A friend of mine posted the following selection on his blog the other day. It's from a book called "The Conservative Soul" by Andrew Sullivan. (I hope Paul doesn't mind my reposting all of this!)
The freest society is the one in which the quintessential, ultimate activity is play. Security is guaranteed; Work is done; the wealth that freedom creates enables leisure; and leisure begets play. When we play games we suspend for a time the burdens of practical life- of earning a living, feeding our bodies, getting enough sleep, saving our souls. We engage in activity that has no point; and those who play games merely to win them miss the point of playing. Games help us restraint, prudence, and cooperation that are central to democratic life. They teach us activities that lead nowhere but where they are.
My response to this came quickly, surprising even me. This is the comment I left:
I’m afraid I must disagree. I do believe that games and fun have value, at least on a personal level, but describing gameplay as ‘quintessential’ and ‘ultimate’ in society seems to defeat the point a little bit.
People banding together for survival and success- forming cities and countries and what have you- is one thing, but for the goal of a free society to be play removes them from earnest, hard, and important work of survival- the very reason they came together in the first place.
Which brings me to another thought- who is he talking about? I know America is a great industrial country that has given its citizens every opportunity to live a comfortable, healthy life, but are we to take that for granted while much of the world is still working- not playing- very hard for food and shelter? It seems shallow and careless to place ‘play’ on such a pedestal. And some may say that countries like America have earned their leisure, but we all know we’re not in our own little bubbles. We are connected to our factories and businesses abroad; if we insist that we are playing on the merit of our own work, we must admit that we’re doing so on their work as well.
Though I’d like to avoid hyperbole (as well as an over-used comparison), I would like to point out that this was very much the attitude of the Romans before the Empire fell. Days-long parties, feasts of bacchanalian proportions, and of course the infamous vomitorium were all play and fun, and they were all symptoms of atrophy in a breaking society.
I agree that games have their place, and that we need to have fun. Of course I do. But for that to be our goal, our quintessence, our height of living … doesn’t sit well with me.
What was surprising about this was that I didn't even know I felt this way! I just started typing and it snowballed out of me. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that much of what I've been reading and thinking about lately has given me glimpses into lives very different from my own. Perhaps there will be more on this later. I just wanted to share this and see what other people's reactions were.
One final note, however: Paul has an excellent blog, a fave that I check daily. You should check it out, too: http://paulalanrichardson.wordpress.com/
4 comments:
I do agree that the ability to play, the presence of leisure time, is the marker of a "successful" society. I do believe that having playtime is essential to healthy living and that we should all be working towards a world society in which play is a natural part of life. However, until everyone is capable of play, there is a cloud over our games, a thick burden reminding us that while we engage ourselves with volleyball on the beach or two-hour Monopoly showdowns, there are others who do not have time to play because they are too busy surviving, and then there are those who have all the time in the world to play a game, but can't because they are too busy starving to death.
I am not sure the original post is as antagonistic to my belief as I originally thought. Afterall, I agree that games 'suspend for a time the burdens of practical life' and that it is important to have 'activities that lead nowhere but where they are'. This is something I will have to think more on...when I'm not running on three hours of sleep and four cups of coffee.
Rereading your thoughts again, I'm thinking that the specific definition of 'play' must be central to it all.
Is there a difference between bodily pleasures (sex, eating, drinking) and play? Is the mind more involved in one or the other?
I don't know. In popular history the cultural Roman downfall is typically portrayed as an obsession with the carnal pleasures...or things that feel good to the body, right?
Is there a difference between that and, say, playing soccer?
Trisha brings up another good point: will play always have an asterisk next to it because there isn't universal equality? I'm not sure.
Though I don't know if I can yet accept that line of thinking. Does it make sense to guilt people into doing the right thing? You shouldn't enjoy Wii because African children are dying? Or enjoy your Wii, but only after you donate $50 to the African AIDS fund? Who decides what the 'good' is? Is this any different than religious groups applying guilt to discourage countless other human actions?
I just don't know. So many questions.
I don't think it's so much about feeling guilty about play when others cannot, but it's the attitude that it's our goal, it's our pinnacle as a society. I don't think guilt comes into play as much as a measured and sensible view of what's important to us. Freedom to play is a small side benefit to the freedom we enjoy, not its ultimate end.
Post a Comment