Huizinga, Johan. 1950. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: The Beacon Press.
Caillois, Roger. 2001. Man, Play and Games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Laurel, Brenda. 2001. Utopian Entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis or The Love of Technology. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
The logical leaps don't seem to be too bad but what do I know. For now, i'll throw this up here so I can look at it later.
A. Games are important because they communicate ideas about fair play, the magic circle, and use of free time.
a. Huizinga 46: “Social life is endued with supra-biological forms, in the shape of play, which enhance its value. It is through this playing that society expresses its interpretation of life and the world. By this we do not mean that play turns into culture, rather that in its earliest phases culture has the play-character that it precedes in the shape and mood of play. In the twin union of play and culture, play is primary.”
i. Over time, the play-character crystallizes begins to be hidden by cultural phenomena (like video games) (46-47), other parts of it become sacred (religion, government, etc).
ii. In this way, video games, we can say, are an essential part of the cultural transmission, that certain elements of play are given form by them.
1. Naturally enough, the connection between culture and play is particularly evident in the higher forms of social play where the latter consists in the orderly activity of a group or two opposed groups. (47 Huizinga)
b. Caillois 40: “They (Games) reflect forms which, while doubtless remaining in the domain of play, evolve a bureaucracy, a complex apparatus, and a specialized hierarchical personality. In a word, they sustain permanent and refined structures, institutions of an official, private, marginal, and sometimes clandestine character, whose status seems nonetheless remarkably assured and durable.”
B. Technology as an answer to a cultural problem
a. Translation - Video games began in America, failed, picked up by Japan and sent in a new direction, American Gaming centered on the 'nerd' culture of America and went into the fringe computer hacker realm for years. Eventually it came back beginning with the success of the xbox. Now it has come full circle. Key event: Nintendo released the Wii in America before it released it in Japan.
i. Source to refer to: (Aramis: 33): “People always wonder how a laboratory, or a science, can have any impact at all on society, or how an innovation arises in the mind of its inventors. The answer is always to be found in the chains of translation that transform a global problem into a local problem through a series of intermediaries that are not “logical” in the formal sense of the term, but that oblige those…who are interested in the global problem to become interested through almost imperceptible shifts, in the local solution.”
ii. Page 32: Any engineer is posing questions and critiquing society through answering those questions: Video Games are an answer to the question of fun in the cold war at first, when that fails, interactive manga and anime in Japan that is eventually exported. When those wane, the video game is retranslated by American engineers as that of a multiplayer experience based on the popularity of multiplayer PC games by Microsoft. It is a way to bring a whole slew of disconnected people together.
iii. In doing this, American engineers take the global market of the video game and bring it within a close cultural proximity of American gamers. For the first time since the 90s, video game hardware and software were being created here, designed by companies here, and played by players here.
C. Cultural Proximity - Beginning with the re-translation of the video game we have begun to see a growing cultural proximity of the American video game with the American video game console.
a. The American video gaming fringe that was eventually re-translated to the XBOX was the white male dominated PC Gaming market.
i. Quote: Laurel 23: “Computer games as we know them were created by young men around the time of the invention of graphic displays. The whole industry consolidated very quickly around a young male demographic – all the way from the game-play design to the arcade environment to the retail world – and it made no sense for a company to swim against the tide in all three of these areas at once.”
b. American norms, moirés, and ideas about how a game is played are making it now into a much wider scope of people than previously thought possible.
c. Despite video games coming back to an American cultural proximity, the new video games are continuing through the PC market. The PC Market continued after the video game bust in the 80s. That market, created by young white males for young white males, has been copied into the new American based console market.
D. Feminist Theory or, why it matters that a video game is transmitting the translated nature of a new cultural proximity.
TERMS TO DEFINE:
Fair Play
Magic Circle
Translation
Cultural Proximity
Mediator
Intermediary
Collaboration versus competition
Anime
Manga
Cold War Innovation
Play-spirit
Video Game PC Market
7 comments:
Hi Nick, I don't want to be pushy, but Homo Ludens is probably my favorite book on games so I can't resist jumping in!
I think you're mis-characterizing Huizinga's position here. He believes that play is important not because it communicates certain things, but because it creates culture. This is a radical thing to say and something that I think most people read over because it's so out there.
