Download Anthropological Views of Play

AMER. ZOOL., 14:267-273 (1974).
Anthropological Views of Play
EDWARD NORBECK
Department of Anthropology
Rice University
Houston, Texas 77001
SYNOPSIS. Until very recentiy anthropology has given iiitle aiierition to the study of
human play, a circumstance which reflects the Western view that play is unseemly
behavior. Modern anthropologists now view play as universal and strikingly conspicuous
human behavior that must be studied to reach the goal of understanding man and his
culture. Physical anthropologists have concerned themselves with the play of nonhuman primates, giving attention to its bearing upon human behavior and the question
of the evolutionary significance of play behavior. Cultural and social anthropologists
look at play as culturally molded behavior and examine similarities and differences in
its forms throughout the world. Although much variation exists in specific forms of
play, all human societies are seen to be fundamentally alike in their play behavior.
Greatest attention is now being given to the functional and dysfunctional significance
of play in human life and the relationship of play to other elements of culture. Major
subjects of current study are play and social control, play and social-psychological problems, play and communication-cognition, and play as related to a variety of other subjects including religion, law, economics, motivation toward achievement, politics, aggression, role-learning, and creativity.
During the period of about one century
that anthropology has existed as an organized field of scholarship, the study of play
has held no prominence until very recent
years. This circumstance itself is a subject
suitable for anthropological study. An examination of the accumulation of anthropological writings of the past century does
give evidence here and there of some interest in the nature and sociocultural significance of play, but this interest has nearly
always concerned restricted aspects or specific forms of play and has rarely considered
play as a generic category of behavior. Until
recent years, various forms of human behavior that are now seen as forms of play
were seldom so regarded or treated. Notable
among these categories of behavior are aesthetic activities, wit and humor, and states
of psychic transcendence such as are induced by drugs. Greatest attention was formerly given to the practical significance of
play in the conduct of everyday human life.
This emphasis is also evident in the related
fields of social and educational psychology
and sociology. I refer here to such subjects
of study as the didactic and socializing value
of the play of children and the importance
of recreation in promoting human well be-
ing and economic production.
These emphases among the social sciences
and their neglect of other aspects of play
and of play as a broad category of phenomena seem readily comprehensible. They are
reflections of prevailing Western attitudes,
some centuries old, that have been supported by Christian ideology (Norbeck,
1971). The ideology or value in question
is a central theme of the Protestant ethic,
which regarded work as a religious obligation, and therefore a virtue, but looked
upon play as sin. The prevalence and intensity of this attitude toward play has, of
course, diminished during the twentieth
century, but it is clear that this view has
long existed even in the world of science
and scholarship, so that play has seldom
risen to scholarly consciousness as a subject
worthy of study. It seems clear also that the
obstacles in the way of the study of play
have become much less powerful in recent
years, a subject to which I shall return.
In view of the objectives of anthropology
of learning the nature of man as a living
organism and the nature of his culture, the
learned and socially transmitted ways of
human life, the anthropological neglect of
the study of play seems astonishing. Play is
267
268
EDWARD NORBECK
universal human behavior. It exists in every
human society, and it is both a biological
and cultural phenomenon. In common
with other species of the mammalian class,
mankind is genetically endowed with the
capacity or proclivity for play. Unlike nonhuman species, however, man's specific
forms of play are learned, culturally molded
ways of behaving that hold much in common in every society but nevertheless differ
in every society. Anthropology may be described as the study of such similarities and
differences of man and culture. My allusion
to the recent anthropological trend toward
the study of play may now be rephrased to
state that a growing consensus sees human
play as strikingly conspicuous, common behavior of human beings everywhere, a category of behavior so prominent that it must
be studied and interpreted in order to reach
the objectives of anthropology. As evidence
of the modern anthropological interest in
human play, I shall note that the annual
meetings of the American Anthropological
Association in recent years have included
papers and symposia on various kinds of
human play, such as wit and humor and
states of psychic transcendence, and have
also included a number of papers on the
play of non-human primates. The annual
meeting in 1973, held a few weeks ago, included for the first time a general symposium on the subject entitled "The Anthropological Study' of Human Play." These
remarks may be summarized in the statement that the path now seems clear for the
anthropological study of play and that anthropological interest in the subject has
grown greatly.
