Upload
andre-alves
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
1/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
2/29
158 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
rereading. More practically, academic traditions exalt themselves and motivate
their members by holding alo examples o what ollowers working within
these traditions can accomplish i only they possess the right combinations otalent, skill, perseverance, and public awareness. And, it must be added, classic
works are not inrequently books that people only claim to have read, or have
read without diligence during their student days, or have consulted only or a
ew selected themes. In short, they are not read so much as used to validate the
purported readers work.
Man, Play, and Games, I argue here, has this diminished legacy in the field
o play studies. On the one hand, the book is rememberedas it should be
as a useul characterization o the nature o play, as a guide or distinguishing
between games and the reer orms o play, and as a description o our differ-
ent types o play. Play scholars widely recognize Cailloiss work as a response
to Johan Huizingas more amous treatment o play in Homo Ludensand, at
least in some regards, they see Cailloiss work as an improvement o Huizingas
book. On the other hand, many o the more subtle and complicated themes o
Cailloiss workessentially challenges to rethink the character o play and to
prevent its corruption in our modern worldhave not been addressed ully
by the play studies community.
My purpose is to remember, reflect upon, and perhaps creatively developsome o Cailloiss thoughts about play and games. In this light, I hope in this article
to make plain many o Cailloiss themes. But I also wish to place these themes
into the wider context o Cailloiss lie and intellectual commitments, to show
some o the ways in which his ideas have been used by others, and, ultimately, to
offer an evaluationand perhaps a refinemento his contribution.
An Overview of Cailloiss Career
Intellectual careers are requently responses to the great social and political
events that mark the coming-o-age o a scholar. Certainly, this is the case with
Cailliois (Felgine 1994). Born in 1913 in Rheims, he grew up in the period be-
tween the world wars when both ascism and communism were rising in Europe,
when capitalism lurched into worldwide depression, and when artistic and cre-
ative people sought spirited responses to an increasingly bourgeois, mechanical,
and bureaucratic age. He attended Frances most prestigious university, the
Ecole Normale Supriure in Paris rom 1933 to1935 and the Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes, where he studied with Marcel Mauss and Georges Dumzil and
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
3/29
received a diploma in 1936 or religious studies. As Claudine Frank (2003) has
emphasized in her excellent review o Cailloiss lie and work, he was also very
much influenced by Andr Breton and the surrealist movement during thisperiod. Surrealism, itsel an extension o Dadaism, pushed orward selected
themes rom Freudian psychology and romanticism by stressing the role o the
unbounded imagination as a counterweightand ont o criticismor social
and personal routine. In Franks judgment, much o Cailloiss writing can be
seen as a movement away rom his early embrace o surrealism in an attempt
to discover other, more stable sources o the imagination.
A major event in Cailloiss career was his ounding in 1937with Georges
Bataille, Michel Leiris, and othersa so-called College o Sociology, a group
o scholars who gathered to develop and share new ideas about the character
o the social imagination (Grindon 2007; Hollier 1988). In contrast to the sur-
realist emphasis on private antasy, the members o the college tried to identiy
more communal sources o subjectivity and to find connections between the
approaches o literature and science. O special importance to this project was
the concept o the sacred as developed by Emile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss, and
Rudol Otto. Te group also committed itsel to exploring the tension between
orderly, ritualized events and those order-breaking eruptions o collective imagi-
nation that Durkheim (1965) had discussed as collective effervescence. In thislight, Cailloiss own work can be described as an effort to discover the cultural
and material patterns that transcend and animate collective lieand even more
ambitiouslyto see the parallels between the physical and symbolic realms.
As might be imagined, these inquiries into the nonrational, communal
sources o human experience raised havoc in an era marked by the rising collec-
tivist ideologies o communism and ascism, and Caillois tried to distance himsel
rom both movements. As part o this process, he moved in 1939 to Argentina
where he remained until the end o World War II. Ever the public intellectual,he ounded the Institut Franais de Buenos Aires and the journal Les Lettres
Franaises. In1939 he also published perhaps his greatest book, LHomme et le
Sacr(published in English asMan and the Sacredin 1959); and during the war
he produced a number o other literary and philosophical tracts.
wo o Cailloiss more amous essays should be mentioned here as a way o
indicating the character o his thinking. Te journal Minotaurepublished the
first o these, Te Praying Mantis: From Biology to Psychoanalysis (Caillois
2003, 6981) in 1934. In his search or the biological and mythological ounda-
tions o human experience, Caillois (like several others in the surrealist camp)
was drawn to the powerul metaphor o the emale mantis who devours her mate
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 159
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
4/29
160 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
aer (or even during) copulation. Cailloiss own treatment o this act explored
the possibilities o a death instinct, an idea that Sigmund Freud had made
popular during the preceding decade in his Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Freud1967). Te seemingly sado-masochistic behavior o the mantisas well as the
human ascination with itsuggested to Caillois the existence o objective ideo-
grams, or crystallized psychological associations that were transmitted through
evolution. Essentially, Caillois claimed that humans have universal urges and
longings that are part o our inherited, physical nature (hence, their objectiv-
ity). Moreover, these yearnings are over-determined (to use another Freud-
ian term); that is, in the ashion o dreams, they are made maniest by many
different kinds o physical and symbolic causes coming together at once.
A year later in 1935,Minotaurepublished a second essay, Mimicry and
Legendary Psychasthenia (Caillois 2003, 89106), similar in many respects to
the first. In this work, Caillois presented the unusual argument that mimicrythe
process by which creatures (like many insect species) take on the appearance o
oreign objects or other speciesis not a mode o sel-protection or survival but
instead an antiutilitarian luxury. In other words, creatures can be said to possess
an instinct or abandonment, or a desire to move into a dark space that stands
beyond the requirements o routine unctioning (Caillois 2003, 100). In Cailloiss
view, humans have long been ascinated by ideas about sympathetic magic; wewish to attach ourselves to images or resemblances o idealized personages and
to draw rom them their powers. Mimicry is connected to psychasthenia then in
the sense that this latter (now outmoded) term reers to the obsessive desire o
humans to escape the boundaries and limitations o their own selfood, to lose
themselves in the patterns o the world. Creatures seek obliteration as much as
they seek to advance their mundane, private interests.
