rhetorics and theoretical interpretations. In their most basic definitions, the seven rhetorics of play are:
1. The rhetoric of play as fate encompasses gambling and other games of chance. Sutton-Smith points out that this rhetoric generally exists within low socio-economic groups. Play as fate contrasts all other rhetorics of play in that there is no free choice involved.
2.The rhetoric of play as power consists of sports, athletics, and other contests. The scholars who promote this rhetoric believe that play is a representation of conflict and tout those who control the play as heroes.
3. The rhetoric of play as identity addresses traditional and community celebrations and festivals. Play as identity parallels the rhetoric of play as power in that it values play tradition as promoting power and identity of community players (as opposed to the individuals granted heroic power in the rhetoric of play as power.)
4. The rhetoric of play as frivolous refers to idle or foolish activities. In rhetorics of play as frivolous, the player often has the traits of a trickster or jester figure, and playfully challenges “the establishment.”
5. The rhetoric of play as progress deals with the play of children (generally speaking adults are not included in this rhetoric) as a form of adaptation and development.
6. The rhetoric of play as the imaginary idealizes the imagination as an integral part of creativity, innovation, and flexibility.
7. The rhetoric the self identifies solitary play activities. This rhetoric promotes desirable experiences such as fun, relaxation, and escape, as a way of dealing with the woes of everyday life.
Through the examination of these seven rhetorics, Sutton-Smith seeks to prove that play is ambiguous. He asserts that one of the purest forms of play occurs when a player plays with the concept of play itself, for example, when a player says something seemingly outrageous with an attitude of seriousness, compelling the played upon to question whether the player is in fact “just playing.” The aforementioned aspects of play make it exceedingly difficult to pin down one definition or description of what play is.
At several points throughout The Ambiguity of Play, Sutton-Smith reminds readers that, “there can be—and often is—very little relationship between the players’ own play definitions and those of the theorists” (16). Is the experience of the players not, perhaps, the most crucial aspect to consider? If the players perceive the play differently than what the constructs of the play appear to be to the theorists, the perspective of the player could shed an entirely different light onto play activities and their purposes, motivations and struggles. Through the research in this project, I will focus more on the experiences of the player, as I believe that these experiences are a valuable aspect of previously understudied research. While play behavior (even if not play experience) is relatively well studied in animals and children, particularly in reference to their evolutional development, adult play behavior, while discussed briefly in some of the literature, is much less of a focal point in modern rhetorics of play, and a focus on the experience of the play is even rarer.
Why is adult play behavior an important thing to study?
Contemporary, “always-on,” US workforces have started to express frustrations with an increasingly disproportionate work-life balance. In a study by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States ranked 29 out of 36 countries in relation to their work-life balance. According to the OECD, “Evidence suggests that long work hours may impair personal health, jeopardize safety and increase stress.” The OECD’s “Better Life Index” asserts that not only is an individual’s well-being jeopardized when working long hours, but a country’s development may also decline when desired work-life balance is not achieved(Better Life Index). Always on culture has blurred the lines between work and non-work and even when a worker is “off the clock,” they may still be expected to be available to respond to e-mails or phone calls. One author notes that even workers on vacation who have out-of-office auto response set up still respond to e-mails (Galinksy 2010).
In the last 20 years or so, startups and other forward-thinking businesses, particularly in the dotcom or technology realm, have begun experimenting with innovative, “playful” work environments for their employees. While open floor plans, two story slides, and more pool tables than meeting rooms may serve as a playful distraction from work, in this research, I’d like to focus more on incorporating playfulness into the actual workflow, as opposed to the work environment.
I feel it is important to make the distinction between workflow and work environment for a couple of reasons. First of all, many of the companies who have opted for playful, diversion-laden work environments have done so to encourage employees to spend more time at work, which, in the long run, is something very different than what I’ll be arguing. Second of all, telecommuting is on the rise (Gallinsky 2014). With an ever-increasing percentage of the workforce working from someplace other than a corporate office, I believe it is necessary to focus on how people work, regardless of where they are or what kind of office they work in.
Building off of the concept of imaginative play, this project aims to address various “work tasks” in a more playful manner. Equipping the modern worker with a digital toybox can encourage even the most tedious “work tasks” to become exercises in creative problem solving and innovation. By exploring the intersection of work and play, new methods of productively incorporating playfulness into workflow may provide an alternative solution for facilitating a healthy work-life balance.
Play as a form of imaginary media
At its most basic core, play is a comment on “real life.” Stuart Brown, founder of the National Institute for Play and author of Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul (2009), asserts that “[Play] is the basis of all art, games, books, sports, movies, fashion, fun, and wonder—in short, the basis of what we think of as civilization” (12). This conception of play makes play itself seem like a form of imaginary media, as it is all at once, “a kind of a reservoir of weird ideas that might provide blueprints for future media design …[and] the dreamworlds surrounding media and technology” (Parikka, 2012 p. 61-2). It is rather difficult to clearly dissect the idea of imaginary media through the theoretical lens of play because it seems mostly to add a layer of ambiguity to an already ambiguous idea.
The digital toybox I hope to create through this project is, at least in its current state, an imaginary media. It is a way of re-imagining work processes as we know them to include something that has, for most of history, been considered work’s opposite – play.