In its study of man, anthropology is both
a biological and a social science, and its
interests in play correspondingly concern
both biological and cultural matters, often
relating them. Anthropology is interested
in play as man-animal behavior with biological significance, as cultural behavior
with sociocultural significance, and in the
relationship between its biological and cultural aspects. Following this line of thought,
I shall discuss play from the viewpoints of
physical anthropology, which takes as its
primary concern the biological study of
man, and cultural anthropology, which concerns itself primarily with man's culture.
As a cultural anthropologist, I shall necessarily give greatest attention to the cultural
aspects of play.
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
AND HUMAN PLAY
An enduring assumption of physical anthropology which seems to be supported
by much inferential evidence and contradicted by little or no evidence, is that all
forms of living human beings are sufficiently alike so that, for most purposes of
anthropological study, consideration of differences in genetically inherited traits may
be omitted from consideration. A first concern with human play from a biological
standpoint is, then, its significance as a universal trait of the species Homo sapiens (or,
in keeping with a recent ti'end of classification which refines the classification of living
man, of the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens). Inter-societal differences in the forms
of human play are thus interpreted on the
basis of differences in culture rather than
differences in biological makeup.
The study of non-human primates as well
as of man as a biological species has been
a traditional concern of physical anthropology, so that many of the interests and
ideas of biology and physical anthropology
overlap. A biological question which has
been asked but not answered in physical
anthropology as well as in other fields
is the biological and evolutionary significance of human play. Anthropological opinion—derived from biology—sees a correlation between the evolutionary position of
mammalian forms and the intensity and incidence of the behavior of play. In the
mammalian class, the Order of Primates is
evolutionally the latest to emerge and it is
among primates that play appears to be
the most highly developed; that is, primates
appear to play more frequently and in a
greater variety of ways than other mammals.
It is possible, of course, that this judgment
is anthropocentric; as a member of the
Order of Primates man may be able to
recognize easily only those forms of play
ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY
269
closely resembling his own. The play of his interpretive concepts of "foetalization,"
closest biological relatives, the lower pri- "paedomorphosis," and "neoteny," which
mates, most clearly resembles his own and are used in both biology and physical anis therefore the most readily perceived as thropology. Physical anthropologists have
play. Against this familiar line of reason- characterized Homo sapiens as markedly
ing, however, we may note that at least retaining foetal, infantile, and juvenile
certain forms of play appear to be so dis- physical traits in adulthood, and they have
tinctive and general as mammalian traits long noted a progressive evolutionaly trend
that inter-specific play occurs among mam- in the Order of Primates of proportionate
mals, notably between man and other spe- lengthening of the period of physical imcies. For example, monkeys (baboons) and maturity. The prolonged period of immaapes (chimpanzees) living under natural turity and helplessness of human beings
conditions have been observed to play to- after birth has been seen to have survival
gether, and, as we all know, the joint play value in a number of ways. Included among
of man and domestic animals is common. these are the creating of dependence of the
The correlation between position in the immature upon adults, thereby fostering soevolutionary scale and the progressive de- ciality as a genetically transmitted human
velopment of play behavior appears also characteristic. Sociality, in turn, is seen to
to obtain within the Order of Primates, the foster the growth of kin and other human
single category of living forms that physi- social groups, which successfully adjust to
cal anthropology studies. Man appears to the environment by joint action and the
play more frequently than other primates division of labor. Moreover, the long period
and without the sharp reduction of activi- of immaturity is seen as a period of plasties of play that seem to obtain among other ticity of behavior that fosters the assimilamammals after physical maturity has been tion of learning or culture, man's primary
reached.To be sure, the forms of human means of adaptation, and is thus seen to
play change with years of life, but play foster both the growth of culture and the
seems to be an outstanding human activity survival of the human beings best suited for
throughout the entire life span.
the creation and assimilation of culture.