In Huizinga's view play is not just part of culture, but also generates culture. Many parts of culture, in their earliest forms, were forms of play (or so goes his argument). This is why he says that play is "primary". A society that loses the 'play-character' loses the ability to produce culture.
He does not necessarily extend this to 'games' as you and I understand the term. In fact, he's against games where the ruleset is already settled (see his feelings on Bridge) because to his mind they are no longer producing culture. They have lost the 'play-character'.
I don't think it's radical to say that play creates culture at all. Huizinga says it, there's a whole branch of my discipline that starts with that assumption. However, the relationship is cyclical. Take, for instance, the quote I want to use:
“Social life is endued with supra-biological forms, in the shape of play, which enhance its value. It is through this playing that society expresses its interpretation of life and the world. By this we do not mean that play turns into culture, rather that in its earliest phases culture has the play-character that it precedes in the shape and mood of play. In the twin union of play and culture, play is primary.”
Now, society expresses its interpretation of life and the world in the shape of play. This presupposes a few things:
1. Society is made of play
2. Play is _________ by society
I say _______ because this is the second part of this passage in homo ludens: Over time, the play-character crystallizes begins to be hidden by cultural phenomena (like video games) (46-47), other parts of it become sacred (religion, government, etc).
In this way, play created by culture is capturing a part of the crystallized spirit of play. While it is true that the play-spirit created the society that then created video games, some portion of that creation is being used to create an object, insert the play-spirit into it, that the citizens of that society would then play.
I agree with you on the rest of that stuff but it is the premise upon which it is said that I feel isn't as deep as it could be. Play creates culture but it doesn't turn into that culture, culture is built around play.
In any case, it's a fun book to debate so I welcome any discussion about it!
Caillois is also a great read if you enjoyed Homo Ludens. He really
Continues the discussion!
"In this way, play created by culture is capturing a part of the crystallized spirit of play. While it is true that the play-spirit created the society that then created video games, some portion of that creation is being used to create an object, insert the play-spirit into it, that the citizens of that society would then play."
I think that this passage is very problematic. At least in my interpretation.
First off, when Huizinga talks about 'crystallization' I don't think he intends to be talking about games as cultural objects. He lists specifically (at least in my edition) "folklore, poetry, philosophy..." This indicates that you could apply his ideas to the creation of games as a whole, such as game design practices or industry politics, but that it would be incorrect to apply it to games in the specific, as objects.
Secondly, I think Huizinga would not agree with the idea that you can "insert the play spirit" into an object. Rather, the play spirit is something that lives inside of certain animals (not all animals play) and then sometimes co-opts objects for its use. Play can also cause the creation of certain objects, such as clothing which might be described as 'playful', however it only ever crystalizes in social forms, such as fashion.
"Play creates culture but it doesn't turn into that culture, culture is built around play."
I think that that is exactly what Huizinga is saying. Play forms become cultural forms, play practices become social practices. As they ossify the play spirit "recedes into the background" but play is always primary, it is the seed and the catalyst.
Sorry, that was a little long for a comment!
Anyway, Caillois is more modest, and so maybe more immediately useful, but in the end less philosophical than Huizinga, which is less interesting to me. Actually, if I ever teach my Game Studies class again I was thinking of dropping Caillois from the syllabus altogether.
How fun, I haven't gotten to debate Homo Ludens...ever!
Anyway, there are two things you say:
"First off, when Huizinga talks about 'crystallization' I don't think he intends to be talking about games as cultural objects. He lists specifically (at least in my edition) "folklore, poetry, philosophy..." This indicates that you could apply his ideas to the creation of games as a whole, such as game design practices or industry politics, but that it would be incorrect to apply it to games in the specific, as objects."
It is not that a game is a cultural object, rather, a game that was, at the origin of culture, something we did has crystalized into a new form. In essence, a physical, a tangible object is created as a representation of the play-spirit. Huizinga says later in the chapter that:
...once a game is beautiful to look at its cultural value is obvious; nevertheless its aesthetic value is not indispensable to culture. Physical, intellectual, moral or spiritual values can equally well raise play to the cultural level. The more apt it is to raise the tone, the intensity of life in the individual or the group the more readily it will become part of civilization itself.
I am not trying to say that video games are cultural objects, rather, that video games capture some aspect of the play-spirit from the culture that created it. In capitalism, this would be seen from that perspective through an intent to make money, perverting and corrupting the play-spirit (A whole other topic).
