Play, Recreation, Health and Well Being PDF
Preview Play, Recreation, Health and Well Being
Ludic Geographies Tara Woodyer, Diana Martin, and Sean Carter Contents 1 ApproachingPlayfromaGeographicalPerspective........................................ 2 2 TheGreatOutdoors:AReviewofPlayWithinChildren’sGeographies.................. 4 3 AdultWorldsandChildWorlds:PullingPlayOutofaSocialVacuum................... 6 4 ValuingPlayinandofItself:Materiality,Embodiment,andVitality..................... 11 5 Conclusion.................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................ 16 Abstract Inmanyways,twenty-firstcentury(western)childhoodmaybecharacterizedby acacophonyofmoralpanics.Spatialityispertinent,ifnotcentral,tothesemoral panics, not least those concerning contemporary children’s play. Yet, despite this, the presence of spatiality within play research beyond the geographical disciplineis,atbest,marginal.Thischapterexamineshowgeographicalworkis wellplacedtochallengeproblematiccharacteristicsofagenda-settingdiscourses aboutchildren’splay.Thisisnotrestrictedtothemarginalpresenceofspatiality butextends tothenostalgicreificationof“innocent”play,thevalorizationofa developmentalapproach,andalimitedapprehensionofembodimentandmate- riality. The chapter begins with an overview of geographical work that has favored the outdoor spaces of the playground, street, and neighborhood and emphasizeshowchildren’sindependentspatialmobilityhaschangedovertime. Itthenintroducesmorerecentandemergingtrends,namely,attemptsto(1)posi- tion children’s play within a broader context and stress its contribution to the T.Woodyer(*)(cid:129)D.Martin DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofPortsmouth,Portsmouth,UK e-mail:[email protected] S.Carter Geography,CollegeofLife&EnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofExeter,Exeter,UK #SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015 1 B.Evansetal.(eds.),Play,Recreation,HealthandWellBeing,Geographiesof ChildrenandYoungPeople9,DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-96-5_1-1 2 T.Woodyeretal. reproduction and shaping of “adult” society and (2) recognize vitality as the intrinsicpurposeandvalueofplayandtheroleofmateriality,embodiment,and affectivity to this. While it is shown there is much to celebrate in relation to geographicalresearchonplay,itisarguedthatgeographerscouldandshoulddo moretobetter understandplay fromtheplayer’s perspective andchallengethe prevailingdirectionofplayresearchbeyondthediscipline. Keywords British Armed Forces Cold War Developmentalism Embodiment, Industrial capitalism (cid:129) Industrial Revolution (cid:129) Learning process Materiality (cid:129) Public space (cid:129) Social agency (cid:129) Social transformation Socialization (cid:129) Toxic childhood syndrome(cid:129)UKMinistryofDefence(MOD) 1 Approaching Play from a Geographical Perspective Thischapterexaminesthecrucialroleofageographicalperspectiveinunderstand- ingchildren’splay.Itisintendedasanintroductiontoproblematiccharacteristics ofagenda-settingdiscoursesaboutchildren’splay–suchasthemarginalpresence of spatiality, the nostalgic reification of “innocent” play, the valorization of a developmentalapproach,andalimitedapprehensionofembodimentandmaterial- ity–andhowgeographersarewellplacedtochallengethese. Inmanyways,twenty-firstcentury(western)childhoodmaybecharacterizedby acacophonyofmoralpanics. Concernaboutallnumbersofaspectsofcontempo- rary children’s lives abounds: malnourishment and obesity, a solitary, sedentary, screen-based lifestyle, wanting family relations and chaotic domestic routines, deficient schooling and poor future prospects, and a lack of civility and societal regard. Spatiality is pertinent, if not central, to these moral panics: children and young people being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Not eating as afamily at the dinner table, notrunningand climbing outdoors, not beinginbedattheappropriatetime,pooreducationalandplayinfrastructure,and theanonymityonlineinteractionaffords,posingathreatandbeingatriskinpublic space. Combined, these concerns have spawned what Palmer (2006) refers to as “toxic childhood syndrome.” Such concerns about western childhood hold rele- vance