Such ideas became even more extreme with Bataille, who ormed (without
Cailloiss participation) a secret society, Acphale, that antasized about deathand speculated on the prospect o collectively murdering a volunteer rom its
own ranks. As one can see, this set o conceptsnonrational or instinctual orces,
collective representations transmitted through evolution, quests or death, desires
to replace orderly human affairs with passionately destructive states o being
were a dangerous brew in an age o extremist politics. Cailloiss response was
to shi rom his prewar interest in the powers o the sacred and nonrational as
transgressive orces in history to a new theme: the importance o civilization.
Against the spectacle o Nazi atrocities, the problem then was not how to destroy
the orderliness and moral rectitude o the world but, indeed, how to save it.
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
5/29
During the middle and latter portions o his career, Caillois became more
the academic statesman. Returning to France in 1945, he joined the editorial
boards o some journals and publishing houses, began his project o translat-ing the works o important South American writers into French, taught at the
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, and resumed his own writing and publishing
activities. In 1948 he joined the Office o Ideas at UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) and headed its program o
literary translation. In 1952 he ounded the important journal Diogenes. During
this time, most o his writing ocused on political, literary, and aesthetic topics;
however, in 1958 he published Les Jeux et les Hommes, the sociological study
analyzed in this article. In 1971 he was elected to the Acadmie Franaise, the
organization that regulates the French language. Actively writing and publish-
ing until the end, he died in 1978.
Cailloiss mature writing suggests his quest to integrate the disparate styles
o study and expression ound in the sciences and humanities. Although he
was ascinated by the qualities o excess, disruption, openness o meaning, and
untrammeled subjectivity emphasized by the literary and artistic avant-garde,
he always sought to discover (in the manner o his teacher Mauss) the orderly
patterns that stand behind such discontinuities. With this end in mind, he
advocated what he called diagonal science (Caillois 2003, 33557). Modernscience, in Cailloiss view, has become ocused increasingly on narrow sub-
jects and narrow methodologies; a taste or economical, even reductionistic
explanation prevails. What is needed, then, are perspectives that span or bridge
the findings o the individual sciences and humanities and that suggest the
parallels in biological, material, social, cultural, and psychological phenom-
ena. Tese integrative hypotheses, however anciul, should be scrutinized in
the most scientifically rigorous ways. Tis search or what is basic to the lives
o creaturesand what practices represent their best orms o possibilityiscarried orward in his studies o play and games.
Play and the Sacred
Play scholars commonly see Cailloiss description o play as a response to Hui-
zingas treatment o play in Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture
(1955). I include the subtitle o Huizingas classic here because it makes plain
his challenging thesis that play is an activity that both precedes culture (in an
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 161
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
6/29
162 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
evolutionary sense) and continues to serve as a context where new cultural pos-
sibilities are explored and refined. As generations o play scholars can testiy,
Huizingas work is important not only or its attempt to distill the essence oplay but also or its historical and anthropological analysis o the role o play in
such institutions as warare, philosophy, poetry, mythology, law, art, and sport.
Against the long-standing philosophical tradition o homo sapienshumans
as thinkersand the materialist thesis o homo faberhumans as makers
Huizinga advances his claim or homo ludenshuman as playersa vision o
people as active explorers and negotiators o societal possibility. In Huizingas
view, people have an impulse to play that cannot be explained by other actors
or elements o human society or nature. Tis creative (and or Huizinga, com-
petitive) impulse has been critical to processes o societal sel-consciousness and
renewal throughout history. Because o this, contemporary societies should be
careul not to restrict or corrupt the very activity that orms one basis o their
existence. Tis general, and now problematic, connection between play and
culture dominates Cailloiss writing.
Caillois critiques Huizingas work most directly inMan and the Sacred
(Caillois 2001a) in the orm o an appendix added to the book in 1946. As
mentioned, Caillois was much influenced by Durkheims (1965) distinction
between the sacred and the proane. Te proane segment o the world(really, most o it) includes those objects and activities that can be approached
directly and treated instrumentally. In contrast, the sacred is that which stands
apartand abovethe realm o everyday affairs. Te sacred possesses an aura
or power that makes it a dangerous orce in peoples lives. For this reason, the
intervention o the sacred into regular lie must be monitored with extreme care,
and proane elements must not be allowed to contactand thereby polluteit.
Caillois ocuses on the ambiguity and mystery o the sacred, the role o ritualized
taboos in guaranteeing its purity, the way in which it is used to guide peoplethrough the lie cycle, and (most interestingly, perhaps) the extent to which
it is a transgressive or revolutionary orce in societies. He develops this latter
theme in his theory o the estival.
How, then, is play different rom the sacred? Caillois begins his essay with
praise or Huizingas conception o play. He admires that Huizinga eschews
utilitarian or unctional views o his subject (Caillois shares this antiutilitarian
spirit). But he is troubled by Huizingas quest to assimilate all play activities
into one orm (what Huizinga called the agn, or competitive struggle). Surely,
there are other styles o play that involve quite different patterns o activity and
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
7/29
motives. And why does Huizinga disavow the importance o material interests
in play, including (and this is one o Cailloiss special interests) gambling? On
the basis o these concerns, Caillois describes what he sees as the deect inthis admirable work. It studies the external structures better than the intimate
attitudes that give each activity its most precise meaning. And the orms and
rules o play are the object o more attentive examination than the needs satis-
fied by the game itsel (2001a, 154).
Huizingas ormalist approach also is the source o one o the most daring
and in Cailloiss view, incorrectthemes o Homo Ludens: the identification o
play and the sacred. As I have argued elsewhere (Henricks 2002, 2006), Huizinga
was especially interested in what he called the play-estival-rite complex (Huiz-
inga 1955, 31). In times past (and in traditional societies still), people perormed
their commitments to societyand to one anotherin public events that mixed
important social rameworks and symbols with personal creativity and exuber-
ance. All participants understood the events as special moments, cut away rom
the ordinariness o lie. Huizingas explores the ormal similarities o play and
ritual and the times when play itsel seems to rise to almost holy seriousness.
