Caillois begins with giving enormous credit to Huizinga’s definition of play and his attempt to clarify play’s cultural role in 1938. However, Caillois finds exceptions to the following definition: “Summing up the formal characteristics of play we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary” life as being “not serious” but at the same time absorbing the player intensely at utterly. It is an action connected with no material interest, and no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds with its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social grouping which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common worlds by disguise or other means”. The first problem he finds with Huizinga’s definition is that of the relationship of play and the mysterious. He sees that play removes the very nature of the mysterious, even when the make-believe serves as a sacramental function that an institution is involved. Caillois then notes that this definition completely disregards games of chance and gambling, such as racetracks, lotteries, or casinos, property is exchanged but no goods are actually produced (sometimes a complete waste of time and energy). One cannot ignore that games are meant to be won/lost and are an important part of the economy but is still completely unproductive. The people who earn their living from these games of chance are not playing but rather working. They both agree that play is a fun and free activity, has an unknown outcome, occupies a certain time and space, and involves no profitable gain. Caillois distinguishes that games are not ruled and make-believe but ruled or make believe, that many games have only implied rules (there are always cheaters or “spoil-sports”).
6 thoughts on “Caillois on Huizinga’s Definition of Play”
Comments are closed.
Game Studies 
Great work identifying the split between Huizinga and Caillois. It’s with Geertz that this conversation really ramps up, because what Geertz observes in his anthropological work seems to upend the notion of play as free, voluntary, and without consequence. Caillois already encompassed games of chance, but “Deep Play” seems to go beyond anything so easy to define as material gain.
LikeLike
I enjoyed the Geertz article (I found myself YouTubing Balinese cock fighting). Aside from the obvious metaphorical relation to men and their “cocks”, I knew nothing of the sacrificial and social-status aspects of cock-fighting and how culturally significant this “deep play” represents. Geertz points out that even in an unmaterialistic society such as Bali, money does matter because it represents greater risk, not only money is lost but “one’s pride, one’s poise, one’s dispassion, one’s masculinity”, publicly. More money equals social hierarchy and the cockfight is a “simulation of the social matrix”.
LikeLike
I think what Caillois had to say about mystery and play was very interesting. I actually had to read it a few times to really understand it because I had never thought about play in terms of mystery. Things that are whimsical and mysterious almost blatantly feel playful because they are so separated from normal life and seem to have no real impact or importance to society. However, I think that something does not necessarily need to be mysterious in order to engage in play, and that only an element of uncertainty is important. You could be playing Connect 4 for the 40th time that month, and you could still get genuine enjoyment out of it. While the game is not mysterious at all because it is so simple, mundane, and understood by you, it is still fun because the outcome can change at any time depending on a player’s choice.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Professor Kemp on this one. You seemed to distinguish the differences even further than I did. I remember reading the Geertz article last year in my Pop Culture class with Ted Friedman. How much these cock fights means to them rests squarely on the fact that it could bankrupt them. You also have, like you pointed out in your reply, issues with pride. Regarding the actual post, your last two sentences are spot on. Cannot wait to discuss all of this with you in class next week!
LikeLike
Do you agree with him when he says that people earning a wage from play aren’t playing, but working? Whereas I agree with most everything Caillous said in his definition of play, I feel like they are still players within a game, and outside of contractual obligation, are still free to stop playing whenever they would like.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Al-Tavon Lawson.
LikeLike