It is possible to think that (i) the intensiAssuming the soundness of the impression that man is the greatest mammalian fied play of man and (ii) the human traits
player and that an evolutionary develop- of foetalization, paedomorphism, neoteny,
ment of the biological trait of playfulness and long physical immaturity are linked,
exists, the question arises of the biologically and that the selective value of the play imadaptive significance of play. This is an old pulse relates to the linkage. This notion
question of concern to biology as well as assumes that, although man is a life-long
anthropology, of course, and one that un- player, his activities of play are like those
questionably was first asked by biologists. of other mammals in being most intense
The anthropological view—again an idea during the period of physical immaturity.
derived from biology—is that adaptive
Whether or not this suggestion of linkvalue must be assumed, for otherwise na- age has interpretive value is unclear. Durtural selection would not have favored the ing the past decade, anthropological field
universality and progressive development studies of non-human primates have given
of play behavior. How play might have pointed attention to forms of play, and curserved adaptively remains mysterious to rent studies continue to do so. Whether or
anthropologists as well as to biologists, and not these may be compared and arranged
it is probably a question that can be an- in an evolutionary framework that will
swered only through the joint research of shed light on the adaptive significance of
biology, psychology, neurophysiology, phys- play is as yet uncertain. It seems certain
ical anthropology, and still other scientific that best results will come from combining
fields. A line of inquiry possibly leading these anthropological studies with research
to an answer is given by the descriptive- in other disciplines that concerns mammals
270
EDWARD NORBECK
in general and also non-mammalian species.
Another possible avenue of study bearing
on the question of the biologically adaptive
significance of play is a matter that has occasionally been noted by primatologists and
biologists studying non-human mammals.
The activities of play of mammals appear
to be most common and intense at times of
disjunction or discontinuity of one kind or
another, changes that imply, foster, or force
changes in behavior. The end of sustained
activity of non-play marks a period of intense play. Changes in atmospheric conditions, such as the beginning or end of rainfall, may be times of intense play. The activities of play seem thus to be part of a
behavioral cycle that is composed of sleeping, eating, and various other activities,
some of which bear no standardized names
but all of which are vital to the existence of
organisms.
Human play similarly occurs most frequently and intensely at the beginning or
end of periods of sustained activity of a
single kind so that it may be conceived as
a break in pace, a view that appears to reflect the Western idea that work is "proper"
activity and play is only "indulgence." Perhaps a more useful view is that play is one
of the several cyclic kinds of behavior of
man and all other living forms. The human
cycle may be seen as calendrical, following
daily and annual routines. The great festive periods of human societies of the past
have been religious events, and also major
occasions for play. An examination of ethnographic accounts of societies of the world
shows a close correlation between the great
festivals and seasonal activities. The greatest celebrations mark the beginnings and
ends of seasonal economic activities such as
hunting, gathering wild foods, clearing
ground for cultivation, planting, and harvesting.
It is evident from these frequently speculative remarks concerning biological aspects
of human play that much remains to be
done by physical anthropology. Main trends
of study at the present are observations of
the play of non-human primates.
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND HUMAN PLAY
As a preliminary step before discussing
the study of play in cultural anthropology,
I shall give a provisional definition of human play. Physical anthropology has studied
the play of non-human primates, and has
therefore presumably followed a biological
definition of play. Human play differs strikingly from the play of non-human mammals
in two ways. All of its forms, including motor activities such as sports, are culturally
molded so that human play may be seen as
the cultural expression of innate capacities
(Norbeck, 1968). As such, play varies from
society to society. The second marked distinction is that certain categories or classes
of human play have no recognizable counterparts among non-human species. These
are forms of human play that depend upon
man's unique ability to symbolize, that is,
to attach meaning arbitrarily to things and
events. Man's principal way of symbolizing
is by speech, and many of man's activities of
play depend upon this or other modes of
symbolism. Wit and humor are noteworthy
examples of kinds of human play of which
non-human forms are incapable.