Caillois appreciates the view that ritual and play are oen mixed. He even
adds a number o helpul examples rom the anthropological literature that
support Huizingas case. But he does not agree that play and the sacredor theritual, the vehicle by which the sacred is regulated and presentedare the same
things. Although some games may well have distant, mythic origins and many
rituals are conducted with a kind o winking connivance by their adherents,
the two orms are animated by quite different attitudes. Tis distinction holds
even though both kinds o events are routinely cut off rom ordinary affairs
by special constructions o space and time, behavioral regulations, costumes,
language, elaborate preparations, and so orth.
An initial difference or Caillois is that play is mostly about orm whilethe sacred is prooundly about content. He explains that play is activity that
is an end in itsel, rules that are respected or their own sake (2001a, 157). Said
differently, no claims are made that the objects or actions o the playground
are o any importance beyond the moment itsel. In the same light, playing
rules are recognized simply as artificial agreements that people make to behave
in a particualr way during the event. Te sacred, on the other hand, is pure
contentan indivisible, equivocal, ugitive, and efficacious orce (2001a, 154).
Rituals are only best attempts at capturing and controlling this orce. In other
words, in play people themselves control the course o the events; in ritual, they
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 163
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
8/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
9/29
Cailloiss final reflections address the theme that characterizes most o Hui-
zingas writing: the historical change toward organizational gigantism and or-
mality that has eroded the vitality and creativity o small human communities.Caillois argues that we have entered a world that is not sacred, without estivals,
without play, without fixed moorings, without devotional principles, without
creative license, a world in which immediate interest, cynicism, and the negation
o every norm not only exist, but are elevated into absolutes in place o the rules
that underlie all play, all noble activity, and honorable competition. What is
needed now, he claims, is a recommitment to the principles o the playground.
As he continues, Tere is no civilization without play and the rules o air play,
without conventions consciously established and reely respected. Tere is no
culture in which knowing how to win and lose loyally, without reservations,
with sel-control in victory, and without rancor in deeat, is not desired (2001a,
161). Such ideas, which reaffirm Huizingas own conclusions in Homo Ludens,
are taken up again inMan, Play, and Games.
Man, Play, and Games
Caillois divides his principal work on play into two parts. Te first o thesedevelops an overview o play (in contradistinction to Huizingas account) and
then establishes a classification o games and their unctions in society. Te
second explores, in a more complicated way, some relationships between his
our types o games and analyzes the variation o these types in the modern
world. In an appendix, he comments briefly on the importance o games o
chance and on the value o psychological and mathematical approaches to the
study o games.
As in his 1946 essay on play and the sacred, Caillois begins inMan, Play,and Gameswith an acknowledgement o the brilliance o Huizingas work, but
he quickly emphasizes that most o its premises are debatable. Moreover, as
he continues, Homo Ludensis not a study o games but rather an inquiry into
the creative quality o the play principle in the domain o culture and more
precisely, o the spirit that rules certain kinds o gamesthose which are com-
petitive (2001b, 3). And, although he admires Huizingas conception o play,
he argues that at least one o the elements o the definitionHuizingas claim
that play promotes the ormation o social groups which surround themselves
with secrecyis wrong. In Cailloiss view, playul activity is necessarily to
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 165
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
10/29
166 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
the detriment o the secret and mysterious, which play exposes, publishes, and
somehow expends. Te idea o expenditure or waste, which was a key theme o
Bataille and other members o the College o Sociology, orms the basis o stillanother criticism. Huizingas definition, which views play as action denuded
o all material interest, simply excludes bets and games o chanceor example,
gambling, racetracks, casinos, and lotterieswhich, or better or worse, occupy
an important part in the economy and daily lie o various cultures (2001b,
4). On the basis o such statements, Cailloiss intention seems clear: he will re-
define play and discuss the different ways in which the play spirit is harnessed
in societies.
Despite his several criticisms, Cailloiss definition o play is similar to Hui-
zingas. Huizinga (1955, 313) defined play as an activity possessing the ol-
lowing qualities: (1) it is voluntary; (2) it is different rom ordinary affairs,
especially in its disregard or material interest; (3) it is secluded or limited by
special times, places, and cultural configurations; (4) it explores tension and
balance within a ramework o rules; and (5) it is characterized by secrecy and
disguising. I should emphasize that Huizingas definition o playwhich as-
sumes the competitive character o play and ocuses instead on how it tends
to emerge as a limited, orderly worldremains consistent with his attempts
to saeguard settings where creative social interaction (and, ideally, culturalinnovation) can occur (Henricks 2002). Cailloiss definition has six elements.
Play is (1) reethat is, nonobligatory; (2) separatethat is, cut off in the ways
described above; (3) uncertainin the sense that the results are not known
beorehand; (4) unproductivethat is, an expenditure that does not create
wealth or goods; (5) rule bound; and (6) fictivethat is, it is accompanied by
a special awareness o a second reality or o a ree unreality, as against real lie
(2001b, 910).
As we see, Cailloiss special contribution is his attempt to include materialconsiderationseven moneyin a definition o play. He does this by claiming
that play is distinctive because it leads to no increase in economic productivity
but instead simply expends and redistributes resources, as when poker players
pass their money to one another. Secondly, his distinction between uncertainty
and rule governance, which Huizinga lumped together, is important. Tis dis-
tinction reflects Cailloiss more general attempt to isolate the more uncertain,
spontaneous orms o play rom those that are rule bound. Finally, his ideas
about play being make-believewhat he reers to the as-i or the subjunctive
quality o playdeserves attention. In Cailloiss view, Huzinga was interested
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
11/29
in disguises, jargon, and arcane rules primarily as a means to separate play
insiders rom outsiders. For Caillois, these are part o the make-believe that is
key to the play impulse. Huizinga is searching or an all-embracing or unitary conception o play,
but Caillois is reconciled to plays many orms. Some o these orms are not
easily combined or are even mutually exclusive. For example, he argues early
on that games are not ruled and make-believe. Rather they are ruled or make-
believe (2001b, 9). Similarly, he believes that competitive games (the agn that
Huizinga stressed) and games o chance are opposite affairs. In the ormer,
the player tries to vanquish a rival operating under the same conditions as
himsel: in the latter, the player merely awaits the outcome (2001b, 12). His
amous typology o games, then, ollows: agn (competition), alea (chance),
mimicry(simulation or role play), and ilinx(balance or vertigo).