for children globally. The western social construct of childhood has been exportedtofurtherreachesoftheglobe,shapingresponsestoandinterventionsin children’slivesintheMajorityWorld. The pertinence of spatiality to moral panics about childhood is particularly evident in concern about contemporary children’s play. In the face of growing concerns about child safety and the lure of a vast screen-based children’s culture, childrenareseentohaveretreatedfromoutdoorspace.Thisretreathassignaleda diminishingengagementwithnatureandtherich,independent,exploratoryplayit affordsandismarkedbycampaignstoencourageoutdoorplay.Take,forexample, UK-basedinitiativessuchasPlayEngland’s“LoveOutdoorPlay”campaign,which LudicGeographies 3 includedthecreationofaninteractivemapoflocalplayspacesacrosstheUK,and the National Trust’s 50 Things To Do Before You’re 11¾ challenge, which encourages children to explore outdoor environments and get closer to nature by doingthingssuchasbuildingdensandskimmingstones. These initiatives are, in large part, a response to disenchanted images of con- temporarychildhoodfueledbynostalgiaforformsofplaymorereadilycharacter- isticofdaysgoneby,typicallyrelatedtoamoreindependentspatialmobility.This nostalgia is an admixture of adult imagination and memory, a romanticism shroudedinthemysticismandinnocenceofchildhood(Philo2003). Despite the centrality of spatiality to contemporary concerns about children’s play, its presence within play research is, at best, marginal. In a recent scientific compendiumonchildren’splay,Meire(2007,73)notedhowresearchonchildren’s geographies“couldbeanenormousenrichmenttothestudyofplay.”However,this research is yet tobe registered in many chief perspectives on play. This is regret- table as geographical workis well placedtochallenge problematic characteristics ofagenda-settingdiscoursesaboutchildren’splay,notably:themarginalpresence of spatiality, the nostalgic reification of “innocent” play, the valorization of a developmentalapproach,andalimitedapprehensionofembodimentandmaterial- ity. Rather than simply bemoaning the lack of attention geographical research on play has received, this chapter critically reviews the dominant trends within this work and stresses how it could and should do more to expand the geographies of playwecriticallyengagewithandchallengetheprevailingdirectionofcontempo- raryresearchonchildren’splaybeyondthediscipline. Currently, research on children’s play is characterized by the valorization of developmentalism.Playisviewedthroughaninstrumentallens,seenasalearning process preparing children for adult life. It has no purpose in and of itself but derives its meaning from what it will equip a child to do in the future. However, broader considerations of play, as something more than merely the activity of children, have cast it as noninstrumental. A trivial, superfluous activity is set in oppositiontoseriousnessandproductivityandthussomething,inmanyways,tobe contained, particularly within adult behavior. To these seemingly paradoxical approaches to play, we might usefully add a third: theories of ambiguity. This approach stresses play as a fluid and polymorphous process without stability of eithermeaningorcontent(Sutton-Smith1997;Woodyer2012).Thisunderstanding opensupthepossibilitythatplaycanhaveitsowninternalcoherenceandmeaning neither purposeless nor brought into relief only by what it might enable one to accomplishinthefuture.Playisnotanactivityseparateanddistinctfromconven- tional adult behavior but rather flows through various events, practices, actions, moments,andages,makingitpartoftheeverydaylifeofbothchildrenandadults. By drawing attention to the ambiguity of play, this chapter demonstrates how geographical research might begin to challenge the problematic characteristics of agenda-settingdiscoursesaboutchildren’splaynotedabove. Thechapterbeginswithabriefoverviewofgeographicalworkthathasfavored theoutdoorspacesoftheschoolground,street,andneighborhoodandemphasizes how children’s independent spatial mobility has changed over time. This 4 T.Woodyeretal. geographical overview critiques broader contemporary research on play in two importantways.Firstly,itlamentsthelimitedapprehensionofspatialityinworkto date. Secondly, it begins a critique of the prevailing valorization of developmentalismwithincontemporaryplayresearch,whichiswoventhroughout thechapter.Thefollowingsectionsintroduceresearchrelatingtochildren’sdomes- ticplaywithtoysandpopularculturalformstocontinuethiscritiqueintwoways. Firstly, by stressing how children’s play is embedded inand helps to shape wider socialrelations,practices,andprocesses,and,secondly,byvaluingthevitalitythat play affords in the here and now, as seen through the lens of embodiment. The chapter concludes by outlining how geographers could and should do more to exploretheselasttwoaspectsofplay. 