No consensus has been reached in cultural anthropology on a definition of play
and, to my knowledge, no great argument
exists as yet over the matter. I have defined
human play as characteristic behavior of
mankind at all ages of life that arises from
a genetically inherited stimulus or proclivity and is distinguished by the combination
of traits of being voluntary, somehow pleasurable, distinct temporally from other behavior, and distinctive in having a makebelieve or psychically transcendental quality. Definitions in biology that have some
depth have often held that the goals of play
are non-utilitarian, an idea that I have
found troublesome. The goals of certain
forms of human play, such as caustic humor, seem often to be consciously utilitarian, and the presumed adaptive value
of play in biological evolution is certainly
in some sense implicitly "utilitarian." Perhaps it is suitable to state that the manifest goals of play are primarily expressive
(emotional or affective) rather than instrumental (practical) except among professional players. The goals of professional
players may, of course, be primarily instrumental, but I shall eliminate them from
ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY
consideration. Sexual intercourse also depends upon an innate, biologically inherited stimulus; among human beings professionals in sexual intercourse exist, but this
circumstance does not alter the fundamentally biological nature of sexual intercourse.
Following the definition given above,
human play includes sports, games, dancing, wit and humor, theatrical performances
and mimicry of less formalized kinds, music,
the arts and other branches of aesthetics,
fantasy, and transcendental psychic states
such as are achieved by suggestion, autosuggestion, and the ingestion of drugs and
other substances that alter the sensibilities.
Cultural anthropology looks upon human play as a biologically rooted proclivity
that is locally modified by conditions of
culture unique to each society, and, to some
extent, by limiting and permissive circumstances of the physical environment. For
the most part, biological considerations are
set aside, and the study of human play is
then primarily a study of similarities and
differences in culture. This approach to the
study of play is unexceptional in cultural
anthropology and is characteristic of the
study of other kinds of human behavior
that rest upon or relate directly to universal biological or man-animal behavior. The
members of all societies eat, sleep, breathe,
excrete, walk, and have sexual relations
with the opposite sex. Among the societies
of the world, however, the norms or modes
of these kinds of behavior cover a considerable range; these particular forms are
learned and are thus cultural. The prevailing forms of play of distinct societies of
comparable levels of cultural development
are never identical even when the societies
live in similar physical environments.
Attempts by cultural anthropology to
understand inter-societal similarities and
differences in human play have so far been
of small rather than large scale and have
emphasized the collection of data rather
than their interpretation. The grand comparative study lies in the future. The procedure of interpretation has followed traditional methods and assumptions of cultural
anthropology. Culture, the man-made part
of the universe, is commonly seen as com-
271
posing a system of objects, techniques, social alignments, and customs, ideas and attitudes—a composite of interrelated parts
which exert mutual influence on one another. Thus, the study of play entails the
examination of social structure and social customs, technology and economy, and
ideas, values and attitudes that include
religious ideology. Following this procedure, it is possible to shed light on both
differences in human play and on similarities. Fundamental similarities, such as those
indicated in my listing of the forms of
human play, are seen to reflect the fundamental unity of mankind in biopsychological characteristics. All of the classes or categories of human play I have listed are
known to every society. Specific forms vary,
and social control over forms of play has
encouraged certain forms and discouraged
others, or, as exemplified by the set of
values called the Protestant ethic, has even
attempted to suppress all forms of play.
These words may be summarized in the
statement that cultural anthropology sees
the prevailing forms of play of any society
as being congruent with other elements of
its culture. Thus the play of any society is
seen to reflect other features of its culture
including values and sentiments that pervade all activities of life and of which the
members of society are not always conscious
or fully conscious.
This idea of the congruence of play and
other elements of the system of culture is
generally acceptable in cultural anthropology, but attempts have seldom been made
to point out the general congruence of play
with the total culture of specific societies or
to see play as a reflection of pervasive cultural values. The concern has instead been
with the functional relationships between
play and other distinguishable and limited
parts of culture. The range of studies of this
kind that concern play in general or certain
forms of play is large and diverse and may
be placed under three descriptive headings
which often overlap: (i) the socially and
psychologically supportive functions or effects of play; (ii) the socially and psychologically disruptive effects of play; (iii) the relationship of play to other major elements
272
EDWARD NORBECK.
or categories of culture.