Although Caillois develops these our categories, he does not claim that
his list is exhaustive. Rather, the our types suggest one scheme that places
play activities into quadrants, each governed by an original principle. Just as
games can be arranged in terms o their ulfillment o a single organizing prin-
ciple, so examples rom all our types can be placed on a continuum between
two opposite poles. One o these extremes is termed paidia, the principle o
diversion, turbulence, ree improvisation, and careree gaiety. Te other isludus,thetendency to bind this capriciousness with arbitrary, imperative,
and purposively tedious conventions. When this latter principle is applied
to the reer orms o play, it calls out in the player a greater amount o effort,
patience, skill, or ingenuity (2001b, 13).
Significantly, Caillois does not differentiate games to decide which involve
primarily mental or which primarily physical skills. Instead, he argues all games
eature a repositioning o individuals in the world. However, games do eature
quite different attitudes toward this world, and they can be categorized on thisbasis. Te first type, the agnthat Huizinga emphasized, includes regulated
competition or rivalry. It can be ound in both humans and animals and involves
games that always have some social (or invidious) element. ypically, these
games attempt to equalize the chances or either side to win, and even solitary
activities such as mountain climbing are made social (that is, competitive) by a
relying on shared rules, techniques, and equipment.
Te rivalry o peers previously described is quite different rom alea (the
Latin term or games o dice). Whereas agn celebrates willul assertion, alea
eatures willul surrender to external orces. For Caillois, at least, aleane-
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 167
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
12/29
168 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
gates work, patience, experience, and qualifications (2001b, 17). Unlike their
animal kindred, humans can conceive o an abstract, inanimate power and
enjoy awaiting the decision o destiny passively and deliberately (2001b, 18).Furthermore, he believes that games o chance have relatively little appeal or
children who preer to be active.
Te importance o Cailloiss distinctionat least or his own approach
cannot be overestimated. People play in ways that are more or less active. In
some games, they try to master their own destiny; in others, they await the
touch o ate. Such distinctions should be seen in the context o Cailloiss un-
derstandings o the sacred. Humans do not simply construct and dominate
the world; they live inside ormations that have long preceded their existence
and have powers they can scarcely imagine. However, both orms are similar
in that they are vehicles or participants to gauge their standing in the world.
Because o this, they are requently combined in games, that is, alea (chance)
and agn(merit) are routinely mixed together to create a ramework o equal-
ity o opportunity. Such settings substitute perect situations or the normal
conusion o contemporary lie.
Both o these orms described allow people to continue being themselves,
albeit in new (perected) settings. Te third orm o games, mimicry, is quite
different. Tere, the player tries to escape himsel and become another. Cail-loiss chooses his terminology intentionally or he wishes to remind readers
o mimetism, notably o insects, so that the undamental, elementary, and
quasi-organic nature o the impulse that stimulates it can be stressed. Cail-
lois sought to discover the prehuman oundations o our playul impulses. He
was ascinated by the ways in which certain species camouflage themselves or
even assume the appearance o another species. In humans, masking serves
a similar purpose, to change the viewers appearance and to inspire ear in
others (2001b, 20). Unlike animals, humans can control their disguises. Tey understand that
what they are doing is a contrivance. A reveler at a carnival does not believe
that she is in act a dragon; a childs playing at cowboy is only make-believe.
And the motivation shis somewhat rom the inspiration o ear in others to
the pleasure that lies in being or passing or another. Again, the player does
not try to become entirely the person or creature that she perorms; nor does
she expect to convince others that she is really a locomotive or a toreador. o
this degree, playul make-believe in the contemporary world is a somewhat
soened version o the ritual enactments o traditional societies.
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
13/29
In Cailloiss opinion, mimicry and competition (agn)sometimes mix,
not only in the obvious case o costume competitions but also in events like
spectator sports, where not the perormers but the viewers imaginatively in-habit the characters they see beore them. Furthermore, Caillois eels that
mimicry and alea have no relationship at all. For him, mimicry eatures the
process o active, incessant invention by the player, while aleaexpresses the
passive waiting or ate.
Te final type o play is ilinx, the pursuit o vertigo, which consists o an
attempt to momentarily destroy the stability o perception and inflict a kind
o voluptuous panic upon an otherwise lucid mind (2001b, 23). Here Caillois
is thinking o whirling dervishes, high-wire acrobats, Mexican voladores, and
others who are ascinated by physical and psychological disorientation. As he
notes regarding competition and mimicry, Caillois cites cases where animals
also seem to enjoy sel-directed spinning or tumult. I in earlier times ilinx (the
Greek term or whirlpool) represented turbulent ritual involvements and even
trance states, it later described the pursuit o vertigo very much associated with
the mechanized carnival rides o the industrialized world.
Just as the our types o games can combine with one another, so too can
they bear different relationships to Cailloiss distinction between ludus and
paidia.In his view, competition, chance, and mimicry all lend themselves tothe set o artificially complicated rules and restrictions that is ludus. In sharp
contrast to this pattern, ilinx defies rule-bound existence just because it is the
pursuit o disorderly uncertainty. It might be imagined then that ilinxwould be
the only orm to celebrate paidia, but this is not the case. Competition, mim-
icry, and vertigo all illustrate paidia, although, in the reest orms o these, the
activity may simply be spirited rolicking or exuberance. What does comport
with paidia, in Cailloiss view, is alea. Tis, the waiting or the all o the dice
or card, is an occasion o passive anticipation. Cailloiss schemewhich establishes a gradient between the reer and more
regulated orms o playis important. Ludus, as the set o artificial restrictions
that creatures place on activity to challenge themselves urther and even to al-
lay boredom, is the device by which activity takes coherent, communicable
orm. In this sense, ormalized games are social and cultural, rather than purely
psychological, events. Ludus disciplines paidia and in consequence, gives the
undamental categories o play their purity and excellence (2001b, 31).
Huizingas Homo Ludensis distinctiveand, some argue, can be criticized
because it does not address solitary play or even the play o children. For his part,
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 169
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
14/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
15/29
the spoilsport, the cheat by his attitude, saeguards and proclaims the validity
o the conventions he violates, because he is dependent upon others obeying
the rules (2001b, 45). o this degree, he gives lip service to the canons heviolates.
Te situation becomes more problematic when one o the undamental
human impulses (the drives associated with the agn being the most common
example) spill over into society in an unplayul (that is, untempered) way.