2 The Great Outdoors: A Review of Play Within Children’s Geographies While the indoor retreat of children is commonly held as a contemporary trend, there has been an increasing domestication of childhood since the late eighteenth century.DuringtheIndustrialRevolution,the“domestic”tookonanunprecedented symbolic resonance as workplace and home space were divided into separate spheres. The home became a moral haven in a rapidly changing, volatile, and incomprehensible world. Children were central to this “modern domestic ideal,” whichwasbasedonthenuclearfamily.Zelizer(1985)chartsthetransformationin the economic and sentimental value of children that this moral process of domes- tication entailed. It is during this time that the economically “worthless” but emotionally“priceless”child,afigurethathasbecomeessentializedincontempo- raryunderstandingsofwesternchildhood,emerged.Theintroductionofchildlabor lawsandcompulsoryeducationgraduallyusheredchildrenintoanewunproductive anddomesticatedworldofchildhood. The idea of the home as the “proper” space for children is reflected in the construction and externalization of risk by both parents and children. As percep- tions of public space are becoming more threatening, not least due to the consid- erable media attention given to cases of child abduction and murder, drug deaths among young people, and bullying, the boundary between home and outdoors is becoming more strongly defined. The perceived risks of children’s use of public spacehavepromptedtheirparticipationinpubliclifetobeincreasinglycontrolled and limited by adults via a plethora of legal, parental, and material restrictions. These limits to children’s autonomy embody contemporary western ideas about childhood as a time of innocence and dependence and children as an immature, na¨ıvesocialgroup. Yet,thenotionofchildrenbeing“outofplace”inpublicspaceisnotlimitedto ideas of children’s vulnerability. As Valentine’s (1996a, b) work clearly shows, contradictory ideas about children as either “angels” (at risk in adult-controlled space) or“devils”(whose unruly behavior risks the hegemony ofadult-controlled space)producedifferentconcernsaboutchildren’suseofpublicspaceintheglobal LudicGeographies 5 north. This is particularly striking when the two concerns collide, as was the case withthemurderoftoddlerJamieBulgerbytwo10-year-oldboysin1993.Although these contradictory ideas about children being out of place in public space stem fromdifferenthistoricalroots,theyreproducethesamespatialideology. Giventhepervasivenessofthisideologyandthelevelofcontemporarydebateit hasgenerated,itisnotsurprisingthatgeographicalresearchhasprimarilyfocused on children’s use of outdoor space at the expense of accounts of domestic play. Studieshaveexaminedchildren’suseofschoolgrounds(Hemming2007);parental concerns about children’s use of public space (Valentine 1997); intergenerational change in children’s use of neighborhoods (Tandy 1999); variations in children’s independentspatialmobilityaccording todifferences inlocality,gender,age, and class(ValentineandMcKendrick1997);discoursesofcurfew(CollinsandKearns 2001); young people’s appropriation of “the street” (Matthews et al. 1999, 2000); and use of, and movement between, spaces within their neighborhoods (Tucker 2003). Despiteagrowingtrendtowardtherestrictionofchildren’suseofpublicspace, geographies of play cannot simply be reduced to a trend toward curtailment and impoverishment.There has also been a move toward the diversification and com- modificationof“indoor”play.Tothisend,geographershaveexaminedthespaces of the youth club (Skelton 2000), the