October 1, 2016 - 20:57
“Is there such a thing as too much freedom in play?” In my essay analyzing Tim Edensor’s and his colleague’s “Playing In Industrial Ruins” from “Urban Wildscapes”, and the student, Free Rein’s, account of her childhood experience of play, the answer I gave to this question was yes. I asserted the value of “limited environments” over “unsupervised, materially diverse play spaces”, writing that “children will engage in the most challenging form of play, stretching the boundaries of power relations, when they are forced to into contact with these boundaries by the limits of their environment.” But, this claim, based on an analysis of Edensor’s and his colleague’s celebration of “free play” and Free Rein’s positive story about playing with boys as the only girl in an estate, may have overlooked some of the challenges to creating productive play environments in limited spaces. Considering the concept of “slipping,” as introduced in Jody Cohen and Anne Dalke’s manuscript “Steal This Classroom: Teaching and Learning Unbound”, highlights some aspects of my original thesis that warrant more critical of an exploration. In contrast to my initial question about the possibility of too much freedom in play, the concept of slipping, “associative mis-speaking”, raises a new one about children’s ability to learn from the conflicts that can easily arise in limited environments, and what the cost of such learning might be.
Limited spaces create can create contact zones in which slipping is inevitable. This is particularly true of spaces with material limitations as practical objects have an established “place” in society and thus many associations connected to them. Their repurposing in play provides ample opportunities for slipping as children respond to these associations in the unguarded context of play. This could potentially be an additional benefit of limited play spaces if slipping can provide learning opportunities for children, but it could also be a drawback. Cohen and Dalke view slipping as a positive thing that serves to highlight unconscious errors in conception so that they might be addressed, but they are discussing adults. It is questionable whether children have the maturity to learn from slips or if they will merely lead to hurt feelings and conflict. If slips cannot be constructively resolved, then limited play environments could be a disaster as they provide no safe space for those insulted or excluded by the slips. Free Rein’s account records a positive interaction between children of different genders brought together by the limits of their environment- but it is easy to envision alternative endings to her story in which as the only girl among her playmates she was excluded or demeaned.
“Free Rein remembers growing up in an estate where she “was the only girl [her age] in a group of over ten boys” with whom her mother made her play, wanting her to have companions her own age. At first this was hard for her, but she eventually became part of their group....” I was intrigued by this account because of Free Rein’s statement that “if it wasn’t for her mother’s “insistence” she would have chosen to play with the younger girls rather than with boys.” I reflected that “As Edensor and his co-authors argue, “playing can more often than not be used to reinforce… existing power relations” (Harker, quoted in Edensor et.al. 75). Children are not free from the social conscience of their society.” In my original essay I saw this passage as affirming the value of limited spaces, since it was the “limits of [Free Rein’s] environment, the absence of girls her age, that forced her to make the leap [across the conventional social separation of genders].”
What I didn’t note in my original essay was the potential for a girl in Free Rein’s situation to have been rejected by the boys. I celebrated limited spaces but didn’t take into account that the limitations of an environment will often not exist to the same degree for all those involved. She had a strong incentive to reach out to them, but they had each other and it would have been easy for them to push her away. If they had done so merely out of thoughtlessness and the belief that they couldn’t play with a girl, without directly intending harm, it would have been a slip- but it would have been a harmful one. It is questionable whether the boys would have known enough to recognize their slip as such, and had they failed to, Free Rein would have been isolated at little cost to the boys. Her situation would have been particularly painful as the limited environment would have offered her no other playmates or escape from ridicule. Far from bringing them together, the environment would have forced them to coexist while at odds and, instead of challenging for them the idea of a gender divide, would have reinforced it.
All of this is not to say, however that limited environments and slipping can have no value for children. But the key is that the environments be equally limited for all those involved. If limited environments do not isolate children then they may serve to force them to acknowledge the slips that are already being made. For example, if the boys had had an equal incentive to play with Free Rein, then a hesitation to play with each other might have led them to question general propensities to not cross the gender divide in their games. As I concluded in my original essay, there may still be a thing as too much freedom, but the remedy of a limited space may be equally problematic if the boundaries do not apply to all those involved.
Works Cited
Cohen, Jody and Anne Dalke. Chapter 8, “Slipping.” Steal This Classroom: Teaching and
Learning Unbound. New York: Punctum Books, forthcoming 2017.
Edensor, Tim, Bethan Evans, Julian Holloway, Steve Millington and Jon Binnie.” Playing in
Industrial Ruins: Interrogating Teleological Understandings of Play in Spaces of Material
Alterity and Low Surveillance.” Urban Wildscapes. Ed. Anna Jorgensen and Richard Keenan. New York: Routledge, 2011. 65-79.
Free Rein. “Play.” September 20, 2016 (1:22 a.m.). Accessed September 22, 2016.
/oneworld/changing-our-story-2016/play-1