Avidity, as he puts it, may be a natural impulse, but the very unction o play
is to regulate this desire and to put its significance into perspective. Greed in
business or warare has lost this quality o restraint. In an interesting though
disputable argument, Caillois claims that gambling is also perverted by indi-
vidual desire and assertiveness. For him, alea is essentially a respecting o the
play o ortune upon ones lie. Superstition, magic, and the various strategies
used at casinos and racetracks are different rom a respect or the all o the
dice. Tese practices are examples o individuals trying to manage their own
destinies or at least to increase their odds o success. Teir strategizing mentali-
ties extend to other spheres o lie. As Caillois calls it: Upon waking up in the
morning, everyone is supposed to find himsel winning or losing in a gigantic,
ceaseless, gratuitous, and inevitable lottery which will determine his general
coefficient o success or ailure or the next twenty-our hours (2001b, 47).Once again, the unction o play is to temper and to make coherent a persons
experience o these impulses.
Excessive involvement o a similar sort also turns mimicry into the vari-
ous orms o obsession and sel-delusion when one orgets that the character
he or she plays is only that, a character. Te desire or vertigo that becomes a
ascination with alcoholism and drugs is likewise a closely related phenom-
enon. As Caillois summarizes, i the principles o play in effect correspond
to powerul instincts (competition, chance, simulation, vertigo), it is readilyunderstood that they can be positively and creatively gratified only under ideal
and circumscribed conditions which in every case prevail in the rules o play
(2001b, 55).
Tough he does not make the connection explicitly here, Cailloiss general
point recalls Durkheims assertion that human culture always involves a bal-
ancing act between excessive individuation and excessive social control. oo
much unregulated expression, says Durkheim (1951), leads to the twin dangers
o anomie and egoism; too little produces atalism and (sel-denying) altruism.
In the same way, the great spheres o human existence, the sacred and proane,
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 171
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
16/29
172 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
must be kept separate or at least monitored closely, to ensure that they stay
true to their principles (Durkheim 1965). Caillois identifies a third sphere, the
play world, which also has principles that must be honored. Although he doesnot argue or a wholesale transgression o the proane, he does eel that the
playul, like the sacred, provides important models to enhance the character
o civil lie.
In what he calls a sociology derived rom games, Caillois revises another
o Huizingas main themes. As previously noted, Huizinga saw play as an ac-
tivity that effectively precedes culture and, indeed, is a continuing source o
cultural creativity and change. Such a viewpoint, Caillois notes, opposes the
view held by most historians o games, who argue that games are a kind o
degradation o adult activities that are transormed into meaningless distrac-
tions when they are no longer taken seriously (2001b, 58). Is it possible to
resolve this chicken-or-egg dilemma? Cailloiss response to this question poses
that the spirit o play is indeed a ertile source o culture but that games and
toys are historically the residues o culture. Tat is, the essence o play, which
both Huizinga and Caillois stress, differs rom its specifically ludic develop-
ments, its complex o cultural conventions that shape the impulses to play.
Cailloiss understanding o the changing cultural contexts o play also di-
ers rom Huizingas. For Huizinga, play was deeply embedded in the sacredand secular institutions o archaic societies. In this sense, wars, debates, and
courts o law were essentially fields o play. Caillois does not dispute this point,
but he makes clear that what has occurred with play activities is that their
social unction changed, not their nature (2001b, 59). Caillois offers several
examples. Masking was once a crucial theme o religious ritual; now it is a
pleasant way to promote sociability. Games o chance and riddling were once
guides to divining the secrets o universe; now they are amusements. Weapons
o war, such as slingshots, bows, are in many cultures toys. Critically or Cail-lois, modern versions o ancient activities must not be seen as degradations. He
believes, instead, that basic human impulsesthe need to prove superiority,
the desire to conquer ear, and the search or answers to riddlesare worked
out in both the real world and in play worlds. Games are not inerior settings
but rather alternative worlds, places that allow people to play through the pos-
sibilities o lie and, in some cases at least, to find satisactions denied them in
proane society. Dismissing Huizingas lament about the declining status o
play historically, Caillois takes a more sociological position. Play orms, or
him, are inevitably mixed, both as expressions and as contributing elements,
with the patterns and practices o societies.
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
17/29
Te latter portion o Man, Play, and Gamesexplores some variations
and combinations o the basic themes described. Caillois examines the game
preerences o different societies. o accomplish this study, he considers firsthow his our typescompetition, chance, vertigo, and simulationcombine.
Caillois asserts our basic types o play and six possible ways to pair them. wo
o these pairings he considers problematic or orbidden relationships. Tese
are competition-vertigo and simulation-chance. In the ormer combination,
attempts at skillul manipulation are the opposite o willul dissolution; in the
latter, attempts to disguise onessel are irrelevant to the courting o destiny.
A second set o pairingschance-vertigo and competition-mimicryare
what he calls contingent relationships. Such combinations do not enhance
either member o the pair, although they make interesting experiences pos-
sible. Tus, vertigo (as the sense o being possessed by otherness) sometimes
accompanies the receptivity to ate in games o chance. And competition is
not altered in its essence by patterns o spectacle or mimicry but develops in
ways that court spectators.
But Caillois is mostly concerned with his third set o pairs, what he calls un-
damental relationships. Tese are simulation-vertigo and competition-chance.
Why are these two combinations undamental?
o understand Cailloiss answer to this question, it helps to view his workin terms o some long-standing concerns within sociology and anthropology.
Since the inception o these disciplines, many scholars have explored what ac-
counts or cross-cultural differences in societies and, more precisely, i there
is some set o actors associated with a gradient or evolution o these societies,
essentially a clear path o social development (Parsons 1966). Older schemes
speculated on a path o progress rom savagery to civilization; newer models
used pairings like simple and complex or traditional and modern. And, it should
be emphasized, many contemporary thinkers now question the propositionthat there is any single path o development or that particular societies should
be pictured as isolated actors who are moving ahead under their own steam.
Given such qualifications, Cailloiss writing seems an attempt to understand
how societies have moved rom one type to another and how play orms also
have shied in the process.
Sociologists and anthropologists have viewed early (and economically sim-
ple) societies as smaller, more community based, traditional, religious, broadly
personal, agrarian, kin oriented, and emotional. In such societies, people lived
amidst amiliar others who shared the same values and possessed similar skills.
