September 23, 2016 - 17:41
Destructiveness vs. Innocence
What is play? Is it possible for one to have multiple definitions of what play is? Automatically when I think of play I go straight to when I was young and played house with my sisters. We were in a supervised environment, and we just mimicked what our mother and aunts would do. While playing house, even though I did not know it at the time I was learning about my role as a woman. Moreover, since I was playing with my sisters I learned the value of family, and the type of sister I want to be when I grow up. I did not use my imagination as much, because I had a stronger desire to assimilate real life scenarios. Although, I did view play also as games such as tag, hide and go seek, and even board games. My definition of play meant an activity that I did with others and that I enjoyed doing. Except this definition of play only applied to me when I was a child. As the years have gone by I do not consider myself ever “playing”, but instead just having fun. I always thought this was everyone’s view of play was the same a mine, but am I right?
Similarly, my classmate, Porkchop had a comparable childhood experience with play that I had. Porkchop lived, “in a house on the corner with a big backyard surrounded by gardens a white fence”. Just like my experience we both had some sort of security, because we were told to stay in safe areas. This was a place where she could “create [her] own mystical world”, which has different to me since she had used more imagination. Additionally, the “wooden playset” was something that she would play with that she could “[extend] the world of possibilities”. Which was another difference with my childhood because she went out the ordinary to find enjoyment. Just as I said Porkchop’s version of play consisted of playing ball, sandbox, and green plastic army men”, which is a pretty average suburban childhood. Though, she goes on to say how, “until puberty, children thrive upon play- social interaction, creativity, imagination”, and then “play no longer becomes a priority”. I had the same belief that as you grow up you do not play anymore, because I am no longer playing the same games I use to enjoy. As an adult one has to fulfill their responsibilities and no longer plays in order to learn from. Though one must stop to think what constitutes as play, is Porkchop’s and my idea of play the only definition?
To contrast once having read Urban Wildscapes, the destructive theory of play, changed my whole perspective of play. Tim Edensor et al. believes that these unsupervised ruins allow people to have “destructive play”. They give examples of this play as, “smashing up of the buildings and fixtures within ruins” and “more radical playful engagements” (67-68). Then the theorist Harker also go on to say how the ruins are “utilized by both adults and children for play, highlighting that ‘playing is not (just) kids stuff’(73). Instead that these ruins provided an unsupervised place where people can self-indulge and about themselves and the world around them. How does this fit into my definition of what the world is? Is it possible that the theorist’s definition of play isn’t even considered play?
Now to compare the three definitions of play that I just defined. On one Porkchop and I believe that play involves children playing in a supervised area, where they can safely learn how they are. On the other hand, the theorists believe that destructive play in an unsupervised place, is where not only children but adults learn their values. Personally, I do not believe that the one should be destructive in order to have fun and learn more about themselves. Additionally, I would not consider it as “playful activities” because I associate playfulness with innocence. This type of innocence is found in children, because they have not been corrupted by the cruelties of the world. Except I do believe that children should not be so sheltered, because people learn from their mistakes, and they can’t do that if they’re constantly being monitored. I also agree how play should not only be constrained to happen when you’re a child, but also when you’re an adult. Often as adult’s they forget to stop and have fun by using their imagination. Instead they get stuck in a static state of mind, that does not allow for them to grow as person. Imagination is important just as Porkchop said, because this is where a person thinks of the world differently. If a person can think out the box it could be possible that they improve themselves or the world around them. Is it truly necessary for a person to have to be destructive in play order to achieve this imaginative state of mind?
Overall, I do not entirely agree with the idea there is such type of “destructive play”, but I do understand why it would be beneficial. It is the concept that being in an unsupervised location allows for a person to be freed from rules and be who they want to be. Since they are allowed to do this they can learn how they are. They also get away from the roles and step back to realize that the world does not always have an end goal, but that we should just go with the flow. Except not everyone has to be destructive to achieve this, because Porkchop and I did not have destructive definitions of play, but that does not mean that we do know who were are as person. This concludes that there is not one sole definition of play, because everyone learns about who they are through many different types of play. Play also should be something that everyone from all ages does because one will never know what they will discover about themselves.