after-school club (Smith and Barker 2000), andcommercializedleisurespaces(McKendricketal.2000).Whilethelatterarea direct reaction to discourses of fear about dangerous streets, they do not simply inducealossofchildren’sfreedomtopublicspace.Sincethe1990s,thedevelop- ment of “add-on” indoor and outdoor playgrounds and “stand-alone” indoor soft play centers has asserted children’s right to play space in parts of the built environmentpreviouslyperceivedasadultdomains(McKendricketal.2000). With the prevailing geographical focus on play beyond the home, particularly outdoorplay,domesticspacesofplay–theprivateenvironmentsofthehomeand thegarden–havebeenundulyneglected.Thisisseeminglyproblematicifchildren are indeed spending an increasing amount of time in the home. However, geo- graphicalresearchonoutdoorplayisinstructiveas“[s]treetplay”remainsdisturb- ingly out of sight in most research [on play beyond geography], with attention focused on public playgrounds, school playgrounds, and day care centers (Meire 2007, 73). In uniquely addressing how children play in their neighborhoods and howtheymovebetweenplaceswhileplayingtogether,geographicalwork“[pulls] play out of its secluded ‘children’s settings’” (Meire 2007, 73). In doing so, this workemphasizestheimportanceofspatialitytodiscoursesonandpracticesofplay. It highlights the difference that place makes to understandings of children and childhood,theimportanceofthedifferentsitesofeverydaylifeinthemakingand remaking of children’s lives and identities, and the role of spatial imagery in ideologiesofchildhood(HollowayandValentine2000). It also challenges a valorization of developmentalism evident within wider research on play. Geographical research on play is firmly situated within the “new social studies of childhood” in that it actively seeks to move beyond a preoccupation with the forces of socialization by paying explicit attention to 6 T.Woodyeretal. children’severydaypracticesofliving(HollowayandValentine2000).Ratherthan approaching children as“humanbecomings” – immature,na¨ıve beings waiting to be shaped into fully human adults through the process of socialization – geogra- phers recognize children ashuman beings intheir own right. This is evidencedin attention not only to the importance of spaces beyond the school and public playground in children’s lives but also in the social variations, tensions, and microgeographiescentraltoplay(Jones2000;ThomsonandPhilo2004),children’s performativityofageandgenderdifferentiationwithinplay(Karsten2003;Tucker 2003),andchildren’snegotiationsofparentalrestrictionsonaccesstopublicspace andtheirself-imposedlimitstospatialmobility(Valentine1997).Children’ssocial agency is also a strong theme in historical geographies of playground reform (Gagen2001,53),amovementlargelyrepresentedas“somethingcreatedbyadults forchildren.” There is much to celebrate, then, in geographical research on children’s play, with its attention to the heterogeneity and agency of children. Notwithstanding these attributes, a closer inspection of this work reveals a series of oversights. Firstly, the absorbing character of playful activities is often eclipsed in empirical studies. Secondly, research has tended to examine children’s use of particular environments rather than exploring their creation of new, imaginary spaces of play, which are often shifting and transient. Thirdly, a focus on outdoor spaces has precluded examination of the importance of toys and popular culture in children’slives.Fourthly,instressingthesocialagencyofchildren,thisworkhas also(unintentionally)presentedaculturalworldthatisthepreserveofchildren.As a consequence, there is little engagement with broader conceptualizations of play withinstudiesofurbandesignandpractice(Stevens2007)orasavehicleforsocial transformation (Benjamin 1986), conceptualizations that can productively inform understandingofchildren’sludicpracticesandtheirwiderculturalsignificance. Thefollowingsectionbeginstoexpandupontheseideasbydrawingattentionto how children’s play is embedded in and helps to shape wider cultural sentiments andpractices.Thisisevidencedthroughreferencetoresearchonchildren’splayin both Minority and Majority World contexts, with both mass-produced toys and found objects. In addition to developing a challenge to developmentalism, this section starts to allude to the wider contribution of ludic geographies to the disciplinebeyondaspecificconcernwithchildren’sgeographies. 