Over many centuries, this world changed rom intensive agriculture to indus-
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 173
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
18/29
174 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
trialism. Trough a series o developments, societies became much larger, more
socially complicated, hierarchical, and economically specialized. Respect or
tradition gave way to a search or progress. Smaller amily units and, then, in-dividuals, as possessors o private property, became important social agents as
did their complements, huge organizations like nation-states, businesses, and
schools. Relations became impersonal (and even money based). Religion turned
rom community-ounded expressions to more individualized orms and (so
some argue) to a spirit o secularism. Rationalization, as Max Weber (1958)
amously described it, was let loose upon the world. Like the capitalist entre-
preneurs in Karl Marxs books or the characters in Charles Dickenss novels,
people became sel-regarding, strategizing, and hard-boiled.
Caillois presents these changes as a shi rom what he calls primitive or
Dionysian societies toward orderly or rational societies. In this view, Caillois
uses Friedrich Nietzsches (1956) treatment o the Dionysian and Apollonian
as rival cultural traditions in ancient Greece. For Nietzscheand or Ruth
Benedict, who applied these ideas to Native American culturesDionysian
traditions encourage aggressive, emotional, turbulent, and ecstatic styles o
being. Apollonian traditions emphasize order, harmony, and rational control.
For Caillois, Dionysian societies are ruled equally by masks and possession,
i.e., by mimicryand ilinx. Conversely, he continues, the Incas, Assyrians,Chinese, or Romans are orderly societies with offices, careers, codes, and ready-
reckoners, with fixed and hierarchical privileges in which agnand alea, i.e.,
merit and heredity, seem to be the chie complementary elements o the game
o living (2001b, 87).
Te reader may object, with justice, that older and newer societies do not
all into terms o disorderliness or orderliness but into terms o two different
kinds o orderliness. Durkheim (1964) took exactly this view. However, Caillois
with his images o the wild imagination was influenced equally by Nietzscheand by the surrealists. Tus, his comments on early societies emphasize the
community-based estival, an interregnum o vertigo, effervescence, and flu-
idity in which everything that symbolizes order in the universe is temporarily
abolished so that it can later re-emerge. (2001b, 87).
A reader might expect, then, that Cailloiss chapter on simulation and ver-
tigo describes the patterning o games in early societies. But no. Instead, his
approach recalls Huizingas reporting on the play-estival-rite complex. Tat
is, Caillois stresses how estivity partakes o both the playul and the sacred
and discusses mythology, initiation rites, and shamanism. But he differs with
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
19/29
Huzingas view o play as an order-building activity. Caillois sees masking and
vertigo as attempts to get behind, and even counter, everyday realities, and he
believes the two orms support each other undamentally. As he summarizes,It should be understood that mask and panic are present in association, inex-
tricably interwoven and occupying a central place, whether in social paroxysms
called estivals, in magico-religious practices, or in the as yet crude orm o a
political system (2001b, 97).
Modernizing societies organize play impulses differently. I earlier ages
dramatized chaos (through combinations o ilinxand mimicry),inthe tran-
sition to civilization these categories all by the wayside. Competition and
chance take their place. Much o Cailloiss chapter on the agn and alea com-
bination treats the historical transition toward the increasingly methodical
control (2001b,101) o human expression. Rationality (as a publicly supported
process o thinking and administering) becomes dominant. Wild, orgiastic,
experiences and masking are seen only as remnants o ecstatic communalism.
More pertinently, they are considered to be dangers to a new urban style o lie
that emphasizes sel-regulation and commitment to distant, abstract orms o
authority.
In a world where individuals have the opportunity to alter their social stand-
ing, a new tension rises. Against the ascriptive, or birth-assigned, practices otraditional, hierarchical societies, modernizing societies offer the prospects or
personal mobility based on perseverance, luck, and, especially, merit. In such
societies, play dramatized the opposition between chance and merit. Societies
with egalitarian mythologies, in particular, continue to make much o the rela-
tive equality that exists on the field o play; and luck is celebrated as a actor that
enables the less able to have some prospect o victory. o be sure, competition
and luck have a place in every society, but, as Caillois emphasizes, in the earlier
world, competition has not been systematized . . . and has little place in itsinstitutions. He continues, As or chance, it is not an abstract expression o a
statistical coefficient, but a sacred sign o the avor o the gods (2001b, 126).
Te development o elaborate orms o gambling (such as state-sponsored
lotteries) are, in Cailloiss view, something o a sop thrown to the public, a
largely imaginary prospect o wealth that buttresses the broader commitment
to personal success. He sees the publics identification with sporting heroes
and other celebrities as a degraded orm o imitation that provides harmless
compensation to the masses, who are resigned and have neither hope nor op-
portunity o attaining the luxury and glory by which they are dazzled. (2001b,
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 175
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
20/29
176 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
125). Most degraded o all are the modern orms o vertigo, which in his view
have become a descent into alcohol and drugs.
Cailloiss final chapter concerns his revivals o ancient practices. Forexample, masking occurs at times like Carnival or Halloween. But such use o
masking is sharply delimited and carries no proound social meaning. Indeed, in
the modern world, the mask has given way to the uniorm, which is an opposite
device that surrenders individuality to the authority o a ormal organization.
Similarly, traveling airs, amusement parks, and circuses have either become
spectacles or, in their more interactive orms, opportunities or physical disori-
entation. In both instances, the powerul social meanings o ecstatic states have
been purged. So also has the modern version o the trickster, the circus clown,
who has become little more than a public entertainer. Although clowns engage
in social satire, they do not invite their viewers into the proounder orms o
criticism, disorder, and, even, vertigo.
Although Caillois presents his arguments in the manner o one who wishes
primarily to illustrate scientifically the social underpinnings and the social con-
sequences o play orms, he also evinces regret about the course o civilization.
It is logical and perhaps appropriate that his agn-alea combination dominates
in our contemporary era. But we should not orget that play maniests itsel in
different ways, and each one o these ways expresses some kind o human long-ing. One should not conuse degraded, corrupted, or perverted expressions
with activities that provide these basic commentaries on proane existence.
