September 25, 2015 - 17:26
In their essay “Playing in industrial ruins: Interrogating teleological understandings of play in spaces of material alterity and low surveillance,” Tim Edensor et al. discuss the importance—and danger—of industrial ruins as places for children, adolescents, and sometimes adults to play. In urban areas, they say, children can explore a “wild space” with little to no adult supervision (Edensor et al. 74). The essay also highlights the importance of the materials in these ruins, which are used not only as “toys,” but also as means for rebelling against society’s expectations by breaking them, painting them, or turning them into sculptures (Edensor et al. 67, 69). What the authors of this essay fail to take into account is that play always has elements of risk and wildness to it, in any setting, even without materials and under strict surveillance. Through play, children inevitable create wild spaces in their lives, in ways that are wonderful and dangerous, joyous and hurtful, surprising and sometimes far too common.
One of the places in which this is most apparent is on a school playground. This is a space intended for children to play in, with structures and equipment that are expected to be used in very particular ways. There are generally multiple teachers nearby, charged with supervising the children to ensure that none is harmed. With so many children on the playground, however, it is impossible for the teachers to constantly have an eye on every single one. And even though everything on the playground has a specified use, and the children usually know what this is, they will not always abide by “the rules.” They climb up the slides; they jump off the swings; they try to hit classroom windows with kickballs. In all these ways and more, children explore their space and their personal capabilities while subverting society’s expectations, much as they might in an industrial ruin (Edensor et al. 68).
This form of play certainly has the potential to result in bruises, scrapes, and even some broken bones, but it is still fairly innocuous. There is, however, a darker side to play that emerges in the interactions among children. Alexandra speaks of this in the post “Tag,” describing a game of tag that resulted in the hurt feelings of one child and a visit to the principal for the author. Tag is such a standard childhood game that its risks are often unacknowledged. Children could fall down, run into each other, step on a nail... there are so many possibilities, though most have minor consequences. But there are also emotional risks present in all children’s games, and these have the potential to have much worse, longer-term effects. At the same time, some consider little commonplace emotional traumas to be an essential part of growing up.
In “Tag,” Alexandra asks, “why did I think that was okay,” when name-calling resulted in a classmate crying. As a society, we must ask a similar question: Is it okay? One might argue that teasing among children is just another form of subversion, of creating wildness, and is therefore healthy? But to what extent is this subversion appropriate, especially when it targets another human being? And is it really subversion, or were these children fulfilling another role of play, that of imitating adults?
One need only read a single newspaper to understand that conflict, hurt feelings, and even name-calling occur all the time in the adult world. By experiencing mild forms of this in childhood, we are prepared for harsher experiences later in life. Just as we must learn to handle the pain of a shot without much fuss, we must lose some of our sensitivity to emotional pain in order to deal with people who can be inconsiderate at the least, even without meaning to be. If for example, during a game of tag, one classmate makes fun of another for running slowly, the second one may break down in tears, but they may learn to be resilient and to handle criticism with grace. Nevertheless, children sometimes go too far. If one child is being consistently bullied or excluded, or even physically attacked, the experience may have mental and physical consequences that last throughout the person’s childhood and possibly their entire adult life.
In the end, though it may be important for children to be free to explore their spaces, their relationships with their peers, and what can be made of these, it is also important for them to be kept under some control. Alexandra’s teacher and principal were correct in interfering when the boy’s feelings were hurt. A little too much wildness had crept into the play, but they restored it to equilibrium. By doing so, they affirmed his worth and his right to have his needs met, while also telling the other children that name-calling is not okay. Because even if a little name-calling is healthy, children should continue to perceive it as a method of subverting society’s standards. Perhaps then, in addition to preparing them for the greater conflicts of the adult world, we can also lessen those conflicts in the future, by teaching each new generation to be a little more considerate.
Sources:
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.
Alexandra. "Tag." Web log post. Serendip Studio. Serendip, 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. </oneworld/changing-our-story-2015/tag>.