3 AdultWorldsandChildWorlds:PullingPlayOutofaSocial Vacuum Althoughmanytoysrepresentthe“adultworld”ofparticularsocietiesinminiature (e.g.,toykitchens,toyworkbenches,etc.),playinitselfhasseldombeenlookedat as part of broader social and cultural worlds beyond a concern with children’s appropriate socialization. Similarly, a noninstrumental approach to play creates a distinctionbetweenthechildishworldofplayandtheadultworldofreallife.Itis preciselythisseparationofplayfromotherspheresoflifeanditsreductiontomere LudicGeographies 7 fun or learning experience that allow for the role of play in the reproduction and shapingofeconomic,political,social,andculturallifetoremainunquestioned. Theoriesofambiguity,whichviewplayasanactivitythatflowsthroughvarious events,practices,actions,moments,andages,allowustounderstandtheentangle- ment of children’s ludic geographies with wider contemporaneous sociocultural, economic,andpoliticalclimatesandcultures.Children’splayfulpractices arenot merelyreflectionsoftheworldinwhichtheylivebutalsoconstitutiveofit.More than mere vessels passively consuming ideas and practices through a process of socialization, children contribute to the circulation of sociocultural and political discoursesand,potentially,counter-narratives,throughtheirludicpractices.Inthis section,twocasestudies–children’splaywith“wartoys”andchildren’senrolment offoundobjectsinroleplaying–areusedtoillustratehowplayisembeddedwithin andcontributestothewidersociocultural,economic,andpoliticalfabricofevery- day life. This is seen through children’s active and conscious enactment of social andpoliticalroles. Children’s war play is a topic of perennial interdisciplinary debate (Carlsson- PaigeandLevin1990),yetlittleattentionhasbeenpaidtothewaysinwhichwar toys are material cultures mirroring and reproducing specific geopolitical dis- courses (although see MacDonald 2008; Carter et al. 2016). An anthropological understandingofwartoysassertsthattheirexistenceisjustifiedbythepresenceof conflict.AsFraser(1972,232)putsit,“[i]tisinevitablethatanage[andasociety] whichhasknownwarsshouldproducesoldiersandwar-toys.”However,theways in which war toys help to normalize cultures of militarism by domesticating and sanitizing particular geopolitical logics and technologies are yet to be fully examined. By making war and conflict banal-like, children’s play contributes to the con- stitutionofcertaingeopoliticalclimates.ThiswasparticularlytrueduringtheCold War.Children’scollectingandmasteryoftoyrocketsinplayhelpedtoactivateand sustainthetechnologiesofstrategicadvantageinrelationtostockpilingandmissile launch.AsMacDonald(2008,627)argues,“[t]oyslikethisbothassumeandimpart serious technicalcompetence, notonlyinterms offinemotorskillsbutalsoasan analogof‘real’militaryfieldknowledge.”Theambiguityofplayiscentraltothis process: Is this a rocket or a missile, a weapon or a vehicle? Is this about war or peace, space explorationortheColdWardefenseofcapitalism?Orsomethingelsealtogether?Itisallof thesethings,ofcourse;thetoyispropelledbytheambiguity.[...][T]his‘doubling’ofthe [rocket]in‘reallife’,asweaponandasexplorationvehicle,isopenedupthroughplay;and moreover,suchamundanepracticeactuallyhelpssustainthesedualgeopoliticallogicsof rocketryinthefirstplace.(MacDonald2008,626–627) Thesetoyrocketsdidnotmerelyreflectthesociopoliticallifeoftheirperiodbut were constitutive of the geopolitical climate and culture of their time. Toys, like these rockets, make geopolitical logics and military hardware intelligible and, moreover, sanitize them by means of miniaturization and bringing them into a 8 T.Woodyeretal. domestic context. Play with them naturalizes specific geopolitical anxieties, and perhapsmostimportantly,createsaspaceforchildrentofashionaproprietarysense ofthefuture.InthecaseofColdWarrocketplay,therocketlaunchrepresentedthe conquestofgeopoliticalspace,“[c]hildrenthusbecamegeopoliticalagentsthrough theirmasteryofthemissileevent”(MacDonald2008,626). Similarly,ActionManenthusiast,TimMatthews,recallshischildhoodplaywith