Evaluating Cailloiss Work
Cailloiss scholarly interests were wide ranging, and his intellectual project was
equally broad. He sought to integrate dispersed bodies o knowledge rom thehumanities, natural sciences, and physical sciences. In his writing, he attempted
to develop a general and scientifically based theory o aesthetics that described
conditions or orms within which people experience themselves as active sub-
jects in the world. He was as much a literary theorist, a political thinker, and a
mythologist as he was a sociologist and an anthropologist. His work arose out
o a specific European socio-political context; and he was marked by some o
the prominent intellectual movements o his timeFreudianism, surrealism,
and Marxismand by his amous teachers and colleagues. He was a public
intellectual who spoke to the issues o his day.
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
21/29
Cailloiss principal concerns, many o which find expression inMan, Play,
and Games,have been carried orward in a number o academic fields. Te
general themes o his work about plays status as a set o distinctive, coherent,and even transgressive patterns have influenced other theories, including Victor
urners (1986) connections between play and liminality and Wolgang Isers
interpretation o the fictive and imaginary as political acts (Iser 1993; Arm-
strong 2000). Perhaps the most noted element o Cailloiss book was his treat-
ment o the our types o play, which continue to appear in such varied works
as Denis Holliers (1988) comments on the parallels between literature and
death (mimicry), Bruce Michelsons (1977) ocus on qualities o make-believe
in tourism (mimicry), Jennier Milams (2000) analysis o the swinging scenes
in Fragonards paintings (ilinx), and Brian Sutton-Smiths (1997) comments
on gambling as play (alea).
Cailloiss distinction between paidiaand ludusalso continues to be impor-
tant or philosophers who wish to develop a general theory o games (Rowe 1992)
and or analysts and designers o electronic entertainment (Salen and Zimmer-
man 1994; Juul 2003). In this emerging field, which is sometimes called ludol-
ogy, designers try to create or players environments that eature both coherent,
shared systems o rules (ludus) and opportunities or creativity, spontaneity, and
sel-assertion (paidia). Games without paidia seem ultimately sterile, ormulaicsettings in which players quickly lose interest; but games without sufficient ludic
elements also lack appeal in that they do not lead the player toward increasingly
sophisticated challenges or permit complex social interaction. In even more
general terms, Cailloiss distinction reminds us that satisying experience bal-
ances order and disorder and ocuses the readers attention on the willul private
assertion that makes any expression coherent.
O course, Caillois has had his critics. Te literary theorist Jacque Ehr-
mann, perhaps the best-known critic, argued against the view, which Huizingaand Caillois share, that play appears as a special world isolated rom everyday
affairs (Ehrmann 1971; Motte 2009). In Ehrmanns opinion, the oppositions o
play and seriousness or play and reality will not work. Play is rarely gratuitous
or or nothing; rather, it is a part o the society in which it occurs. Players do
not stand apart; they participate in the cultural realities that course through
the playground. I think Ehrmanns criticism is unair, or both Huizinga and
Caillois sought to understand how the separated world o play intersects with
social and cultural patterns, which shape play orms and respond to their
expressions.
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 177
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
22/29
178 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
Warren Motte (2009), another critic, also challenges the structure o Cailloiss
general argument. Having emphasized the value o paidia, Cailloisaccording to
Mottespends the majority o his book discussing the more ormalized expres-sions o play, that is, ludus. Cailloiss association o ludic play with developed or
even civilized societies should trouble contemporary readers all too aware o the
problems o the overdeveloped world. And his practice o grabbing examples
rom the anthropological and historical literature to illustrate his pointsmuch
in the ashion o Huizingawill satisy only those readers who are inclined to
accept his argument and who do not require more systematic presentations o
evidence. In the opinion both o Ehrmann and Motte, Man, Play, and Games
begins as a critique o Huizingas Homo Ludens,but it does not stray ar rom the
latter books theme. As a bounded world o its own sort, play provides a subtle
critique o the society that harbors it and (in its more developed orms) supports
the civilizing o the world.
Cailloiss categorizing o the our types o play also attracted criticism
(Rowe1992) and inspired rival views. Anthropologist John Roberts and his
colleagues proposed one o those alternative schemes (Roberts, Arth, and Bush
1959). Roberts divided games according to whether participants rely principally
on strategy (that is, mental calculation), physical skill, or chance. By the terms
o this conflict-enculturation thesis, societies create characteristic tensions ortheir members and give people opportunities to work through these tensions
(and develop relevant skills) in socially approved games. Because Roberts ap-
proach offers a simpler scheme or classiying games (excluding mimicry, or
example), it has been used more or cross-cultural comparisons.
O course, scholarly work can always be criticized, both or what it does
and what it does not do. Moreover, reflecting on such work rom the vantage
point o another hal century inevitably introduces new concerns. As a kind o
conclusion then, I offer a ew additional comments about the challenges raisedby Cailloiss writings.
I should emphasize at the outset that I admire Caillioiss intent, which is
to make clear the ever-present tension in play between improvisation and rule
observance, to explain the different kinds o play orms, and to discuss the shi
in play preerences throughout history. I agree with his (and Durkheims) view
that the sacred differs substantially rom the playul or, at least, they require
quite different attitudes rom their participants. I support his quest to discover
the ordering principles that give shape to human expression.
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
23/29
His ocus on the development o the rules or play and on the ways they
become packaged in games is an important contribution. However, this trouble
spot also raises a wide range o questions that Caillois does not address. Such alist includes questions about when and why rules become ormulated in situ-
ations and why only some sets o rules become institutionalized in society as
defining eatures o particular game orms. It seems apparent that Caillois as-
sociates rule development with the advent o complex, hierarchical, and admin-
istered societies, but he does not develop this theme at length in his book. Nor
does he address the surrounding complex o belies, norms, supporting prac-
tices, and organizations that grow up around institutionalized games. In every
society, participants accept understandings about who should play a particular
game and who should watch, how participants at different proficiencies should
be motivated and rewarded, how the game should connect to other activities,
and how society should value the game. Tis supporting structure or paratext
is also part o the culture o games.