These anthropological studies probably
hold little immediate or special interest to
participants in a symposium oriented primarily toward biological aspects of play. I
shall accordingly give here only a brief idea
of their nature and range by listing a selection of the topics discussed in the recent
symposium on human play at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological
Association.
Play and social control. Play is seen to
operate in a variety of ways as a force promoting social conformity and thereby social
harmony. For example, play in various
forms is seen as an institutionalized and
orderly channel for the expression and resolution of both inter- and intra-societal conflicts and hostilities; it is thus both a safetyvalve and an index of social and psychological tensions. The social significance of satirical mimicry, wit, and humor is similarly
seen as a forceful sanction for normative
behavior.
Play and social-psychological problems.
This subject has particular relevance to
Western societies, where play has been a
matter of both scholarly and popular concern for many years. Subjects of study have
included the relationship between play and
•mental health and psychological and social
disturbances related to the Western attitude of exalting work and regarding play
as frivolity. An especially acute modem
problem is the seeking of psychic transcendence—which I have classified as a form of
play—by drugs and other illegal means.
Any cultural anthropologist knows that
transcendental psychic states are common
human behavior and that many societies of
the world have institutionalized transcendence in ways that simultaneously permit
and control it, and thus lead to no social
disturbance. One series of anthropological
studies has dealt with play and schizophrenia, specifically dealing with the symbolic
ways by which human beings inform others
that their behavior is make-believe or play
(e.g., Bateson, 1955).
Play and linguistics, communication, cognition, and symbolism. This closely related
group of subjects finds in the study of play
a rich source of information about the ways
in which people symbolically indicate by
features of language, facial expressions, gestures, and bodily stances that their behavior
is play (Bateson, 1955). These data offer to
shed light on features of language that have
so far been little noted and, especially, to
contribute to the furthering of studies of
human cognition, communication, and symbolism by pointing to similarities and differences in the symbols of play and thereby
pointing also to uniformities or universals
in patterns of human thought. Related research may be found in physical anthropology in such current research as the study
of the "play face" of man and the lower
primates (Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973).
Religion and play. The relationship between religion and play in human societies
has been long and intimate, and the great
occasions for play in the annual cycle of
human activities have been religious events.
Until recent times, a principal role of religion with respect to play has been to provide a permissive, but at the same time controlling, channel for expression of play impulses (Norbeck, 1974). The decline of this
functional aspect of religion has obvious
bearing upon our current problems of inability to play and illegal forms of play.
Still other subjects of investigation that
lie on the horizon include play and work
in their relation to motivation toward
achievement, play and law, play and politics, play and aggression, and play and
creativity or cultural innovation.
Participants in this symposium might
now reasonably ask what bearing these
studies have upon play as a phenomenon
applying to non-human animals and to
forms of life in general. Although these are
principally studies of cultural differences
among societies of man, let us note that
they are all in one important sense biological concerns since they are studies of the
behavior of a single species of life. Anthropology is fundamentally a comparative
study, aiming to include in its scrutiny all
societies and cultures of man and all biological varieties of man. In this scrutiny,
273
ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY
physical anthropology also includes the
various species of non-human primates.
Thus, anthropology has the special role in
the study of play of providing comparative
information on the behavior of man and of
his evolutionary relatives. Comparative data
on human play accumulated to date by
anthropology form a sizable mountain of
raw data. Examination of differences in
human play clearly points at the same time
to similarities and to universal traits and
forms of human play, information that
seems vital to gaining an understanding of
play as a biological phenomenon.
REFERENCES
Bateson, G. 1955. The message "This is Play," p.
145-242. In B. Schaffer [ed.], Group processes.
Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, New York.
Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. 1973. The primate play face:
a possible key to the determinants and evolution
o£ play. Paper delivered at annual meeting o£
American Anthropological Association.
IMHUCLK, E. 1568. Human play and its cultural expression. Humanitas 5 (l):43-55.
Norbeck, E. 1971. Men at play. Natur. Hist. 80
(10) :48-53.
Norbeck, E. 1974. Religion and human play. In
A. Bharati [ed.], World anthropology. Mouton
Publishers, The Hague. (In press)