action figures during the time of the Falklands War and how TV news bulletins informedhisplay: I was nine years old in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands...I had maintainedakeeninterestineverythingmilitarysincetoddlerhood.SuddenlywarthatI hadreadofinstorybooksorheardoncassettetapewasbeingbeamedalmostliveintothe livingroom. Hecontinues, IwasgrippedbyimagesofBritain’sbraveservicemenfightingthepitchedbattlesofour country’s last brief, but ferocious conventional war on British soil. As they fought, I re-enacted the scenes on the living room carpet with my Action Men (Matthews 2012, emphasisadded). Here, Tim was not merely playing with his action figure but enacting the overseas conflicthewatched onTV.Insodoing,hecontributedtothecirculation ofgeopoliticalnarrativesboundupinthisconflict. Increasingly, cooperation between the defense and toy industries is seeking to fosterthekindofentanglementseeninTim’splay.VEDay2009sawthelaunchof anewrangeofmilitaryactionfigures–HMArmedForces–attheRoyalAirForce baseinNortholt,UK.ThisrangeisdirectlylicensedbytheUKMinistryofDefence (MOD), with outfits and accessories tooled on actual field equipment to ensure authenticity and realism. The range forms part of a wider MOD-led program of activities to generate public support for the military through raising the profile of theBritishArmedForces,initiatedatatimewhentheywereheavilyengagedinthe “waronterror”inAfghanistan.Aspartofthiswiderprogram,includinganannual ArmedForcesday,military-focusedcharities,andpopconcerts,HMArmedForces toys may be seen to contribute to wider training in institutionalized homage to militarism,literallybringingthemessagehome. JerryHealy,marketingdirectorofCharacterOptionswhoproducetherangesaid atthetimeofthelaunch:“Ithinkthereissomuchexcitementabouttherangeasit’s important to have the right products for the time and I think the new ranges have reallyhitthepsycheofthenation”(ToysnPlaythings2009,24). The link between action figure play and contemporary events is evident in the sales trends which registered the Infantryman action figure in a desert combat of exposureoftheoutfitasthebest-sellingproductoftheline.Healyexplained:“This was pretty much as we expected, given the amount of exposure of the military in thiscamouflageacrossallmediathroughouttheyear”(ToysnPlaythings2010,26). LudicGeographies 9 These examples clearly show how children’s war play does not merely reflect thedominantgeopoliticaldiscoursesofthetimebutalsoallowschildrentobecome part of broader practices and cultures through the enactment of those discourses, and thereby, the circulation of particular values and ideas. Children are thus constitutive of wider cultural and political orders. Moreover, while play scripts maymimicfamiliarsociopoliticalnarrativesasseenonTVorreadaboutinbooks and comics, each enactment of these practices is original and open-ended, containing the possible “spark of recognition that things, relations, and selves could be otherwise” (Katz 2004, 102). As Machin and Van Leeuwen (2009, 58) argue,childrenmaydisruptdiscoursesandideasofenmitymadeavailabletothem throughvariousmediaintheirplay.Throughexperimentationwithrulesandroles, childrenmayrenegotiatethemeaningofthe“badguys”;theymaynotnecessarily resemble the “bad guys” that the west has called “terrorists” and “Islamic fundamentalists.” Katz (2004) provides an instructive threefoldcategorizationofthe relationship betweenplayandsocialtransformation,whichchallengesthereductionofplayto social reproduction. Firstly, playing is altered by social transformation; children absorb and reflect changes in their playing. Secondly, playing marks social trans- formation;itexaggeratesaspectsofchange.Thirdly,playingitselfcanbetransfor- mative; it allows children to experiment with social roles and sociocultural and political-economic practices. This process of social transformation can be seen in the following two examples taken from Katz’s (2004) rich ethnography of chil- dren’sentangledgeographiesofworkandplayinaSudanesevillage.Theethnog- raphy was conducted at a time when the political-economic and sociocultural changesassociatedwithindustrialcapitalismwerebeginningtoaffectvillagelife. Katzrecountsthegameof“store,”whichtypicallyinvolvedbothboysandgirls settingupanumberofsmallshopsinashadedarea.Thewaresconsistedof“found objects”–“vialsdiscardedfromthevillagedispensary,tomatopastetins,canand bottle tops, dirt, wads of mud clay modeled into such things as bread and other foodstuffs, batteriesand battery tops, bottles, goat dung...” (2004,103) –used to represent commodities. In addition to the stores, children would set up several restaurantsandacommercial well.