In tying it together with the idea of cultural proximity, I am trying to get at the idea of influence over that culture, thus adding a bit of application of Huizinga's analysis to the larger globalization issues.
In other words, a video game captures some aspect of the play-spirit, corrupted and distorted through capitalism and structure. Despite that corruption, the video game still stands as an aspect of the complex play-spirit that the culture formed around. I believe that we agree but I need to word things from a sociological point so it can be difficult.
Secondly, I think Huizinga would not agree with the idea that you can "insert the play spirit" into an object. Rather, the play spirit is something that lives inside of certain animals (not all animals play) and then sometimes co-opts objects for its use. Play can also cause the creation of certain objects, such as clothing which might be described as 'playful', however it only ever crystalizes in social forms, such as fashion.
Huizinga defines the play-spirit almost as 'losing one's self in the game'. It ends when "ordinary life" reasserts its rights (21). This is not the term I was looking for, my wording was very sloppy.
The term I had meant is akin to the previous statement. A video game is a designer's attempt to capture an aspect of the "Play character" (47). A designer is going to attempt to capture some aspect of this play-character. In the capitalist eye, capturing this thing will equate to "money".
I say this only because some (not all) video games attempt to emulate some aspect of our culture but to a degree that it frees us from the bonds of "ordinary life". I mistakingly used play-spirit there as that is what will or might arise. This is the emergence game-designers tend to talk about.
I am a bit afraid I have created a false divide between us. I believe that you agree with the concepts, but not the words I am using. But then, such things happen. Still, I do enjoy discussion!
"It is not that a game is a cultural object, rather, a game that was, at the origin of culture, something we did has crystallized into a new form. In essence, a physical, a tangible object is created as a representation of the play-spirit."
Hrm, this is where I have to be careful about confusing my opinion with Huizinga's. I don't actually believe that any game exists as a physical object, and I think that Huizinga would agree with me, though I don't know if I have the text to back it up. What I would say is that by my interpretation when he uses the word 'game' he really means an activity.
"...a video game captures some aspect of the play-spirit..."
I guess I don't know what you mean by 'capture', in that the game designer is trying to capture the play character. If you mean that the game designer hopes that their game will be used as a vehicle by the play spirit, then I think we agree. If you mean that a game somehow generates the play spirit, then I think we disagree.
Also, I'm not sure that Huizinga would think that capitalism would "corrupt" a game. I think that, to him, capitalism would simply be another form of the play spirit, as it's a celebration of 'agon', which he praises and values. Maybe you're arguing that capitalism itself has been corrupted, but that seems like a different issue. Either way, Marxism worried Huizinga much more than capitalism.
Of course, maybe I should just wait and read the paper! Will you be publishing it online?
Anyway, this has been a lot of fun! Huizinga is a fascinating thinker and I feel like he does not get the attention he deserves.
I guess I don't know what you mean by 'capture', in that the game designer is trying to capture the play character. If you mean that the game designer hopes that their game will be used as a vehicle by the play spirit, then I think we agree. If you mean that a game somehow generates the play spirit, then I think we disagree.
If the play-spirit is something that exists almost at a state of bliss then any game designer will, consciously or sub-consciously, try to find a way to regain that feeling that occurred before "reality" interrupted it. The players, playing this game, depending on their own circumstances and the design of the game, may or may not pick up on it. But that is getting into communicative action and something far more complicated than Homo Ludens.
Also, I'm not sure that Huizinga would think that capitalism would "corrupt" a game. I think that, to him, capitalism would simply be another form of the play spirit, as it's a celebration of 'agon', which he praises and values. Maybe you're arguing that capitalism itself has been corrupted, but that seems like a different issue. Either way, Marxism worried Huizinga much more than capitalism.
The sentiment I am getting at is a function of the language of capitalism which, by and away, has mostly removed the possibility of the play-spirit to arise unless money is exchanged. It is this process that corrupts play and furthers the destruction of the character of play. Of course, I say capitalism for it is the result of enlightenment thinking and industrialization. The Enlightenment, the rise of logic, the confounding of the idea of 'play' with that of something children and animals and away from the ULTIMATE are why Huizinga wrote Homo Ludens.
He was a heck of a guy!
I'll more than likely (barring any surprises) present this paper at a conference soon and, with the criticism there, attempt to publish it. I think I might try the Sex Roles journal but i'm not sure yet.
Thanks!
Post a Comment