Moreover, understanding the different ways in which a society sponsors
and supports games gives insight into comprehending the unctions served by
the events. Some events may well offer opportunities or status reversal or other
experiences that counter daily routine; others may affirm prevailing social pat-
terns; others still may simply be alternative worlds (as Huzinga emphasized)that offer models or behavior but do not conront other social patterns in any
direct way. Stated most generally, determining the possible unctions o any
particular game (at a certain place and time) is, to a large extent, an empirical
question. Te empirical analysis must include observations determining what
kinds o actors play what kinds o roles in the sponsoring and maintenance o
the event. Again, Cailloiss scholarly approach is sensitive to these issues, but
he does not develop them inMan, Play, and Games.
His opposition o ludusto paidia is very important, though it raises asmany questions as it answers. Tis would not be the case i paidiawere only
ormlessness, the absence o the rule systems and supporting rameworks.
However, Cailloiss paidiais a broader vision o diversion, turbulence, ree
improvisation, and careree gaiety. It incorporates ideas about the attitudes
o the players themselvesthat they are enjoying themselves and improvising
as they go along. Much like Huzinga, Caillois celebrates the relative reedom
o the playground as a setting where people conduct themselves as they wish.
However, this view o the untrammeled, spirited individual evades the issue o
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 179
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
24/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
25/29
misdirected. In my view, the active efforts o people to manipulate the orces
o the world (be these supernatural orces or simply natural combinations that
they cannot predict) are not corruptions but rather proper expressions o theplay impulse. It may not be possible to control the roll o the dice or the all
o the cards, but much o the un o play involves the active choices o placing
ones marker, choosing a level o the bet, shouting out inducements, reading
the actions o other players, rubbing a good luck charm in ones pocket, and
so orth. Cailloiss general pointthat people experience their placement in
the world in both active and passive waysis well taken as is his contention
that alea ultimately involves recognizing orces that players cannot control. I
would argue, however, that giving up onesel to ate (as in the decision to close
ones eyes and cross a busy street) is not playul; opening ones eyes and artully
dodging the traffic is.
Caillois also deserves much credit or his ocus on mimicry, in its senses
o simulation, identification, imagination, make-believe, masking, role play-
ing, and similar orms. In contrast to his treatment o chance, Caillois in this
instance emphasizes the active participation o the persons who inhabit the
imagined orm and play it out. And his argumentthat, in this particular orm
o play, one effectively gives up the sel to join with othernessis interesting.
However, one could just as easily maintain that mimicry (like the other ormso play) eatures an interaction between the orm that is being played and the
subjectively sustained inspirations o the player. Furthermore, his claim that
play is either rule bound or make-believe (but never both) seems doubtul. Quite
the opposite, play o this sort requently involves very clear expectationsthat
is, rulesthat must be conronted. People cannot play pirate or astronaut
in just any ashion; they must match their creativity to their shared ideas about
how pirates and astronauts normally look and behave.
Cailloiss final type, ilinix, also deserves comment. Tere is certainly plea-sure in jumping into the whirlpool, in losing ones sense o normal placement
in the world, or even in seeing the sel (as a unitary concept) dissolved. Indeed,
such ideas about sel-experience as ragmented, fluid, and contextual have be-
come popularized by postmodern writing. And I do not dispute the proposi-
tion that experiences where the sel is buffeted about and even disoriented by
otherness (as in a carnival ride) are significant. People are objects in a world that
stands beyond their powers. However, in my opinion, this act o submersion is
not equivalent to play. Rather, players hold up their arms on rides o this sort
to display their daring, they try to rock the conveyance, they shout and look
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 181
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
26/29
182 A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F P L A Y F
around, they tease their companions to make them nervous, and they pay their
money and climb aboard again. Such assertiveness is the playul quality that
makes the participant no longer the prisoner o the contraption. We do notsimply surrender to vertigo; we make decisions about what situations we will
enter, how we will ready ourselves or them and behave during the disorienta-
tion that ollows, what we will do to and with the other people involved, and
even (sometimes) how we will make the experience end.
I should add a ew comments about Cailloiss combining o the our types.
Recall that two pairsagnandalea and mimicry and ilinxcombine well;
two others combine with more difficulty; and a final two combine not at all. He
asserts this position because he believes that the our play modes differ as orms
o expression and that their essences either support or contradict one another.
Moreover, he believes that the competition-chance combination is more likely
to become rule bound than the other pair. Furthermore, his discussion o the
two pairs indicates that the ormer (agn and alea) is much more prominent
in modern societies while mimicry and ilinxis a eature o simpler and more
traditional societies.
I have difficulty accepting some o Cailloiss arguments about how the
various orms combine and how ludus maniests itsel in their more developed
expressions. Many modern play orms seem to me to combine all the elementshe mentions, albeit in ways he might consider degraded. For example, many
spectator sports involve mimicry in the sense o disguising (through costume)
and an identification. Chance and competition, o course, play central roles;
but so does the challenge o being thrown out o balance by orces one did
not anticipate. Extreme sports like snow boarding make this quest or physical
disorientation and the players response to it even more central to the experi-
ence. And contemporary role-playing video games bring all these themes into
ocus as players become characters who wander through conusing environ-ments, encounter random occurrences they cannot predict, and contend with
the difficulties presented both by the logic o the game and by other players.
Having said this, I do think Cailloiss classification o the our types o
play has value, or it makes play scholars analyze the different kinds o chal-
lenges that any particular game (and more inormal play activity) presents.
And it encourages these same scholars to think about the different kinds o
satisactions offered in such games. o what degree does pleasure come rom
asserting onesel against (or controlling) environmental challenges, and to
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
27/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
28/29
8/10/2019 Cailloiss Man Play and Games by Thomas S. Henricks
29/29
Milam, Jennier. 2000. Playul constructions and Fragonards swinging scenes. Eigh-teenth Century Studies33:54359.
Motte, Warren. 2009. Playing in earnest. New Literary History 40:2542.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1956. Te Birth of tragedy and the genealogy of morals.Parsons, alcott. 1966. Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives.Roberts, John M., Malcolm J. Arth, and Robert R. Bush. 1959. Games in culture.Ameri-
can Anthropologist 61:597605.Rowe, Marvin W. 1992. Te definition o game. Philosophy 67:46779.Salen, Katie and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1997. Te Ambiguity of play.urner, Victor. 1986. Body, brain, and culture. Performing Arts Journal10: 2634.Weber, Max. 1958 (first published 1920). Te protestant ethic and the spirit of capi-
talism.
Cai l lo i s s Man, P lay , and Games 185