“Chinamoney”–shardsofbroken crockery – wasused asthemediumofexchange.Whilemanyofthe socio-materialpractices enacted bythe childreninthisgamewere familiar tothem fromvillagelife, their play did not simply reproduce the social world around them. “[T]heir enactment involvedthechildreninstretchingtheirknowledgeoflocalcommercialexchange andimaginingsomeofitsinsandouts”(Katz2004,103).Thevillageitselfhosted but a single restaurant, and the children’s store stocked not only the standard dry goodsavailableinthevillagebutalsomoreexoticimports.Theirgameembodieda scaleandintensityfarexceedingthatofthecommercialenterprisesapparentinthe village. The historical transformations wrought by industrial capitalism were not merely absorbed in the children’s play. Rather, their play marked this social transformation by exaggerating aspects of this change and, moreover, began to suggest possible avenues of further change for the village. “At the very least [the 10 T.Woodyeretal. children]domesticatedcapitalismastheyoutfittedthemselvesasnewsubjectsofits terms”(Katz2004,102). Thetransformativepotentialofplayisalsoseenstronglyinthegameof“house” whereyounggirlsactivelycarveoutthepossibilityoffuturesocialrolesdifferentto thoseoftheirfemaleelders. Girlsmadehousesbydelineatinganareawithstonesorsticksandcraftedgrass dolls dressed in scraps of cloth. The doll selves would then undertake a range of household chores – cooking, cleaning, and childcare – mimicking the daily activ- itiesofvillagewomen.Inadditiontothesedomesticchores,thedollsalsowentto thefieldstofetchwaterandcollectfirewood.Thisisasocio-materialpracticethat wasfamiliartothegirls,animportanttaskthatchildrenwerelargelyresponsiblefor intheirdailylives.However,intheareaofIslamicSudanwheretheresearchwas conducted,itwasthoughtimproperforwomenofchildbearingyearstobeseenin publicawayfromtheirhouseholdcompounds.Inweavingthesedifferentpractices together, the girls created a space for social roles and community practices to be reconfigured. The games of “store” and “house” demonstrate how political, economic, and sociocultural changes in society are not simply absorbed into play through a practiceofmimicking.Rather,children’splayalsoentersintothesesocietaltrans- formations in different ways, offering the possibility of disrupting discourses and reconfiguringrelationsandsocialpractices.Play,then,isasmuchaboutinvention asmimicking,experimentingwithhowrelationsandselvesmightbeotherwise.As Katz (2004, 102) remarks, “[m]aking that so is not child’s play, of course”, yet “playisnotimmaterialtothetask.” Takentogether,thevariousexamplesinthissectionclearlyshowthatplaydoes notexistinasocialvacuum butisconnectedtoanetworkofmeaningsandwider culturalframesthatallowchildrenthechancetoreproduceandpossiblyrenegotiate the adult world around them. It is precisely play’s polymorphous and ambiguous nature that opens up spaces of enquiry into play’s broader cultural influences and significance. Not only do these examples show how children’s play is part of broadercultures,butalsohowitcontributestothem.Toysandplaydonotmerely reflectcultures,asananthropologicalviewpointwouldassert,butarealsovehicles forthecirculationofvaluesandideas,andpotentialcounter-narrativesenactedby children and the ways in which they choose their play scenarios, toys, and out- comes. Adopting an approach that sees play as embedded in and contributing to wider“adult”culturesandprocessesofsocialchangechallengesthevalorizationof developmentalism within play research by asserting children’s capacity as social actors in their own right in the here and now. Similarly, recognition of play’s entanglementwithbroaderprocessesofsocialchangeprovidesacorrectiveriposte toculturalcommentariesonplayboundupinnostalgicidealizationsofthepast.
The list of books you might like
